Question for any of our members that are currently or were law enforcement

[SupportThe2nd]

A situational question of the degrees of force escalation.

If a person in broad daylight has jacked up a car and in the process of stealing the converter and you as a resident confront them and they retrieve and light a propane torch and come at you with it what level of force escalation would that become?

I've been reading the Arizona statutes online specifically Title 13-408 and also 13-1802  and that would seem to me to raise the legal level of force escalation allowable.

Granted that every situation is unique and you often have to be there but I am always going over the statutes for my personal knowledge and often have questions.

[ArizonaGunOwners.com]

[Ballistic Therapy]

No offense intended , but it amazes me how many people ask for legal advice on a public website.
Getting legal advice from people on a website is worth exactly what you are paying for it , especially if it is a free website.

Also just because they are in law enforcement doesn't mean they know the law.

[patkelly4370]

Would a reasonable person be in fear of great bodily harm or death?
Could one or both parties just leave?
To answer OPs question, "it depends"

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[870policemag]

Here's some context



Longer sideways version

https://www.reddit.com/r/Sacramento/comments/nexp1w/early_morning_surprise_they_couldnt_steal_the/

I'm not a cop or a lawyer but shooting that guy holding the torch seems easily avoidable. If he had you pinned in a corner and was getting closer then that would seem like a clean shoot to me. Ballistic Therapy nailed it when it comes to getting legal council here. You don't want to get locked up over something you read on the internet.

[Mr. Nobody]

Generally speaking, you can confront force with what is reasonable to what you are being confronted with. Also there is no duty to retreat in AZ from a confrontation (i.e. stand your ground if you so choose).

Now the laws often state what a "reasonable" person may feel or fear. Well that can be highly subjective... and open to interpretation.

If a guy is coming at you with a blow torch, could it cause serious bodily harm or even death? Sure. That would definitely be a self defense legal position. Whether you shoot or not, depends how close he is getting to you I guess.

Is it avoidable to come into contact with him? Probably.

Would I confront someone and insert myself into this ghetto BS? Nope. That's what cops are paid for.

Does the guy deserve to be shot? Yes, because he's a thief and criminal and I have no sympathy for him.

What the instructor said when I took my CCW class has stuck with me. He said along the lines, if you're in imminent danger, yes act to save yourself or your family, etc. Don't go out trying to be a "hero".

He further said...

If it's some stupid shit like this, don't get involved. That's what the police are paid to do. Just be a "good witness" and avoid the possibility of issues or legal issues down the line if it's avoidable.

[Ballistic Therapy]

The best thing to do is just shoot the propane bottle.

Now this i just an opinion and not legal advice.

[SupportThe2nd]

No offense intended , but it amazes me how many people ask for legal advice on a public website.
Getting legal advice from people on a website is worth exactly what you are paying for it , especially if it is a free website.

Also just because they are in law enforcement doesn't mean they know the law.

Not asking "legal" advice. If you read my post if has to do with Arizona existing statutes and interpretation nothing to do with "advice" but thanks for your concern.

[Ballistic Therapy]

You ask

 "If a person in broad daylight has jacked up a car and in the process of stealing the converter and you as a resident confront them and they retrieve and light a propane torch and come at you with it what level of force escalation would that become? "

Sounds like asking for legal advice to me.

Again , sorry if I offended you.

[Mr. Nobody]

The best thing to do is just shoot the propane bottle.

Now this i just an opinion and not legal advice.

Hopefully it explodes, just like the movies...

[SupportThe2nd]

You ask

 "If a person in broad daylight has jacked up a car and in the process of stealing the converter and you as a resident confront them and they retrieve and light a propane torch and come at you with it what level of force escalation would that become? "

Sounds like asking for legal advice to me.

Again , sorry if I offended you.

No offense taken, my question is based on the law enforcement interpretation of the situation. Being ex law enforcement myself but military it is totally a different world. I guess I should have asked what the officer would have decided what level of escalation would have been charged. Arizona has some very specific levels of that and that to me is much different then where I came from.

I have always been interested in the various nuances of the law. I’m always learning something new.

[Casswick]

You ask

 "If a person in broad daylight has jacked up a car and in the process of stealing the converter and you as a resident confront them and they retrieve and light a propane torch and come at you with it what level of force escalation would that become? "

Sounds like asking for legal advice to me.

