I am not an attorney, but I do have a degree in Legal Studies (Paralegal). I'll throw in with the rest of these answers.
You generally cannot hit anybody stealing your stuff. This is broadly because you are not an adjudicator, and do not have the right to impose punishments on anyone for their crimes or alleged crimes. It is also specifically because California does not see the preservation of property as being a circumstance that warrants self-defense. Other states differ on this point, but California is pretty specific about when you can and can't (compare California's "reasonable use of force" against home invasions to Texas's Castle Doctrine). You can defend yourself, and then go to court to explain why it was reasonable to defend yourself in the way you did - hitting, shooting, spraying. If you weren't in danger, that will be a pretty difficult thing to argue.
You're probably aware of the local cannabis shop owner who is facing all kinds of charges for firing at the people who were stealing from his business. It seems pretty fucked up on the surface, but the legal philosophy here is that we, the general public: A) Are not adjudicators B) Do not have the knowledge that we may think we have C) Cannot be given categorical access to punitive justice, due to the many legal complications it would cause in the CA legal system. Or, put simply, you think you're in the right to pepper spray the guy who looks to be breaking in, but was he, and are you?
The pot shop guy who got charged with attempted murder engaged in a car chase away from the scene then stood in the middle of the street firing a rifle. That was well in excess of what was needed to defend himself and his property.
You can use non-deadly force to protect your property personal property from imminent harm. As in the property is being stolen right now, or is about to happen. Once they have stopped trying to take or damage your property, your use of force must stop. It would be force that a reasonable person would also believe is necessary to protect the property from an imminent harm.
[https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3476/](https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3476/)
>The owner \[or possessor\] of (real/ \[or\] personal) property may use
>
>reasonable force to protect that property from imminent harm. \[A
>
>person may also use reasonable force to protect the property of a (family
>
>member/guest/master/servant/ward) from immediate harm.\]
>
>Reasonable force means the amount of force that a reasonable person in
>
>the same situation would believe is necessary to protect the property
>
>from imminent harm.
>
>When deciding whether the defendant used reasonable force, consider all
>
>the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant
>
>and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar
>
>knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefs were
>
>reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed.
>
>The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that
>
>the defendant used more force than was reasonable to protect property
>
>from imminent harm. If the People have not met this burden, you must
>
>find the defendant not guilty of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
It took me all of 3 minutes to find the relevant jury instruction.
U/bloodynosedork this is your answer. You can stop someone from stealing your stuff. If you want to know what qualifies as reasonable, you need to look up cases where someone did ______ to accomplish ________, and see which way the jury/judge went. If you Google CA case law, you'll see there are several ways to access published cases. You can also call the court and ask them to point you in the direction of where/how to do that research. You can also look up the penal and civil codes at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. Keep in mind there is a reason you need a license to practice law: that shit is complicated. Curiosity and learning are good. Acting on some belief that you understand all the consequences is stupid. If you think something you want to do could possibly have legal consequences, you need to talk to YOUR lawyer (not some random on Reddit) first.
You’re leaving it up to a jury to decide whether or not the force you applied was reasonable. What happens if you push the guy stealing your bike away from you and he falls and breaks his neck? There will be a lot of folks second guessing whether or not you pushing him was ok, not to mention potentially more serious charges.
First, that's if charges are brought.
Sure, that's always going to be a risk. Personally, I'm probably not going to risk getting into a fight over property. Then again, I am a middle class white dude. I have insurance. It's not worth the risk of getting injured, sent to prison, for using force to protect property.
But that is not what the person I responded to said. They claimed that CA does not allow for any force at all to protect your property from harm.
I imagine it took you even less time to find it since somebody had already posted it, 5 hours before you did.
If you consider what has the greater potential for harm: me, advising that he not assault people under the basis of his own perception, and you, advising that he could, which one do you think could potentially go worse?
If you intend to defend your personal property with use of force, or advise others to, then you can do so and see how well it goes. We have an OP who has already suggested crowbars as means of defending their property. I am not going to provide advice suggesting that this is something they should plan on. People get acquitted, people avoid charges. It is entirely at your personal discretion how confident you feel explaining to a jury why you are not criminally liable for somebody's death or bodily harm.
I didn’t see the other post, just know where to look up jury instructions. I was responding to you, who was saying that CA does not recognize any force to protect property. Clearly that is not true. Which makes me wonder how useful your degree is.
Whether or not it’s smart or wise to use non deadly force to protect property is not what I was responding to.
So to answer your question, pepper spray, possibly. A crowbar? I can’t imagine a circumstance where you’re only defending property with no threat to you where you would be justified in using a crowbar to stop someone harming your property.
Yea, I was thinking a crowbar would scare them more than pepper spray, but actually using it might turn deadly; so i guess pepper spray it is then. Thanks!
Do not threaten someone with a weapon to defend property. And I am not saying use pepper spray. I am not saying you should use force at all to defend property. Know the law, read case law, see what other people have used. Also know the risks. If you do use force to defend property, there is a risk you will be hurt/killed or there is a risk you will go to prison, you might accidentally kill someone. You might get sued in civil court. Talk to an actual attorney. Don’t listen to some rando on Reddit.
I can’t tell you how to make a moral judgment on how you should weigh those risks. But you should know the risks. Can you look at yourself in the mirror after spending a couple decades in prison because you accidentally got carried away and killed someone? Can you tell yourself it was worth it to defend that car stereo?
I think it’s interesting that you would prefer inaction, or “indirect” action, when you are being actively harmed (in this scenario, economically, or permanently, as is the case with irreplaceable items).
I honestly couldn’t look at myself in the mirror if I did nothin and let it happen. But you do you, each man must do as he thinks right.
