I have been only lurking for quite some time, for reasons obvious to those who know me, mainly to keep up with the legislature's latest doings, not an easy task. I cannot resist stepping in briefly here, however.gigag04 wrote: I'm going to go ahead and say you won't be found justified in using deadly force to shoot at someone stealing something from your car and running....during daylight hours.
At nighttime, if in the act, and not fleeing.....then MAYBE...
But those bullets would cost you more than anything most of us keep in our cars, including our cars themselves. I have always questioned the useage of CAN I shoot someone doing XYZ...
I think if we really want to be responsible in our use of DF, then the question is better framed "do I absolutely have to shoot this person doing XYZ"
(all my opinion)
In my opinion gigag04's post above is probably the wisest I have ever seen on this forum.
I am convinced that a question about what you may lawfully do with your deadly weapon is quite different from a question about what you should do with it. The second question is, for those bearing such a weapon, the important one. Count yourself blessed if your answer of "No" to the second question is all you need, and you need not answer the first one.
This point is even more important when we have here, right smack dab in front of us, differences of opinion as to the answer to the first question expressed by "old-timers" more experienced with such questions than many of us are. If they have differences of opinion, then one is advised to carry a lawyer with him, one whom you are confident will have the right answer, immediately, at all times when one is exercising the [privilege] [right] bestowed by [a CHL] [the Second Amendment]. (Please feel at liberty to pick one of the options in the just prior sentence if that might avoid this becoming a political squabble -- which is not intended.) After all, the first question is a legal question. The second question is not -- it is one you must answer all by yourself.
A perhaps more practical comment: Someone has suggested that one's homeowner's insurance might lessen the financial cost to the shooter when his pulling the trigger is questioned by an LEO, a DA, a grand jury, a judge, a jury, or perhaps just the public's incensed reaction, for whatever reason. I must take the liberty of cautioning one of the danger of assuming that the consequences of an intentional act, when those consequences are those intended by that intentional act, will be covered by one's homeowner's insurance. That subject has been kicked around on this forum for years, but there are still those who have not gotten the word.
In brief, and not pleading a cause one way or another, why in the world does the NRA and, arguably, others, offer insurance to cover such situations?
As again put by gigag04, it is most doubtful that one has tangible personal property (let us keep in mind what the question was -- it was not about an attempt to kidnap your child) in his automobile, including the automobile itself, even approximating what might be the likely cost of firing that bullet -- whether legal or not. One must be ignorant of recent news to even have a glimmering thought go thru his mind that it is OK to shoot when not necessary, because, "I obviously would be acquitted if charged -- it was," (to use an expression I wish had never been invented), "a good shoot."
This is not legal advice. I am not your lawyer, nor or you my client. Consult your own attorney for legal advice. Take care to not govern your actions by my personal opinions or anything else I might say.