Can I draw and attempt to stop a crime against my vehicle parked on the street?

[zlaya]

As we discussed at some length yesterday, Pa law on stun guns and Tasers and such is clear as mud. You should look at 908.1 in conjunction with 908, which clearly and unambiguously prohibits all possession of sparky-type weapons, except as authorized by law. And it's a serious crime, Section 908 is a Misdemeanor-1, high enough to be a lifetime federal prohibitor for gun ownership.

The theory (one of 2, and the one that arguably makes the most sense) is that the defense under 908.1 for possessing AND using Old Sparky in self-defense, should count as that "authorized by law" part under 908, especially when you consider that 908.1 was created in the exact same bill that added Tasers & such to the list of POA's, back around 2003 or so. So the Legislature must have intended them to work together. Maybe.

I still would not carry a stun gun. And anyone who can't possess a gun is legally barred from possessing a stun gun of any kind, so it's not even a second-best kind of consolation prize for the gun-prohibited. You can't take a stun gun into a school or courthouse, felons can't possess stun guns either. They just don't provide enough benefit to compensate for the legal uncertainty.

Well all I can say is WTF, PA laws?

Now looking at the Definitions under 908 "any stun gun, stun baton, taser or other electronic or electric weapon or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose." (I think what you mentioned above) just further adds to the confusion.

So, considering that this is probably highly dependent on factors outside whats written in the books, GunLawyer, are you aware of any case law pertaining to this?

[ideaman]

It's very frustrating to see news channels showing criminals with long records being arrested and they're out on the street an hour later.

I wish they would bring the whipping post back. But then, they'll be bragging who has the most stripes.

[lemko]

Could one use pepper spray in lieu of a firearm or stun gun on somebody who was breaking into your car?

I could care less about the car itself. It's a 112K+ mile hooptie.

[lemko]

It's very frustrating to see news channels showing criminals with long records being arrested and they're out on the street an hour later.

I wish they would bring the whipping post back. But then, they'll be bragging who has the most stripes.

Nah, just bring back the stocks and pillory. Then they can stand up there all week in all kinds of weather while dogs piss on their legs.

[TParrish]

I am not an attorney, but Personally I would turn on the porch light, call 911, and maybe call out loudly that the police have been called. Me being me, I'd be taking pictures, too, although that might have the unintended consequence of making someone try to come and take the camera. I'd have to think about that one.

Since I am not a police officer, and I would not be in danger of bodily harm or death, I would not draw my pistol.

As usual, i could be wrong.

[mingomom]

Alright, so I give them a verbal warning and tell them to bug off, if they want to fight back, then I can draw. Got it.

No

Right. Of course it's not helpful when I said "You do not have the legal right to use lethal force against a person breaking into a car if that person is not a threat to someone's life."

It's not helpful because you WANT to be able to use a gun.

What he said

I think you are not allowed to snipe the guy from your porch. If you go to your car, and the guy tries to attack you, I think its a different story. That being said always remember, its not laws you have to beat in court...its prosecutors and juries.

Or you could be charged with inciting the attack on you

Yell, trigger the car alarm, call the cops. Stand on the porch and be seen. But leave the gun in your holster. You've got your house right there, so you can't argue you didn't have any other options to shooting.

[Mongo85]

I am not an attorney, but Personally I would turn on the porch light, call 911, and maybe call out loudly that the police have been called. Me being me, I'd be taking pictures, too, although that might have the unintended consequence of making someone try to come and take the camera. I'd have to think about that one.

Since I am not a police officer, and I would not be in danger of bodily harm or death, I would not draw my pistol.

As usual, i could be wrong.

I'm going along with this line of thought as well. As long as nobody is in my car; call the cops and let them deal with it. My car insurance policy will take care of whatever happens to it, so why put myself in danger over it?

[Yellowfin]

Yell "Stop! I'm a medical researcher and I spilled a container in the back seat that's full of the Ebola virus! Don't go in there!" ?

[Brian D]

Thanks for the kind words.

The reality is that the law is subtle, although politics is not.

In theory, "using" deadly force is legally very different, and physically easily distinguishable, from "threatening to use" deadly force. Pulling a gun and screaming "stop breaking into my car!" is easily distinguished from aiming at the perp and pulling the trigger.

In the real world, the courts and juries gloss over the details. Especially when things escalate.

So you see some meth heads standing around your car, peering inside, looking around at the windows of nearby homes to make sure that nobody's watching them. They break the glass and crawl inside your car. Clearly, they are committing multiple crimes.

So you run outside with your gun in hand, and you confront them.

Now, the detail-oriented among us will notice that you have NOT used lethal force, you have NOT broken any laws. It's your property, force IS ALLOWED when protecting property. Just not DEADLY force.

Next, the meth heads do some quick math and figure, hey, it's 3 of us against a guy in a bathrobe. We can take him. So they attack. And you realize that 3 meth heads can do you some serous damage, even unarmed, and that's exactly what they intend to do.

So you shoot them with the gun you brought along. In your mind, it was in self-defense, not to stop the property crime.

How is that going to play out?

Depends on the jurisdiction, the jury, the political makeup of the area. Some places, the cops are going to be looking to prove that it was self-defense, and the perp caused his own death. Other places (coughphiladelphgiacough), the cops have already decided that the promising young future-rapper's life was ended far too soon, and his 4 children will now have to get by with just their 3 mothers.

Look at George Zimmerman's horror story (he wasn't planning to shoot anyone, just watch the suspect until police arrived, in case a property crime (burglary) was planned).

Or any of these:

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?se...cal&id=8760518

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/new...tt-not-guilty/

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/man-sh...into-ca/nJsfK/

Jesus man don't you think that could be interpreted as a touch racist?

Anyway my lawyer pretty much told me once a petty criminal starts fleeing it's a pretty terrible choice to shoot them.

Obviously if they just shot someone in the face this does not apply, but stealing your stereo from your car, or even your house you are in very little danger once they start to flee. If you shoot someone crawling out your window with no weapon the jury is going to send you away.

[streaker69]

Yell "Stop! I'm a medical researcher and I spilled a container in the back seat that's full of the Ebola virus! Don't go in there!" ?

You could put these on all sides of your car.



But then, you're relying upon the feral urban yutes to know how to read.