Deterring Thieves

[Kingkowboys]

I have a question that I have not been able to find a clear answer to. In the event someone steals your property, is it illegal the try to stop them by pointing your firearm at them?

If so, what law does this violate?

Does legality change if it is in public or on your own property?

Situation examples, someone lifts my wife’s purse from open car window while pumping gas. Or someone steals your car from your driveway.

[fallenleader]

I have a question that I have not been able to find a clear answer to. In the event someone steals your property, is it illegal the try to stop them by pointing your firearm at them?

If so, what law does this violate?

Does legality change if it is in public or on your own property?

Situation examples, someone lifts my wife’s purse from open car window while pumping gas. Or someone steals your car from your driveway.

are you defending your life? are you attempting to kidnap them? don't point your firearm at people. a firearm can be used to defend a life, not an item from theft, lessen' you's a LEO then it can be used as a persuasion device to gain compliance.
on a side note, sprinkling empty casings around your home's entry points will keep liberals away, everyone else gets a kick out of it. it probably deters theft as well...

i hope someone comes in with a better, more wordy and legalese answer.

[gnbrotz]

It largely depends on the outcome. If you scare them, they may abandon your property and leave. Or, they could confront you, claim that YOU escalated by presenting the gun, and they felt compelled to defend themselves.

It's hardly ever as simple as "Is this legal". It will depend on who, if anyone, observes your actions, and their own response. Driving 80 mph is illegal, but if your doing it on a road where the nearest person is 50 miles away, you'll likely get away with it, even if you're sipping a beer while doing it.

[lts1ow]

Nothing I own is worth the legal fees of keeping myself out of prison.

House and the junk in it is all replaceable.

[bogey1]

Situation examples, someone lifts my wife’s purse from open car window while pumping gas. Or someone steals your car from your driveway.

Officer, I thought he had a gun in his hand.

[fallenleader]

Nothing I own is worth the legal fees of keeping myself out of prison.

House and the junk in it is all replaceable.

my home isn't insured but my guns are.... long story and they're the only thing I have of value.

[Bang]

It depends heavily on your district attorney. Years ago our area had an incident where a thief was breaking into a garden shed. The homeowner shot him, inflicting a non life-threatening wound. The DA of the time said "some people need shooting".

[GunLawyer001]

There are some who believe that "defensive displays" and other displays of guns count as "use of deadly force"; I don't think so, I think that the law makes careful distinctions between scaring people and attacking them. Your judge may disagree with me.

What governs this is the general rule on "justification as a defense", perhaps the rules on "use of other than deadly force", sometimes trumped by the rules on "use of deadly force". Again, is it "use" or "threats of use"?

Read this, read it carefully, read it multiple times until you know the rules:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...8&div=0&chpt=5

§ 507 allows you to use NON-DEADLY force to get your stuff back, sometimes. Again, I personally make a distinction between "threatening to use deadly force" and "using deadly force". Your mileage may vary. But we have statutes that distinguish between threats and attacks.

[fallenleader]

There are some who believe that "defensive displays" and other displays of guns count as "use of deadly force"; I don't think so, I think that the law makes careful distinctions between scaring people and attacking them. Your judge may disagree with me.

What governs this is the general rule on "justification as a defense", perhaps the rules on "use of other than deadly force", sometimes trumped by the rules on "use of deadly force". Again, is it "use" or "threats of use"?

Read this, read it carefully, read it multiple times until you know the rules:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...8&div=0&chpt=5

§ 507 allows you to use NON-DEADLY force to get your stuff back, sometimes. Again, I personally make a distinction between "threatening to use deadly force" and "using deadly force". Your mileage may vary. But we have statutes that distinguish between threats and attacks.

i love how 507 is defined... it sounds as if the only thing allowed is throwing water balloons or a clump of dirt at them, just about anything else can cause serious bodily harm, fists or a bat or the likes.
and half of the rest was designed to.
stupid law, i don't know how you guys deal with this crap but i can see why it costs!

[Kingkowboys]

There are some who believe that "defensive displays" and other displays of guns count as "use of deadly force"; I don't think so, I think that the law makes careful distinctions between scaring people and attacking them. Your judge may disagree with me.

What governs this is the general rule on "justification as a defense", perhaps the rules on "use of other than deadly force", sometimes trumped by the rules on "use of deadly force". Again, is it "use" or "threats of use"?

Read this, read it carefully, read it multiple times until you know the rules:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...8&div=0&chpt=5

§ 507 allows you to use NON-DEADLY force to get your stuff back, sometimes. Again, I personally make a distinction between "threatening to use deadly force" and "using deadly force". Your mileage may vary. But we have statutes that distinguish between threats and attacks.

This exactly what I was hoping for, thanks. I agree with your interpretation, that non-deadly force is justified, but this does not indicate deadly force is justified. Only if a confrontation where myself or wife is threatened and the other sections for deadly force apply would drawing on someone be justifiable.

Also, I agree that it is just stuff and I’m not insinuating that stopping a pursue snatcher by pointing a gun at them is a good decision. I wanted to start at legality and go from there in decision making. Thanks for all your input.