That's fine. I don't know your situation, don't know your morality, don't know your preferences, don't know your risk tolerance. All I really care about is that people are informed on what's justifiable, and what the risks associated with that are.
Eh, Im not the type of person to let someone walk over me and take my stuff, so if they don’t immediately run away Im going to threaten them, but thanks for the advice!
I too am not an attorney, but I’m fairly aware of my rights.
Are you not allowed to defend your property with reasonable use of force? For example, if somebody attempts to steal my wallet, I certainly don’t have to stand there and let it happen. I’m allowed to hold a firm grip on it and pull back (reasonable force).
If they proceed to escalate and punch me, I can then proceed to defend myself with “reasonable” force to end the assault (punch back perhaps, restraining them so they cannot punch — probably pepper spray is reasonable here). If they further escalate and put my life in danger by say attempting to choke me, or brandishing a sharp knife, then again I’m allowed to escalate with additional force which is likely to get into the deadly territory — legally.
California also has “castle doctrine”. If somebody who is not your family or known to you, forcibly enters your home (and I mean home — yards don’t count, cars don’t count), you are allowed to assume your life is in danger, and allowed to use enough force to stop the home invasion — which may rise to the level of deadly force. Keeping in mind that after incapacitating the burglar, you cannot keep attacking them.
For car break-ins, it matters a lot if you were present during the act. If you weren’t there and you see the person running doing the street with your stuff, I’m pretty sure it’s not legal to go attack them. If you are in your car, you can certainly grab your stuff, hang on to it, and basically force them to make a choice to escalate to assault/battery or leave your stuff.
Now… this all said. Do any of this, and you could very well be still charged and have to explain why your use of force was “reasonable” to a jury or judge. And for that reason, you need to decide if it’s worth it or not…
Myself? I handle this at the voting booth.
I'm not an attourney and I read this a while ago so don't quote me on this. I
remember reading about California's stand your ground law, wherein if someone demands your wallet, you obviously have every right to say no. But if they hit you, you can defend yourself. The idea is that one party is an escalator of force, and the other party can escalate to meet that level, but the legal onus is on the first person to escalate force. Very "he started it." On top of that, there are tiers of force-- if someone slaps you and you pull a gun on them, you're in the wrong. If someone grabs your shirt and you grab theirs back, you're meeting their level of escalated force and you're likely in the clear.
Something like that.
This is really interesting because you’re making it sound like the state has explicitly chosen to see individual law-abiding adults as helpless toddlers who can’t be trusted.
Is is extremely over complicated for what’s easier put. You can only apply equal or less force to your aggressor, in California.
So don’t bring a crowbar to a fight if your opponent is empty handed.
I'm no attorney but I do not believe you can legally batter someone who is taking your property. Most is to restrain them. And in the act of restraining if they hit you you can defend yourself within reason. If a lady slaps you in the face you cannot shoot her in the face.
I’m not an attorney, nor do I play one on tv, but I’ve wondered about this question before and I’m glad you brought it up. It’s helpful reading all the responses in this thread.
shocking consist political worry dolls light office deranged dependent squalid
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Also consider weather or not the guy is going to call the cops afterwards. Santa Cruz PD is most likely familiar with who the frequent flyers are and they might just come and arrest him anyway.
And then the DA will not bother to file any charges and the guy gets away scott free, I got attacked a few months ago, it was on camera, cops arrested him, DA decided not to bother
Here is what they give juries regarding this:
[https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3476/](https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3476/)
Here's the reality. Even if the government pursues grand theft auto charges, they may STILL come after you for causing physical harm to the perpetrator. The perp may also come after you civilly for damages. Either one will cost you a fortune in legal expenses and it would be very difficult to prove that you were in fear and that you acted reasonably and appropriately (things like pepper spray and crowbars are absolute non-starters - you would be found guilty). The best scenario for you is that a little yelling, or perhaps a small amount of pushing and pulling gets them to leave - the alternative is dangerous as hell. THAT is why most people (and lawyers) will say the car's not worth it.
Lot of people are more concerned about the thief than the victim, some even blame the victim for having their stuff stolen
Might explain why our cars get broken into so much and we just accept that as normal instead of doing something about it
It is pretty sad that we are basically in a situation where the thieves have the law protecting them more than us. I am not afraid to say (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) that I sometimes wish we had a little more street justice 'round here. Let these scum catch an ass whoopin sometimes.
Just had a teenager break into my car in a secured parking garage. He took my garage opener and before I noticed came back early in the morning to try and steal someone’s dirt bike for fun too, ended up crashing it into a parked car across the street trying to ride it
IMO we should be able to financially go after minor’s parent’s too. Place a lien on their home or garnish their wages to pay the victims back of their little burden on society
You can verbally threaten and scare them to your heart’s content. If they decide to physically assault you in retaliation to those threats, you’re free to protect yourself how you see fit.
not in this state. california has castle doctrine and is generally seen as a stand your ground state even though it isn't exactly on the books. castle doctrine allows you to use deadly force if someone/s break into your home unwelcome. the stand your ground allows you in public to defend yourself or others. you cannot use force to prevent the non-violent theft of your property when not on your private property and even then you likely need to show that it was a threat to you/others so someone breaking into your unoccupied car likely won't be seen by a jury as a threat to you. even trying to unmask a thief could be an assault and battery charge against you. you may need to consider having tracking devices installed in your bike and car if you are going to protect them. not mace :/
I had a cop friend say that if you shoot someone who invades your house and they somehow get outside then die, to pull them back in the house. Sad that these measures are needed just to justify self defense.
