Xae289
.223 Rem
Technically and academically, (which is what courts care about) the sentence says clear as day that a person may use deadly physical force to prevent arson. Not "arson against a building", or "arson against a home", or "arson against a building they own", or "arson, but only if you think the building is occupied". Just "arson," period. Then arson is defined in Article 150 and includes way more than just someone setting fire to your house.There's arson, then there's arson which may be prevented with deadly force. My previous post clearly breaks that down and shows you arson of a vehicle, which everyone knows is a crime, is not a qualifying event to apply deadly force. You can do whatever you want but I'm not going to prison for a car. I'll take my insurance check and go get another one.
Practically, whether I would use deadly force against a person trying to burn down a car depends only on whether anyone is in it or I think someone is in it.