Legal Question: Defence of Property a defence to homicide?

[Tabby_Cat]

Hm. Seems like the first thread got eaten.

Anyway,

California Penal Code
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/692-694.html

693. Resistance sufficient to prevent the offense may be made by
     the party about to be injured:
694. To prevent an offense against his person, or his family, or
     some member thereof.
695. To prevent an illegal attempt by force to take or injure
     property in his lawful possession.

Seems to say that deadly force can be used to prevent your property from being taken. It’s certainly not the case in the UK, so can US lawyers clarify?

[Shayna]

I’m not a lawyer, but that’s not at all what it says to me.

“Sufficient to prevent” means only as much force as is necessary to prevent said crime, and no more. From: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm (bolding mine):

Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

<snip>

a party… may undoubtedly repel force by force, but in most instances cannot, under the pretext that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from danger; such as if a person unarmed enters a house to commit a larceny, while there he does not threaten any one, nor does any act which manifests an intention to hurt any one, and there are a number of persons present who may easily secure him, no one will be justifiable to do him any injury, much less to kill him.

From http://www.gottrouble.com/legal/complete_glossary/glossarys.htm:

Self-defense is a common defense to assault, battery or homicide. It is interpreted to mean that degree of reasonable force necessary to protect oneself from physical harm. Self-defense cannot include killing or great bodily harm to defend property, unless it also threatens to harm that person. A common example is self-defense during the commission of a burglary.

[Frank]

In Colorado, we have what is blithely known as the “make my day” law, which “requires that the entry be unlawful and the occupant have a reasonable belief that the intruder has committed or intends to commit a crime in the dwelling. If that is the case, the occupant of the dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force including deadly physical force against the other person.”

It’s been used fairly frequently (from what I remember reading in the papers) as an effective defense to a homicide charge. I also remember a couple of cases where someone tried to stage a homicide in the hope of using the statute to not be charged.

Tabby_Cat, each of the states will have different laws to cover the situation. There’s no federal law covering it.

[pravnik]

Speaking very, very generally, deadly force in defense of a dwelling is justified if (1) there is a tumultous or violent entry and the person reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent an attack on themselves or a third person, or (2) when the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the entry by a person who intends to commit a felony. The usual rationale given is that what is truly being protected is not property, but personal safety, since breaking into someone’s occupied home to commit a felony is inherently dangerous to human life. Deadly force in defense of other property is generally not justifiable.

That said, some jurisdictions do depart from the general rule. Here’s my native Texas’ Penal Code:

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

[Master_Wang-Ka]

Pravnik beat me to it. All I can add is the case of a San Antonio storeowner a decade or two ago, who was convicted of manslaughter after he got fed up with constant burglaries of his store and set up a lethal booby trap.

Sure enough, he nailed the burglar, who apparently spent several hours dying.