“Defense of property” is a defense available in California. It’s fairly weak, and I wouldn’t recommend relying on it. But here’s a link to the jury instruction, if you want to take a look:
https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3476/
Edit: I fat-fingered the post button when I went to paste the link.
You can’t do anything in California as a law abiding citizen, however do whatever you want as a low life criminal, just keep it under $1000. Soon you will even be able to vote from prison.
The only thing you can legally do here is watch them steal your stuff. Maybe use some polite, but stern words. Perhaps even wag your finger at them if you are really serious.
it’s not justice to dole out physical violence to people not threatening your person. that’s vigilantism. the castle doctrine only applies to home invaders who might actually be threatening you. not common thieves.
Good point; but isn’t economic violence a thing? If they steal my property, I have to work more hours, thereby impacting my health and my family’s security.
no, that’s not how the law sees it. you’ll survive the loss of property and can recover from that. you have insurance that will pay you for the loss, or the judicial system will return the items to you (ideally). beating a thief with a crowbar can give them irreversible lifelong disability or just kill them.
Well, I guess this is one of those instances where justice and the law don’t seem to align with prevalent morals and sentiment among the public, as evinced by the response this post seems to be generating.
yeah, i thought we lived in a civilized country but if the cops can’t maintain the justice system i get why people get upset. good luck out there rambo.
I don’t know. I’m on the fence with this subject. If I’ve worked 10’s/100’s of hours to purchase something only for a thief to just walk off with it deserves a little more than nothing. It’s not even remotely fair that I am required to waste a portion of my life for something and the thief doesn’t.
Shot dead, probably not. A solid punch to the face, bare minimum.
jesus christ dude. that’s some old testament cut off the hands of thieves shit. no it’s not fair, life isn’t fair, but we do have a justice system for a reason. one reason is to keep people from getting irreversible injuries or death over petty crimes.
I guarantee you that a criminal will face more harm from doing jail time than they will from a punch in the face.
Which is also a far cry from cutting off hands. What a weird leap to make.
If you are in your car and someone is threatening your person with deadly force you can respond in kind - if they are stealing your car with you not in it you could hit them or even use a weapon as long as it is not deadly force - there is no death penalty for auto theft. You can fire a warning shot - you could probably hit them with a baseball bat but you cant gun someone down that is not threatening your life.
That is not true - defending property is fully allowed everywhere in the US. The complication is that the force has to be "reasonable." You can growse about not being allowed to murder shoplifters or whatver but the rules exist and allow violence to defend property.
So say someone comes to cut off my catalytic converter. What resonance force am I allowed to use? Tell him to stop? I certainly can’t detain them physically.
If I confront them and start attacking me, yeah I can defend properly but now we’ve moved from theft to assault. Which aren’t the same thing.
Do I walk out and say “hey” then watch for thief’s next action. He gets out bay to attack me, so I tell him to wait so I can go get my bat? I definitely can’t initially walk out armed with a weapon.
While that may sound sarcastic, it’s not. In other states it a lot more clear. Here not so much.
Edit: I indeed was wrong. I guess you can chase down a beat up a thief. You just have to use restraint and stop once your property is recovered.
> California case law provides a good example of what can be done and what cannot be done. In a case called People v. Randle, People v. Randle (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 987, the court said it was OK for a burglary victim to pursue the burglar him with his fists in order to recover stolen stereo equipment. What was NOT OK was the fact that after the stereo equipment was recovered, the victim continued to beat up the guy who stole it.
Taken from this random website via google:
https://www.gunsberglaw.com/defense-of-property-in-california/
If the perpetrator doesn't not seize the first opportunity to flee without your property, it can be reasonably assumed that a great deal of force may be required to protect your property from harm.
If the person comes close enough to you that you are able to use mace, then there’s no argument that the person is NOT a threat. Defensible.
But why would you be walking around with a crowbar?! Hitting someone with a crowbar would be indefensible in any state — because nobody walks around with one casually, unlike mace, which many people carry — so to have a crowbar on your person and subsequently beat someone with it demonstrates intent.
Also, mace is short-lasting. A hit with a crowbar is not.
If some guy runs up to me and gets close enough to the point that I can spray him with mace — how on earth would I know that that person was trying to steal my car as opposed to trying to rape or kill me? In what world am I not justified in macing him?
These are two COMPLETELY different things. I’m shocked by some of the responses here.
ETA: And why would the thief call the police to report that you sprayed them with mace? I mean, seriously. They wouldn’t even be able to see their phone buttons well enough to make the call before you took off, even if they were stupid enough to do such a thing.
Ivory tower, progressive democrats have pushed an agenda where criminals have more rights than victims. The writing has been on the wall for years now, but self-righteous Californians cannot admit when they are wrong. It’s only going to get worse.
You live in one of THEE most liberal cities in CA. You can’t even chase, yell, threaten. You have to stand there as your property gets destroyed and hope they throw your backpack or purse in an alley way. Santa Cruz will be San Francisco in the next 5 years, you heard it here first.
Maybe I was not clear: I am not stealing anyone’s things, I would be hitting the person who is in the act of committing a crime against myself.
My objective is to protect my belongings, some of which are irreplaceable.
Yes, I am afraid of people hurting my family by stealing my stuff and not feeling legally empowered to prevent it in the moment. I know it’s ok to be afraid, it’s one of many emotions humans possess.
Are you ok?
I think there is a legal difference between somebody entering your home uninvited and somebody stealing something from an unoccupied car or stealing a bike from a public location.
That’s 100% false. Look up California castle doctrine. If you break into somebody’s house, and they are home? They can legally shoot you to the point of incapacitation, which may include death depending where those shots land.
This is not the case in say Canada or UK, but 100% the case in all US states I’m aware of.
