According to case law, a person is allowed to use “reasonable force” to protect his property but it cannot be force that will take someone’s life or inflict injury. In the case of Tony Roberts, he is not allowed to use force against Peter Christopher, the man stealing his sports car, according to the case law of “Prosser on Torts, Third Edition”. The law states that “the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property, it is the accepted rule that there is NO privilege to use any force calculated to cause a death or serious bodily injury to repel the threat to land, unless there is a threat to the defendant's personal safety as to justify a self defense situation.” Tony was not in any danger when Peter was stealing his car; he never infringed any harm on Tony in order for him to act on self defense. Also, according to the Castle Doctrine, you must be in your home or at your place of business in order to use “deadly force” upon a Peter. In this case, Peter was not in his home or opposing harm on Tony. (Hodge, pgs 81-83) A. Tony Roberts can be criminally prosecuted and civilly sued in this case because Tony’s situation goes against the law of Prosser on Torts , Third Edition and also the Restatement of Torts, section 85. ; which …show more content…
Briney case, not entirely but some parts I do disagree. For instance, I disagree with the fact that the person who was trying to steal from someone’s property (a thief, low life, criminal, etc.) is not guilty for the action and or held responsible for it. I believe that as American citizens we should have the right to protect our property, but at the same time we should not be setting shotguns up to completely kill someone, that is what I disagree with. The law of Prosser on Torts, Third Edition, states that human life deems higher than a possessor protecting his or hers property. As a citizen, I have to abide by that law; that is the law of the