Again , sorry if I offended you.

Who cares if hes asking legal advice, its all speculation until an activist Soros DA decides if they want to charge you or not, then BLM threatens the jury into the verdict they want.

We were discussing this case elsewhere, and the shock was how people now will grab their phone rather than a baseball bat.  I hate that we have allowed the courts and lawyers to castrate our natural right to defend ourselves and property, making us liable for stopping scum from destroying our neighborhoods.  I really would like to know how far could we 'push' things.  I would be carrying in this case absolutely.  Does 'stand your ground' apply in this case when the criminal approaches you with a deadly weapon?

[GTGallop]

Sure would be a shame if that jack stand failed.


Since we are opining about legal advice and use of force and I have absolutely no qualifications as an attorney, law enforcement, or puppet of Soros, I'll weigh in.

When you, as a citizen, draw your weapon and fire a round (remember every bullet has a lawyer attached t it and every shell casing has a sway-able juror) at an aggressor / attacker - YOU HAVE FAILED.
Sun Tzu teaches us that the easiest battle to win is the one you avoid in the first place.  That means avoiding the need and reason to skin that smoke wagon and go to work as well as avoiding the ensuing legal battle that follows it.  Replacing a Catalytic Converter will cost you 1/100th of what your Grand Jury defense could run.

How do you avoid that confrontation where you need to pull and shoot?  The same way you avoid using the other things in your life that keep you safe like your seat-belt, fire extinguisher, first aid kit.  You maintain situational awareness and steer your circumstances away from the things that would cause you to need these things.  You drive safe, check blind spots, monitor the cars around you.  Stop and use caution before proceeding into the intersection.  You keep your house and grounds clean of fire debris, watch open sparks, don't leave bacon on the stove, all normal common sense things.

Where fire arms are concerned, when you see a threat (please use Jeff Cooper's Color Codes in your life - it helps) you develop a plan.  Thugs on your side of the street, move to the other side.  People kicking in doors in your hood, get a better door / lock. Is their a riot in town? Use an alternative street.  There are a TON of ways to side step the need to use force.  It's the Miyagi Family Secret to Karate - the best way to deal with a punch is not to be there when the punch lands.  Think two or three steps a head - anticipate with a counter move or block.  If getting to you and your family is just a little more difficult, they will switch targets and look for someone easier.

I'm not in the slightest implying a duty to retreat.  When and where it comes down to the two choices of shoot or retreat, you are already past the point of being smart and avoiding the conflict.  When Lib Lawyers talk about duty to retreat they are are condemning the actions of someone who was already in a confrontation.  That avoiding the confrontation or conflict ship has sailed - long ago.  Your safety measures and counter measures and conflict avoidance measures have failed, possibly through no fault of your own, and you are now "in the shit."  That's when you start to reach for Plan-Z and flip off the safety, get good front sight alignment, and gently squeeze.

[Mr. Nobody]

Who cares if hes asking legal advice, its all speculation until an activist Soros DA decides if they want to charge you or not, then BLM threatens the jury into the verdict they want.

We were discussing this case elsewhere, and the shock was how people now will grab their phone rather than a baseball bat.  I hate that we have allowed the courts and lawyers to castrate our natural right to defend ourselves and property, making us liable for stopping scum from destroying our neighborhoods.  I really would like to know how far could we 'push' things.  I would be carrying in this case absolutely.  Does 'stand your ground' apply in this case when the criminal approaches you with a deadly weapon?

I am a fan and a proponent of good old fashioned street justice. These days, that's looked down upon as "uncivilized". Quite sad. As the saying goes, live by the sword, die by the sword. Life long criminals have two retirement plans available to them: prison or death. I'd much rather not pay for their stay...

Sure would be a shame if that jack stand failed.


Since we are opining about legal advice and use of force and I have absolutely no qualifications as an attorney, law enforcement, or puppet of Soros, I'll weigh in.

When you, as a citizen, draw your weapon and fire a round (remember every bullet has a lawyer attached t it and every shell casing has a sway-able juror) at an aggressor / attacker - YOU HAVE FAILED.
Sun Tzu teaches us that the easiest battle to win is the one you avoid in the first place.  That means avoiding the need and reason to skin that smoke wagon and go to work as well as avoiding the ensuing legal battle that follows it.  Replacing a Catalytic Converter will cost you 1/100th of what your Grand Jury defense could run.