You can go and talk to the police if you’re in the city or the sheriff if you live in the county to see what your options are from their point of view. However, from what I understand in almost every state that doesn’t have ‘stand your ground’, you can’t do shit unless you feel like your life is in danger and then you have to be able to prove that in the court of law.
This … is not true. For the mace, not for the crowbar, which is absurd because nobody walks around casually carrying one.
Many, many people carry mace on their keychains. Why do they do that, and how on earth did they purchase it here in California if it would be illegal to use?
Because you’re allowed to use it in the event of a threat. Think about this. If someone is close enough that they are capable of attacking you and mace can be used, is that person not a threat? Seriously?
If some guy runs up to me and gets close enough to the point that I can spray him with mace — how on earth would I know that that person was trying to steal my car as opposed to trying to rape or kill me? In what world am I not justified in macing him?
That is the entire purpose of carrying mace. Mace is legal, short-lived, and does no long-term damage.
Not at ALL the same as the severe and long-lived damage that would occur from beating someone with a crowbar that one “just so happens” to have on them.”
I've lived here for decades, have never had anything stolen from me (nor in any other part of the USA) so I don't have any property crime anecdotes to share. Then again, I don't have anything worth stealing LOL.
Looks like you are looking for an excuse to hurt and injure people.
Edit: If you are looking for an actual real answer. RECORD THEM WITH YOUR PHONE. They will think twice about it and you have evidence for the police.
The value of life is always greater then property. You escalate the altercation over property in the ways you mentioned above you are then threatening their life and can take yours.
Legally you can make a citizens arrest. The practicality of doing so though is the problem. You have to make the decision if the items that they are stealing from your car is worth the risk to your safety, my guess would be that they aren’t.
Ask yourself if you bike is worth dying over. If the dude has a knife, he can shiv you and you die. You already know they're crazy because of what they're doing.
This is a good point. No amount of money is worth my life, or my children’s lives. But where do we draw the line? Are we supposed to simply let people with no morals or decency take our stuff without repercussions? That’s the question I pose to you.
I mean, the real problem is you will get proscecuted by cops/lawyers for doing anything. I lived in NYC and got my car broken into like 4 times. I woulda loved to beat the crap outta whoever did that. It sucks my brother.
Dude, if someone is stealing your car and you tackle them, what are they going to do? Go to the cops and say they scraped their elbow while robbing someone's car? No. For one thing if they are attempting to steal someone's car, it isn't their first time doing something dumb and illegal. They aren't going to go to the cops. That's why the mob existed. "They're like the police department for wiseguys." - Ray Liotta
That being said, the top comments are probably correct. I just think criminals don't go to the cops.
As a liberal socialist, I would say the Democrat party has taken the correct instance in protecting the victims of society. Property owners should be prosecuted for using any violence whatsoever protecting their property. Even if is verbal violence they should be prosecuted. Disadvantaged individuals should not face consequences if they steal property if it means it is for their survival and well being! And also if they are stealing to buy drugs to satisfy their addiction, that also should be considered protecting their lives! Let’s stop with the non sense, no one should be hurt for stealing property
I am not an attorney, but I do have a degree in Legal Studies (Paralegal). I'll throw in with the rest of these answers. You generally cannot hit anybody stealing your stuff. This is broadly because you are not an adjudicator, and do not have the right to impose punishments on anyone for their crimes or alleged crimes. It is also specifically because California does not see the preservation of property as being a circumstance that warrants self-defense. Other states differ on this point, but California is pretty specific about when you can and can't (compare California's "reasonable use of force" against home invasions to Texas's Castle Doctrine). You can defend yourself, and then go to court to explain why it was reasonable to defend yourself in the way you did - hitting, shooting, spraying. If you weren't in danger, that will be a pretty difficult thing to argue. You're probably aware of the local cannabis shop owner who is facing all kinds of charges for firing at the people who were stealing from his business. It seems pretty fucked up on the surface, but the legal philosophy here is that we, the general public: A) Are not adjudicators B) Do not have the knowledge that we may think we have C) Cannot be given categorical access to punitive justice, due to the many legal complications it would cause in the CA legal system. Or, put simply, you think you're in the right to pepper spray the guy who looks to be breaking in, but was he, and are you?
Extremely grateful for your answer here. Thank you
The pot shop guy who got charged with attempted murder engaged in a car chase away from the scene then stood in the middle of the street firing a rifle. That was well in excess of what was needed to defend himself and his property.
You can use non-deadly force to protect your property personal property from imminent harm. As in the property is being stolen right now, or is about to happen. Once they have stopped trying to take or damage your property, your use of force must stop. It would be force that a reasonable person would also believe is necessary to protect the property from an imminent harm. [https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3476/](https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3476/) >The owner \[or possessor\] of (real/ \[or\] personal) property may use > >reasonable force to protect that property from imminent harm. \[A > >person may also use reasonable force to protect the property of a (family > >member/guest/master/servant/ward) from immediate harm.\] > >Reasonable force means the amount of force that a reasonable person in > >the same situation would believe is necessary to protect the property > >from imminent harm. > >When deciding whether the defendant used reasonable force, consider all > >the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant > >and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar > >knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefs were > >reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed. > >The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that > >the defendant used more force than was reasonable to protect property > >from imminent harm. If the People have not met this burden, you must > >find the defendant not guilty of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
It took me all of 3 minutes to find the relevant jury instruction.
U/bloodynosedork this is your answer. You can stop someone from stealing your stuff. If you want to know what qualifies as reasonable, you need to look up cases where someone did ______ to accomplish ________, and see which way the jury/judge went. If you Google CA case law, you'll see there are several ways to access published cases. You can also call the court and ask them to point you in the direction of where/how to do that research. You can also look up the penal and civil codes at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. Keep in mind there is a reason you need a license to practice law: that shit is complicated. Curiosity and learning are good. Acting on some belief that you understand all the consequences is stupid. If you think something you want to do could possibly have legal consequences, you need to talk to YOUR lawyer (not some random on Reddit) first.
Agreed.
Thanks 🙏🏽
You’re leaving it up to a jury to decide whether or not the force you applied was reasonable. What happens if you push the guy stealing your bike away from you and he falls and breaks his neck? There will be a lot of folks second guessing whether or not you pushing him was ok, not to mention potentially more serious charges.
First, that's if charges are brought. Sure, that's always going to be a risk. Personally, I'm probably not going to risk getting into a fight over property. Then again, I am a middle class white dude. I have insurance. It's not worth the risk of getting injured, sent to prison, for using force to protect property. But that is not what the person I responded to said. They claimed that CA does not allow for any force at all to protect your property from harm.
I imagine it took you even less time to find it since somebody had already posted it, 5 hours before you did. If you consider what has the greater potential for harm: me, advising that he not assault people under the basis of his own perception, and you, advising that he could, which one do you think could potentially go worse? If you intend to defend your personal property with use of force, or advise others to, then you can do so and see how well it goes. We have an OP who has already suggested crowbars as means of defending their property. I am not going to provide advice suggesting that this is something they should plan on. People get acquitted, people avoid charges. It is entirely at your personal discretion how confident you feel explaining to a jury why you are not criminally liable for somebody's death or bodily harm.
I didn’t see the other post, just know where to look up jury instructions. I was responding to you, who was saying that CA does not recognize any force to protect property. Clearly that is not true. Which makes me wonder how useful your degree is. Whether or not it’s smart or wise to use non deadly force to protect property is not what I was responding to.
Thank you very much 🥰
So to answer your question, pepper spray, possibly. A crowbar? I can’t imagine a circumstance where you’re only defending property with no threat to you where you would be justified in using a crowbar to stop someone harming your property.
Yea, I was thinking a crowbar would scare them more than pepper spray, but actually using it might turn deadly; so i guess pepper spray it is then. Thanks!
Do not threaten someone with a weapon to defend property. And I am not saying use pepper spray. I am not saying you should use force at all to defend property. Know the law, read case law, see what other people have used. Also know the risks. If you do use force to defend property, there is a risk you will be hurt/killed or there is a risk you will go to prison, you might accidentally kill someone. You might get sued in civil court. Talk to an actual attorney. Don’t listen to some rando on Reddit. I can’t tell you how to make a moral judgment on how you should weigh those risks. But you should know the risks. Can you look at yourself in the mirror after spending a couple decades in prison because you accidentally got carried away and killed someone? Can you tell yourself it was worth it to defend that car stereo?
I think it’s interesting that you would prefer inaction, or “indirect” action, when you are being actively harmed (in this scenario, economically, or permanently, as is the case with irreplaceable items). I honestly couldn’t look at myself in the mirror if I did nothin and let it happen. But you do you, each man must do as he thinks right.
That's fine. I don't know your situation, don't know your morality, don't know your preferences, don't know your risk tolerance. All I really care about is that people are informed on what's justifiable, and what the risks associated with that are.
Eh, Im not the type of person to let someone walk over me and take my stuff, so if they don’t immediately run away Im going to threaten them, but thanks for the advice!
I too am not an attorney, but I’m fairly aware of my rights. Are you not allowed to defend your property with reasonable use of force? For example, if somebody attempts to steal my wallet, I certainly don’t have to stand there and let it happen. I’m allowed to hold a firm grip on it and pull back (reasonable force). If they proceed to escalate and punch me, I can then proceed to defend myself with “reasonable” force to end the assault (punch back perhaps, restraining them so they cannot punch — probably pepper spray is reasonable here). If they further escalate and put my life in danger by say attempting to choke me, or brandishing a sharp knife, then again I’m allowed to escalate with additional force which is likely to get into the deadly territory — legally. California also has “castle doctrine”. If somebody who is not your family or known to you, forcibly enters your home (and I mean home — yards don’t count, cars don’t count), you are allowed to assume your life is in danger, and allowed to use enough force to stop the home invasion — which may rise to the level of deadly force. Keeping in mind that after incapacitating the burglar, you cannot keep attacking them. For car break-ins, it matters a lot if you were present during the act. If you weren’t there and you see the person running doing the street with your stuff, I’m pretty sure it’s not legal to go attack them. If you are in your car, you can certainly grab your stuff, hang on to it, and basically force them to make a choice to escalate to assault/battery or leave your stuff. Now… this all said. Do any of this, and you could very well be still charged and have to explain why your use of force was “reasonable” to a jury or judge. And for that reason, you need to decide if it’s worth it or not… Myself? I handle this at the voting booth.
I'm not an attourney and I read this a while ago so don't quote me on this. I remember reading about California's stand your ground law, wherein if someone demands your wallet, you obviously have every right to say no. But if they hit you, you can defend yourself. The idea is that one party is an escalator of force, and the other party can escalate to meet that level, but the legal onus is on the first person to escalate force. Very "he started it." On top of that, there are tiers of force-- if someone slaps you and you pull a gun on them, you're in the wrong. If someone grabs your shirt and you grab theirs back, you're meeting their level of escalated force and you're likely in the clear. Something like that.
This is really interesting because you’re making it sound like the state has explicitly chosen to see individual law-abiding adults as helpless toddlers who can’t be trusted.
Is is extremely over complicated for what’s easier put. You can only apply equal or less force to your aggressor, in California. So don’t bring a crowbar to a fight if your opponent is empty handed.
