Burglary was SF Gate: Freak fire traps man inside Audi/Battery

[auditude at neta.com]

Taka, I do not believe this is correct.  I'm fairly sure using a firearm
in AZ (indeed in the U.S.?) is only permissible (rather, "not
criminal") to protect one's life and perhaps someone elses life.

The firearms laws of Arizona were extensively covered when I
obtained my concealed carry permit, which is one of many benefits
of Arizona over California which drew (no pun intended) me here.

(some other AZ advantages being no front plates required on my
*Audi*, and the option of legal tint on the front side windows up to a
certain percentage, my driver's license is good until 2032!, and
outdoor pizza baking in the summer without fuel!)

I have heard of laws/places like that.  I believe Texas was like that
recently, but I do not think it is still the case.  Even police
nowadays don't shoot unless their lives are threatened (they don't
shoot bad guys in the butt to stop them as they run away).  I was
going to add a reference, but I couldn't find one, and it's off topic
anyways.  I'm only posting this to offer another point of view based
on what I know, since we're talking about something that could get
someone into trouble.

I do understand the argument of being able to use deadly force to
defend property, however.  Basically the idea is that by stealing
from you, the bad guy or girl is taking away your livelihood, and
your abilty to provide for yourself and your family.  Like when you
steal a farmers tractor or something.  If you steal my car and I can't
get to work, and so on.  It's a direct threat to their ability to exist.
Lately this type of thinking is not in favor, which is also
understandable.  No material thing is (should be?) worth a life.

What could legally (non-criminally?) happen is that you would ask
them to stop while possessing a firearm, and if they tried to do
something that made you believe as a reasonable person that your
life was in danger, you could defend yourself.  If they drop the vcr
and start running away, or for that matter just keep gathering your
stuff up ignoring you, you can't just shoot them.

I have been in one situation where I was armed and a friend had
something taken from them by a member of a large group of
potentially rowdy people.  I elected not to respond using the
inanimate object that I had available to me, because the item
wasn't worth "it" (whatever "it" is), and also because it would have
likely made a bad situation worse.

Not that Taka was advising it, nor that I presume to know what
Taka advises either, but if you can leave the situation safely without
resorting to a gunfight, it's (almost?) always better to do so.

More Audi content:  I'm getting a black leather/alcantara heated
sport interior to replace the gray comfort non-heated one in my
5kcstq, so I'll have to see how the beefier seat bolster affects my
sidearm, currently a Para-Ordnance P10-45.

All disclaimers apply!

Ken

TM <t44tq at mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> If it was Arizona, the homeowner should have just shot and killed the
> burglar- IIRC, you are allowed to exercise deadly force to protect
> property in that state. Then there are no stupid mental anguish
> lawsuits- it's awfully hard for a dead person to testify against you.
> Taka