How do you avoid that confrontation where you need to pull and shoot?  The same way you avoid using the other things in your life that keep you safe like your seat-belt, fire extinguisher, first aid kit.  You maintain situational awareness and steer your circumstances away from the things that would cause you to need these things.  You drive safe, check blind spots, monitor the cars around you.  Stop and use caution before proceeding into the intersection.  You keep your house and grounds clean of fire debris, watch open sparks, don't leave bacon on the stove, all normal common sense things.

Where fire arms are concerned, when you see a threat (please use Jeff Cooper's Color Codes in your life - it helps) you develop a plan.  Thugs on your side of the street, move to the other side.  People kicking in doors in your hood, get a better door / lock. Is their a riot in town? Use an alternative street.  There are a TON of ways to side step the need to use force.  It's the Miyagi Family Secret to Karate - the best way to deal with a punch is not to be there when the punch lands.  Think two or three steps a head - anticipate with a counter move or block.  If getting to you and your family is just a little more difficult, they will switch targets and look for someone easier.

I'm not in the slightest implying a duty to retreat.  When and where it comes down to the two choices of shoot or retreat, you are already past the point of being smart and avoiding the conflict.  When Lib Lawyers talk about duty to retreat they are are condemning the actions of someone who was already in a confrontation.  That avoiding the confrontation or conflict ship has sailed - long ago.  Your safety measures and counter measures and conflict avoidance measures have failed, possibly through no fault of your own, and you are now "in the shit."  That's when you start to reach for Plan-Z and flip off the safety, get good front sight alignment, and gently squeeze.

Sure would be a shame if it did fail on the jack... only bigger problem would be if they erected a shrine to the crook to come pour out their 40s for their "homie" taken in his prime (thefting) age. Of course "racism" would also be to blame cause the evil white Juju made it happen.

Anyways, also good points you make.

[SnidelyWhiplash]

This is an old topic but I just joined the Forum and I'm also a retired federal law enforcement officer and thought I could add something.

The legal expectations in the use of force and the continuum of force can be construed as different between a trained, sworn officer of the law and a civilian.  A law enforcement officer is generally...depending on jurisdiction...expected and legally obligated to act if a crime is committed in his presence.  If he's off-duty...it would have to be a felony before he's required to act.  If he doesn't he can be charged with a crime of omission.

A civilian scenario is a different set of legal circumstances.  If there's no physical danger to the civilian there's no obligation to intervene beyond probably calling 9-1-1 and being a good witness.  If the person committing the act makes moves that a reasonable and objective person would perceive was physically threatening then the circumstances change.  In that case the civilian could disengage and remove himself from the situation...if the suspect continues to threaten then that supports the use of defensive force and looks better legally that one retreated and still was forced to defend himself.

This all changes depending on jurisdiction and local laws. 

[Flatlander]

A.O.J.P

Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, Preclusion.

Do they have the Ability to do you or someone else serious harm

Do they have Opportunity to do you or someone else serious harm (they may have ability, but not necessarily opportunity)

Are you or someone else actually in Jeopardy

Could you have Precluded or avoided the situation (even though AZ has stand your ground)


When I was an instructor it always amazed me the number of people that wanted to seemingly seek permission to use deadly force to protect stuff. I would probably confront a thief stealing my stuff, but unless my life is in danger then I am not going to use deadly force.

[JK357]

 

[870policemag]

A.O.J.P

Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, Preclusion.

I'm stealing that one.

[RJ]

 

[ynotaz]

Perhaps the guy with the butane torch escalated things a bit over the top. 

That is the typical defense when shooting for "stuff".  You attempt to stop them from taking your big screen TV by yelling and threatening and they turn some form of weapon on you.  Discussion over.

[coelacanth]

It would be a shame if you came out of the house with your cocktail glass in hand to investigate the proceedings and while retreating from the torch bearer some of that pint glass of Everclear got accidentally spilled on him.  And maybe the guy under the car.  Whoops. 

[armoredman]

I'm stealing that one.

It's what we teach in our Use Of Force classes.

[ArizonaGunOwners.com]