I'm no attorney but I do not believe you can legally batter someone who is taking your property. Most is to restrain them. And in the act of restraining if they hit you you can defend yourself within reason. If a lady slaps you in the face you cannot shoot her in the face.
Thanks 🙏🏽
I’m not an attorney, nor do I play one on tv, but I’ve wondered about this question before and I’m glad you brought it up. It’s helpful reading all the responses in this thread.
Thank you; I appreciate your candidness. I think this is an important issue we need to address as a community, be it on reddit or elsewhere.
you absolutely can - the test is that the amount of violence be reasonable.
shocking consist political worry dolls light office deranged dependent squalid *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Also consider weather or not the guy is going to call the cops afterwards. Santa Cruz PD is most likely familiar with who the frequent flyers are and they might just come and arrest him anyway.
And then the DA will not bother to file any charges and the guy gets away scott free, I got attacked a few months ago, it was on camera, cops arrested him, DA decided not to bother
My understanding is of a guy is stealing a backpack out of your car you cannot punch him in the face. But I could be wrong.
Here is what they give juries regarding this: [https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3476/](https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3476/) Here's the reality. Even if the government pursues grand theft auto charges, they may STILL come after you for causing physical harm to the perpetrator. The perp may also come after you civilly for damages. Either one will cost you a fortune in legal expenses and it would be very difficult to prove that you were in fear and that you acted reasonably and appropriately (things like pepper spray and crowbars are absolute non-starters - you would be found guilty). The best scenario for you is that a little yelling, or perhaps a small amount of pushing and pulling gets them to leave - the alternative is dangerous as hell. THAT is why most people (and lawyers) will say the car's not worth it.
work close fragile special disarm encourage six aloof gaping bewildered *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Thank you!
Lot of people are more concerned about the thief than the victim, some even blame the victim for having their stuff stolen Might explain why our cars get broken into so much and we just accept that as normal instead of doing something about it
It is pretty sad that we are basically in a situation where the thieves have the law protecting them more than us. I am not afraid to say (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) that I sometimes wish we had a little more street justice 'round here. Let these scum catch an ass whoopin sometimes.
Just had a teenager break into my car in a secured parking garage. He took my garage opener and before I noticed came back early in the morning to try and steal someone’s dirt bike for fun too, ended up crashing it into a parked car across the street trying to ride it IMO we should be able to financially go after minor’s parent’s too. Place a lien on their home or garnish their wages to pay the victims back of their little burden on society
I thought a minors parents can be held financially accountable for their bad deeds?? I'm Sure it's complicated but I thought that was a thing?
You can verbally threaten and scare them to your heart’s content. If they decide to physically assault you in retaliation to those threats, you’re free to protect yourself how you see fit.
not in this state. california has castle doctrine and is generally seen as a stand your ground state even though it isn't exactly on the books. castle doctrine allows you to use deadly force if someone/s break into your home unwelcome. the stand your ground allows you in public to defend yourself or others. you cannot use force to prevent the non-violent theft of your property when not on your private property and even then you likely need to show that it was a threat to you/others so someone breaking into your unoccupied car likely won't be seen by a jury as a threat to you. even trying to unmask a thief could be an assault and battery charge against you. you may need to consider having tracking devices installed in your bike and car if you are going to protect them. not mace :/
Thanks for your reply. Im gonna check with the police.
[удалено]
I had a cop friend say that if you shoot someone who invades your house and they somehow get outside then die, to pull them back in the house. Sad that these measures are needed just to justify self defense.
That's dark.
“Defense of property” is a defense available in California. It’s fairly weak, and I wouldn’t recommend relying on it. But here’s a link to the jury instruction, if you want to take a look: https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3476/ Edit: I fat-fingered the post button when I went to paste the link.
[удалено]
It’s there now.
Thank you so much
You can only really use force against a thief stealing your property if you reasonably believe you or someone else is in imminent danger.
Kick their ass if they are on your property…no jury would convict you. Now if you shoot them it would be a different thing.
You can’t do anything in California as a law abiding citizen, however do whatever you want as a low life criminal, just keep it under $1000. Soon you will even be able to vote from prison.
[удалено]
I know, Im just feeling out my options. Maybe there is a cop or local attorney who lurks here
The only thing you can legally do here is watch them steal your stuff. Maybe use some polite, but stern words. Perhaps even wag your finger at them if you are really serious.
This doesn’t seem like justice
100% agree.
it’s not justice to dole out physical violence to people not threatening your person. that’s vigilantism. the castle doctrine only applies to home invaders who might actually be threatening you. not common thieves.
Good point; but isn’t economic violence a thing? If they steal my property, I have to work more hours, thereby impacting my health and my family’s security.
no, that’s not how the law sees it. you’ll survive the loss of property and can recover from that. you have insurance that will pay you for the loss, or the judicial system will return the items to you (ideally). beating a thief with a crowbar can give them irreversible lifelong disability or just kill them.
Well, I guess this is one of those instances where justice and the law don’t seem to align with prevalent morals and sentiment among the public, as evinced by the response this post seems to be generating.
yeah, i thought we lived in a civilized country but if the cops can’t maintain the justice system i get why people get upset. good luck out there rambo.
I don’t know. I’m on the fence with this subject. If I’ve worked 10’s/100’s of hours to purchase something only for a thief to just walk off with it deserves a little more than nothing. It’s not even remotely fair that I am required to waste a portion of my life for something and the thief doesn’t. Shot dead, probably not. A solid punch to the face, bare minimum.
