💕
Criminal Law • Justification
CRIMLAW#018
Legal Definition
No. In most states, one may not use deadly force in defense of property.
Plain English Explanation
If someone breaks into your home, while you are inside of the home, you are generally justified in using deadly force as long as it is necessary to protect yourself or others inside the home. This is because the law values your life and the lives of others who are inside of the property being broken into. However, if someone breaks into your home while the home is empty, the law doesn't want you to hurry back to your home in order to use deadly force. Similarly, if someone is causing damage to your car, or drives over your mailbox, or throws eggs at your windows, deadly force is not appropriate. Note that it is okay to defend your property using less than deadly force.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Sam is sitting in his home looking out his window. He sees Bob run across the street and begin using a hammer to smash Sam's car. Sam runs out of his house with a gun, points over Bob's head, and fires a warning shot. Result: Pulling a gun on someone and firing it in their direction is deadly force, even if you don't intend to shoot them. Sam's use of deadly force to protect his property is not permissible.
Hypo 2: Sam is sitting in his home looking out his window. He sees Bob run across the street and begin using a hammer to smash Sam's car. Sam runs out of his house, tackles Bob, and pins him to the ground while calling police. Result: Sam's use of force to protect his property is appropriate here.
Hypo 3: Sam is out for dinner and gets an alert that there is movement inside of his home. He checks his webcam and sees a burglar has broken into his home and is going through Sam's belongings. Sam thinks, "Oh, joy! I get to defend my home!" Sam jumps into his car, drives home, grabs his gun out of the car, enters his home, and shoots the burglar. Result: Had Sam been inside of his home when the burglar broke in, he'd have every right to use deadly force to defend himself. But that's not what happened here. His house was empty and Sam chose to travel towards the threat just to shoot the burglar. The law isn't cool with this.
Hypo 2: Sam is sitting in his home looking out his window. He sees Bob run across the street and begin using a hammer to smash Sam's car. Sam runs out of his house, tackles Bob, and pins him to the ground while calling police. Result: Sam's use of force to protect his property is appropriate here.
Hypo 3: Sam is out for dinner and gets an alert that there is movement inside of his home. He checks his webcam and sees a burglar has broken into his home and is going through Sam's belongings. Sam thinks, "Oh, joy! I get to defend my home!" Sam jumps into his car, drives home, grabs his gun out of the car, enters his home, and shoots the burglar. Result: Had Sam been inside of his home when the burglar broke in, he'd have every right to use deadly force to defend himself. But that's not what happened here. His house was empty and Sam chose to travel towards the threat just to shoot the burglar. The law isn't cool with this.
Related Concepts
What type of force may be used to defend a dwelling?
When may an aggressor use self-defense against their victim?
When may a person use deadly force in self-defense?
When may deadly force be lawful during crime prevention?
When using deadly force in self-defense, when does a person have a duty to retreat?
