Originally Posted by noeyeddeer
Originally Posted by Ant67
Originally Posted by straycat
Originally Posted by Ant67
Bottom line is you can’t kill somebody because they steal or destroy your property.

But it doesn't preclude you from trying to stop them from stealing or destroying property, correct?
And if during that process of protecting your property a legitimate perceived threat emerges, then you are not precluded from using deadly force, correct?

Example: You see a guy trying to steal something from your driveway or carport...weedeater, mower, whatever. You intervene and guy doesn't flee but makes a move toward you with bad intentions. Doesn't that then get us back to the justified use of deadly force under threat and fear of safety or loss of life? Contrasted with...you see some guy stealing a weedeater and you just shoot him dead...no threat.

These , at least to me, are the real life scenarios that happen with more frequency. Robbers and thieves and piddlers get confronted and it escalates.

You can not be the instigator and take advantage of stand your ground. Defense


But are you the instigator if you are reacting to the robbery at hand and just happened to be armed? Say you hear a noise in your carport and are checking your property armed and the guy starts coming at you agressively? I don't see that as being the instigator but easily could be wrong.


It would be a question for a judge. But, I would say, if you go to investigate a noise and you catch a someone stealing and they advance on you in an aggressive manner, you are defending yourself. If you catch them and they don't try to attack you and you just shoot them, you are going to be in trouble.