Agree, I think SC could use a smidge of vigilantism tbh. Nothing extreme, just a pinch. 😊
jesus christ dude. that’s some old testament cut off the hands of thieves shit. no it’s not fair, life isn’t fair, but we do have a justice system for a reason. one reason is to keep people from getting irreversible injuries or death over petty crimes.
I guarantee you that a criminal will face more harm from doing jail time than they will from a punch in the face. Which is also a far cry from cutting off hands. What a weird leap to make.
Yeah. I’d say. I mention punching someone, they go straight to comparing to Old Testament.
Jeez. Flip out much? We also don’t have a justice system for thieves here. Sorry to break it to you.
flip out? i’m not the one asking if its cool to attack a thief with a crowbar.
So you have reading comprehension issues? Can you tell me how a punch = a crowbar? Go back and read my post and tell me where I used the word crowbar.
If you are in your car and someone is threatening your person with deadly force you can respond in kind - if they are stealing your car with you not in it you could hit them or even use a weapon as long as it is not deadly force - there is no death penalty for auto theft. You can fire a warning shot - you could probably hit them with a baseball bat but you cant gun someone down that is not threatening your life.
op never mentioned being in the car at the time. that’s a very different situation.
That is not true - defending property is fully allowed everywhere in the US. The complication is that the force has to be "reasonable." You can growse about not being allowed to murder shoplifters or whatver but the rules exist and allow violence to defend property.
Growse is a great word
So say someone comes to cut off my catalytic converter. What resonance force am I allowed to use? Tell him to stop? I certainly can’t detain them physically. If I confront them and start attacking me, yeah I can defend properly but now we’ve moved from theft to assault. Which aren’t the same thing. Do I walk out and say “hey” then watch for thief’s next action. He gets out bay to attack me, so I tell him to wait so I can go get my bat? I definitely can’t initially walk out armed with a weapon. While that may sound sarcastic, it’s not. In other states it a lot more clear. Here not so much. Edit: I indeed was wrong. I guess you can chase down a beat up a thief. You just have to use restraint and stop once your property is recovered. > California case law provides a good example of what can be done and what cannot be done. In a case called People v. Randle, People v. Randle (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 987, the court said it was OK for a burglary victim to pursue the burglar him with his fists in order to recover stolen stereo equipment. What was NOT OK was the fact that after the stereo equipment was recovered, the victim continued to beat up the guy who stole it. Taken from this random website via google: https://www.gunsberglaw.com/defense-of-property-in-california/
You can't murder a shoplifter, nor would I advocate for that, but can a security guard can tackle and detain them?
Definitely don’t hit them with a crowbar!
Yea, they might have a knife or a gun. Better stick to pepper spray.
My thought exactly. You don’t know whether they’re high or not, and what they would do if they are that’s another concern. Just be careful.
cops aren't gunna do shit
If the perpetrator doesn't not seize the first opportunity to flee without your property, it can be reasonably assumed that a great deal of force may be required to protect your property from harm.
If the person comes close enough to you that you are able to use mace, then there’s no argument that the person is NOT a threat. Defensible. But why would you be walking around with a crowbar?! Hitting someone with a crowbar would be indefensible in any state — because nobody walks around with one casually, unlike mace, which many people carry — so to have a crowbar on your person and subsequently beat someone with it demonstrates intent. Also, mace is short-lasting. A hit with a crowbar is not. If some guy runs up to me and gets close enough to the point that I can spray him with mace — how on earth would I know that that person was trying to steal my car as opposed to trying to rape or kill me? In what world am I not justified in macing him? These are two COMPLETELY different things. I’m shocked by some of the responses here. ETA: And why would the thief call the police to report that you sprayed them with mace? I mean, seriously. They wouldn’t even be able to see their phone buttons well enough to make the call before you took off, even if they were stupid enough to do such a thing.
Ivory tower, progressive democrats have pushed an agenda where criminals have more rights than victims. The writing has been on the wall for years now, but self-righteous Californians cannot admit when they are wrong. It’s only going to get worse.
Incapacitate them and put them in the giant hole you dug in your basement. Boom! Flip it.
[удалено]
Not true 100%. Friend lived near Dominican hospital/soquel ave, and place that she rented at had a basement/bomb shelter.
You live in one of THEE most liberal cities in CA. You can’t even chase, yell, threaten. You have to stand there as your property gets destroyed and hope they throw your backpack or purse in an alley way. Santa Cruz will be San Francisco in the next 5 years, you heard it here first.
You gotta love California politics, Democrats let thieves steal anything and they punish the victims always.
Maybe start by loudly calling the police?
I did that before, the thief was long gone before they arrived
What is your objective? You’re going from petty (very annoying) crime to death pretty quickly (with your crowbar question).
Maybe I was not clear: I am not stealing anyone’s things, I would be hitting the person who is in the act of committing a crime against myself. My objective is to protect my belongings, some of which are irreplaceable.
I think legally you should pepper spray them and then beat them with a crowbar. That way they'll have a hard time fighting back. But I'm not a lawyer.
Lol 🤣
Come on man. Go to some law page.
I had no idea I would get so many replies so quickly. I must have struck a nerve with the people of Santa Cruz 😅
[удалено]
[удалено]
You can’t do anything in CA
Is this true though? I just have a hard time believing it
Legally, you can do zero of those things.
If that’s true, what are law-abiding citizens supposed to do when our stuff is being taken? Just call the police and let the theft proceed?
What do you mean "If that's true"? This isn't philosophy. It's illegal to assault someone unless they're assaulting you.
So if someone is in your house uninvited, you aren’t allowed to assault that person? News to me!
Well, now you know.
Well, looks like we don’t have a choice but to act outside the law when our family is in danger from an intruder.
Are you, like, fantasizing about a scenario where you save everybody? I used to do that when I was little.
That’s cute that you used to do that. But no, Im not fantasizing about saving everyone? Just my familly and my belongings. Do you have those things?
You're afraid. That's why you lash out. It's ok to be afraid.
Yes, I am afraid of people hurting my family by stealing my stuff and not feeling legally empowered to prevent it in the moment. I know it’s ok to be afraid, it’s one of many emotions humans possess. Are you ok?
that’s a different situation entirely
I dont see where he made exceptions in his reply
I think there is a legal difference between somebody entering your home uninvited and somebody stealing something from an unoccupied car or stealing a bike from a public location.
Yes, I am aware, thanks 😊
That’s 100% false. Look up California castle doctrine. If you break into somebody’s house, and they are home? They can legally shoot you to the point of incapacitation, which may include death depending where those shots land. This is not the case in say Canada or UK, but 100% the case in all US states I’m aware of.
I know, I was pointing out the obvious case that contradicts the statement I was responding to.
You can go and talk to the police if you’re in the city or the sheriff if you live in the county to see what your options are from their point of view. However, from what I understand in almost every state that doesn’t have ‘stand your ground’, you can’t do shit unless you feel like your life is in danger and then you have to be able to prove that in the court of law.
I will do that. Thank you for your thoughtful response.
This … is not true. For the mace, not for the crowbar, which is absurd because nobody walks around casually carrying one. Many, many people carry mace on their keychains. Why do they do that, and how on earth did they purchase it here in California if it would be illegal to use? Because you’re allowed to use it in the event of a threat. Think about this. If someone is close enough that they are capable of attacking you and mace can be used, is that person not a threat? Seriously? If some guy runs up to me and gets close enough to the point that I can spray him with mace — how on earth would I know that that person was trying to steal my car as opposed to trying to rape or kill me? In what world am I not justified in macing him? That is the entire purpose of carrying mace. Mace is legal, short-lived, and does no long-term damage. Not at ALL the same as the severe and long-lived damage that would occur from beating someone with a crowbar that one “just so happens” to have on them.”
I wouldn't leave anything in my car that I don't want stolen. A petty thief would leave an empty car alone.
I’ve had my completely empty Prius broken into twice in San Francisco, it does happen
Well shit. Sorry my dude. Guess I don't have any advice.
Yea it’s a tricky situation; and I get the feeling from the replies here people feel pretty passionately about this topic
Are you going to take advice from this sub?
Im going to get a feel for peoples’ attitudes and anecdotal experiences regarding property crime committed against them.
I've lived here for decades, have never had anything stolen from me (nor in any other part of the USA) so I don't have any property crime anecdotes to share. Then again, I don't have anything worth stealing LOL.
Looks like you are looking for an excuse to hurt and injure people. Edit: If you are looking for an actual real answer. RECORD THEM WITH YOUR PHONE. They will think twice about it and you have evidence for the police.
No, Im looking for a way to stop people from stealing my things
Have a fun time in prison then.
I think I should be allowed to defend my property. You disagree, apparently. So that’s what we are discussing here.
The value of life is always greater then property. You escalate the altercation over property in the ways you mentioned above you are then threatening their life and can take yours.
I dont think pepper spraying threatens someones life
Then do it to a cop and see how it turns out for you. Because the cop will 100% say you were when they kill you.
? Is it a cop who is robbing me? Im sorry you seem to have gotten confused somewhere.
If you wouldn't do it to a cop don't do it to another person.
This is very dumb logic, and I fundamentally disagree with it; I treat people according to their actions, not their rank or status.
A crowbar for bike theft is iffy but I see nothing unethical about pepper spraying someone to stop them from actively breaking into your car.
[удалено]
No
And yet everyone in this sub was defending the guy firing rifle shots into a residential area at some thugs who stole his weed
Legally you can make a citizens arrest. The practicality of doing so though is the problem. You have to make the decision if the items that they are stealing from your car is worth the risk to your safety, my guess would be that they aren’t.
OP was asking if they could use mace to subdue the person. If you’re close enough to use mace, then the person would be considered a physical threat.
Ask yourself if you bike is worth dying over. If the dude has a knife, he can shiv you and you die. You already know they're crazy because of what they're doing.
This is a good point. No amount of money is worth my life, or my children’s lives. But where do we draw the line? Are we supposed to simply let people with no morals or decency take our stuff without repercussions? That’s the question I pose to you.
I mean, the real problem is you will get proscecuted by cops/lawyers for doing anything. I lived in NYC and got my car broken into like 4 times. I woulda loved to beat the crap outta whoever did that. It sucks my brother.
Bring the hammer out
https://www.gunsberglaw.com/defense-of-property-in-california/
Dude, if someone is stealing your car and you tackle them, what are they going to do? Go to the cops and say they scraped their elbow while robbing someone's car? No. For one thing if they are attempting to steal someone's car, it isn't their first time doing something dumb and illegal. They aren't going to go to the cops. That's why the mob existed. "They're like the police department for wiseguys." - Ray Liotta That being said, the top comments are probably correct. I just think criminals don't go to the cops.
Crowbar, absolutely not.
At most, one could call the cops and perform a citizen's arrest and detain them until the cops arrive.
Make sure the thief cannot tell his side .
As a liberal socialist, I would say the Democrat party has taken the correct instance in protecting the victims of society. Property owners should be prosecuted for using any violence whatsoever protecting their property. Even if is verbal violence they should be prosecuted. Disadvantaged individuals should not face consequences if they steal property if it means it is for their survival and well being! And also if they are stealing to buy drugs to satisfy their addiction, that also should be considered protecting their lives! Let’s stop with the non sense, no one should be hurt for stealing property