I can see the agent saying "I thought we had automatic weapons (MP5) in the car".  I mean it has happened before when a MP5 was stolen from a federal agents car.

In my law class at UH, we had a case study in TX.  At the time, it was legal to use deadly force to protect your property. So a guy parks his car down the street and saw a few people trying to break in. He shot at them with his rifle from his porch and killed 2 out of 3.  Cops asked him if that's his car and he said yes and that was the end of it.

DC is not Texas -- not by a long shot (pun intended).

So, if I place an unloaded AR-15 in a locked case somewhere in my truck, I can shoot at anyone trying to break in?

Good to know.

DC is not Texas -- not by a long shot (pun intended).

So, if I place an unloaded AR-15 in a locked case somewhere in my truck, I can shoot at anyone trying to break in?

Good to know.

I was saying that this would be a plausible excuse, even though we both know it's BS.

So where does the warning shot bullets land?  Does the agents have a kevlar mat that they fire the bullet into to make sure it doesn't hit any innocent person or damage someone's property?

Depends on the situation. I don't know their policies and I don't know the specifics of that incident. I don't even know if it was a warning shot or just a miss. I am just considering realistic possibilities instead of jumping to conclusions.

Cops may not be trained to give a warning shot but that doesn't mean there is never a situation where a warning shot is appropriate.

So a guy parks his car down the street and saw a few people trying to break in. He shot at them with his rifle from his porch and killed 2 out of 3.  Cops asked him if that's his car and he said yes and that was the end of it.

Ha ha.  That's how it should be.  Guarantee the criminals think twice.

Depends on the situation. I don't know their policies and I don't know the specifics of that incident. I don't even know if it was a warning shot or just a miss. I am just considering realistic possibilities instead of jumping to conclusions.

Cops may not be trained to give a warning shot but that doesn't mean there is never a situation where a warning shot is appropriate.

So you don't know nothing, but yet made fuss about it so that Flapp had to look up their SOP.  #whataboutism #mustbeboredatwork

DC is not Texas -- not by a long shot (pun intended).

So, if I place an unloaded AR-15 in a locked case somewhere in my truck, I can shoot at anyone trying to break in?

Good to know.

Possibly, although leaving a firearm in your vehicle in Hawaii would most likely be illegal (except in certain circumstances like those in the “sensitive places” laws).

HRS 703-306, “Use of force for protection of property,” says you may use deadly force in protection of property if the person against whom you are using the force is attempting to commit felonious theft (or a few other offenses) and the use of a lower level of force would expose you or another person in your presence to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.

I’m guessing that theft of a firearm is a felony, and getting into a scrap with one or more street punks would present substantial danger of serious bodily injury…

Possibly, although leaving a firearm in your vehicle in Hawaii would most likely be illegal (except in certain circumstances like those in the “sensitive places” laws).

HRS 703-306, “Use of force for protection of property,” says you may use deadly force in protection of property if the person against whom you are using the force is attempting to commit felonious theft (or a few other offenses) and the use of a lower level of force would expose you or another person in your presence to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.

I’m guessing that theft of a firearm is a felony, and getting into a scrap with one or more street punks would present substantial danger of serious bodily injury…

You left some criteria out:

(b)  The person against whom the deadly force is used is attempting to commit felonious property damage,
burglary, robbery, or felonious theft and either:

          (i)  Has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or

         (ii)  The use of force other than deadly force to prevent the commission of the crime would expose the actor or another person in the actor's presence to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.

So, if the thieves have not threatened you with deadly force OR if your using other-than-deadly-force to stop the theft would not get you or someone else seriously injured, then the use of deadly force for property protection is not justified.

i'm not sure how one would establish condition (ii) above.  Seems like a spur of the moment judgement call using some ambiguous terms:  'would expose', 'substantial danger', ...  It seems to require a prediction of what dangers you could be placed in as a result of preventing the crime.  Without perfect information on the nature of the crook/s (gang members, felons, career thieves, etc) or what weapons if any they possess, it's pure speculation at best.

So you don't know nothing, but yet made fuss about it so that Flapp had to look up their SOP.  #whataboutism #mustbeboredatwork

Don't know nothing is a double negative so you were saying I did know something...

I didn't make a fuss about anything, I only pointed out possibilities that were not being considered.

You left some criteria out:
So, if the thieves have not threatened you with deadly force OR if your using other-than-deadly-force to stop the theft would not get you or someone else seriously injured, then the use of deadly force for property protection is not justified.

i'm not sure how one would establish condition (ii) above.  Seems like a spur of the moment judgement call using some ambiguous terms:  'would expose', 'substantial danger', ...  It seems to require a prediction of what dangers you could be placed in as a result of preventing the crime.  Without perfect information on the nature of the crook/s (gang members, felons, career thieves, etc) or what weapons if any they possess, it's pure speculation at best.

All true, and would depend on whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances would believe those criteria to exist.  Is it a spur of the moment judgement involving ambiguity?  Yes, just like almost any other defensive scenario.

Don't know nothing is a double negative so you were saying I did know something...

I didn't make a fuss about anything, I only pointed out possibilities that were not being considered.

Im saying u dont know anything.


"I only pointed out possibilities that were not being considered." AKA whataboutism and no opinion.


Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

All true, and would depend on whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances would believe those criteria to exist.  Is it a spur of the moment judgement involving ambiguity?  Yes, just like almost any other defensive scenario.

The last thing I will be worried about are the legalities of my actions.  I know what's right and wrong, and I know when a threat is more serious than what a 911 operator can fix for me.

i trust my judgement.  If I'm lucky, there will be a camera pointed at the scene so I don't have to rely on witnesses and forensics to back me up.

 

Im saying u dont know anything.


"I only pointed out possibilities that were not being considered." AKA whataboutism and no opinion.

Swooosh!

Being objective isn't about giving an opinion, it is about considering all possibilities.

Swooosh!

Being objective isn't about giving an opinion, it is about considering all possibilities.

Thanks for playing. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.  Dice rolled hard ways 2 times in a roll.

Thanks for playing. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.  Dice rolled hard ways 2 times in a roll.

Sigh... you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink