Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumPlease post reasons why it is OK to kill people in defense of property.
I'm serious. I really want to know how people feel on this topic. Please indulge me.
Personally--I do not generally agree with murder to defend "stuff". But--what if the property is part of a business, without which, one cannot provide? What if it is a life necessity?(drugs, prosthetics, etc?)
AS I see it--it is not OK to just shoot to kill to defend "stuff".
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)but everything else seems bloodthirsty to me.
digonswine
(1,487 posts)
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Either you can use deadly force to defend property or you can't.
What I consider essential and what someone else considers essential are up for debate. Trying to decide at the time of theft whether they are stealing something essential or not is absurd.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Don't you know what you cannot survive without?
If a fire or flood is approaching your home, what do you need to grab before you abandon your doomed property? People should think about this in advance.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)See, you prove my point. Now you've changed the definition from property that is "essential" to property that is necessary to survival.
Only *I* get to decide what of my property is essential or not.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I truly believe most readers know what I was referring to when I wrote "essential," and then provided the examples of insulin and scarce, clean water. There is nothing tricky going on. Nothing has been changed.
If you like the idea of killing thieves, then just admit it, and don't bother justifying it. People like what they like.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)But I accept it as a possible necessity.
I also don't like paying taxes - but I do that too.
Just because people recognize the need for something, does not mean we enjoy it. How about you stop assuming you know what you're talking about? Its pretty obvious you haven't a clue.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)It is completely optional.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Rendering the whole discussion moot.
You are a riot, as always. 
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)How about a vehicle that carries you to work?
There are a lot of "things" that you take for granted, till they ain't there.
Besides, as posted by another member, you have work, time, and sweat invested in everything you own. Are you willing to allow someone to take it from you?
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
safeinOhio
(37,613 posts)insurance is cheap compared to killing a human being.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Yes there is insurence, that may pay 20%-60% of the value, in 90 days! Meanwhile I have bills to pay, contracts to uphold (they don't care if your tools are stolen) a family to feed and raise.
Do you have the money to do all of this for 2-4 months? And replace the tools and/or materials stolen?
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...lose additional property to replace what wasn't his to take in the first place?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)Why should I have to sell MY property to replace MY PROPERTY that has been stolen by some idiot? Why don't you sell some of YOUR shit to replace my stuff that has been stolen since you feel it's OK for some scumbag to steal my stuff?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Again, it's different if the "idiot" directly threatens you, like trying to enter your house.
But, shoot em if you need to.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)like guns and cameras, one would have to be desperate and starving to be checking out my car port.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 14, 2011, 01:30 AM - Edit history (1)
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)You are a city slicker aren't you? There's a field full of winter wheat. He wants bread, where do you think it comes from?
You're still upset someone would confront looters. So , after a disaster, do you think it's ok to go through the pockets of the dead looking for valuables? After all dead people don't have much use for their stuff anymore?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...he can suck up his pride and ASK. Its that simple.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,763 posts)A bit broadly brushed pejorative labeling and suggesting that crime be without recourse; how Chairman Mao of you.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Are you disgustingly suggesting a good Democrat or Liberal has no business having respect for the property of others?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I don't think a good Democrat or liberal would shoot a starving person rummaging around in a carport. Sorry, I don't.
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)Just what you keep in your carport that might remotely be considered edible? A dog feeder? Garbage? Swill? Mash?
I see you posted a sign already about the "cat" that found all the food you keep in your carport.
HALO141
(911 posts)people simply be allowed to take whatever they want, whenever they want and only the police are empowered to intervene?
Huh.
Guess we'll just have to disagree on that concept.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)What the fuck is your hypothetical starving dude, the Iron Giant?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)To assume that the thief is unarmed could be a fatal error on my part.
NewMoonTherian
(883 posts)And when you're out of guns, you can sell your electronics, and your furniture, and your clothes, until you've got nothing left worth stealing.
And yet, Hoyt, I agree with you. It's a matter of possibly being unable to survive versus definitely ending another person's life. I won't make that call.
Now, that's not to say I wouldn't chase the scumbag down and beat him to a pulp, given the chance. And if he turned on me with a weapon while the beating was in progress, then he could expect to be shot.
Shilka-Gunluvr
(17 posts)Here in Georgia if it's an SYG or Castle Doctrine shooting u can't be arrested if the demise of the person who is shot was done in self defense. So I figure a box of shotgun or rifle shells from the local Wal-Mart at about $5 dollars plus maybe cleaning equipment & chemicals to clean the perps blood up. Looks cheap to me.
digonswine
(1,487 posts)I do not really agree that it is OK--but at least it is SOME excuse.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I would try to stop the theft with non-lethal means, including force. If the theif then attempts to use force to continue the theft, and in doing so endangers my safety or health, I will do my best to stop her/him, up to and including lethal force if required. That is no longer about the theft and is entirely about self-defense.
And before anyone claims that I shouldn't put a thief in that position, I am under no moral or legal obligation to let anyone steal my property. (Insurance generally doesn't get back all your investment.) The thief can ensure their safety at any time... by stopping their criminal actions. The choice is entirely theirs.
digonswine
(1,487 posts)I have worked for 13 yrs in a treatment center for adolescents that could not be counted on to make good decisions. I do not think this is very black and white--mostly gray.
Self-defense-definitely. That is as simple as it gets.
I wonder sometimes---I own guns and will defend my castle(hovel) as is necessary.
I wonder about the moment where the criminal refuses to obey, just because I have the gun.
Would I shoot someone in retreat? Because I commanded it? I am sure I would not.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Not everyone can. The military trains troops well to do that, and even then some wilt. Its much harder for an untrained civilian.
I teach firearms for self defense on the side. Every class there are a some students for whom it is clear that they are not suited for firearms for self defense. I have a friend who is a highly rated skeet shooter. He chooses not to have a handgun since he believes that unless the home invaders are clay discs, he does not think he could shoot them. A rare but honest decision on his part.
Until you are there, it is really impossible to know what you would do. The stresses are tremendous. I have seen well trained people freeze and self declared pacifists do things than made me cringe.
Since you have firearms, the best solution is to practice with them and get some training. It will give you the the control and confidence to make better decisions should the need arise.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)then, I am not worried so much about my property as I am my own safety. At this point, their intent is no longer the issue.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)"In the house" is very different from "in the yard".
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I kind of consider my property an extension of my home especially after midnight. I am not saying that I would not offer asistance but, I am saying that I would be highly suspicous of reasons why someone (male, especially -- sorry, guys) would be on my property especially after midnight.
I think there are laws about after midnight in my state. Not sure about the rest.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Using a set gun (booby trap) to shoot an intruder is illegal and should be. No one is there and nobody is in any danger.
Under "stand your ground" and "Castle Defense" doctrines, there is a presumption in the law that you were at risk and therefore deadly force is allowed. Some decry them as legalized murder, other think it a reasonable solution to the capriciousness previously seen.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)and each case has to be taken on its own individual merits.
SteveW
(754 posts)I don't envision, nor do I advocate shooting someone over "stuff." The law, however, takes the burden off the the victim of crime, and properly puts the burden on the accused.
It can be seen as sloppy surgery, but "castle laws" do place the onus onto those who are breaking the law to prove they were abused or treated badly out of proportion to the crime that was committed. If the coin is spinning on the table, I want it to fall on the side I called: The victim of criminal activity has legal presumption.
hack89
(39,181 posts)If they are in my garage I'll let the cops deal with it. If they are in my house I will assume the worse and shoot.
ileus
(15,396 posts)I'll call the cops and stand at the door with my AR. Maybe I'm a chicken but I don't need to risk my life to save some tools or a vehicle. I have insurance to cover stuff, I have insurance to cover my life, but I'd rather not risk it unless my family is in danger.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)There will be a confrontation. The choice to escalate to lethal force is the thief's choice.
Ultimately, the use lethal force is not about the property; it is about the force the thief chooses to use to continue the set of crimes in progress. Theft of major items like cars usually involve tools. Those tools can be used as weapons, should the thief choose to go that route. The thief always has the choice of actions, some will get him shot (eg, attack), some will not (eg, surrender, flee).
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Defense of property is tempting, but I will not risk human life to accomplish it.
alp227
(33,274 posts)Plus, you paid for the property, and the burglar didn't!
"You never know when a simple burglary may escalate into violent combat."
Exactly. You have no idea what the ultimate intentions are of the person who has broken into your home. Even if he claims he is only there to take things and nothing more, you don't know whether that is true? He could be lying, can you take the chance?
All that being said, I guess if I were faced with a burglary type situation, I'd either try to run the guy off or keep him at bay until police arrive. I honestly cannot say whether I'd shoot or not. (And I hope I never have to.)
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)An independent skilled tradesman, such as a plumber, electrician, carpenter, HVAC repairman, has a work truck with all his tools, which could cost as much as $100,000. He has no fixed worksite, goes from job to job, working from his truck. This truck is his sole means of supporting his family, keeping a roof over their head, clothes on their back, and food on the table.
If this truck is stolen, he can’t work. His family could go hungry, and could even become homeless.
Is it ethical and moral for someone who works hard, pays their taxes, and doesn’t commit crime to become homeless to save the life of a thief?
I say absolutely, unequivocally NO!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)The smart answer is "get both". Insurance is a long term solution that may not help in the short term.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)That is, of course, an utterly erroneous assumption, as anyone who has made an insurance claim can attest.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)When you guys decide how much another's life is worth when your life is not in danger, please let us know. It might help others decide when it's OK to play judge, jury, Jesus and executioner over some STUFF.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I think you've been taking lessons from iverglas....
ileus
(15,396 posts)He has one of the finest collection of firearm I've ever had the pleasure of viewing. He protects his investments with several gun safes, alarm system and CCTV&DVR.
Going into his 4 car garage is amazing...It's like sears only with good tools.
Oh and like you say....insurance...plenty of insurance.
safeinOhio
(37,613 posts)it will cost you much more in time and money, if not freedom, than what the insurance company won't pay. If life is in danger, that is one thing. Playing cop, judge, jury and executioner is another.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)I shoot an unarmed man for stealing my property, and it won't cost me shit except for the cost of the bullet and the cleaning products to get the blood off my floor.
I am under no legal, moral or ethical obligation to confirm the thief is armed before stopping him. None whatsoever. He is taking my stuff, and I am going to stop him. If he gets dead in the process, too bad.
Killing him is not the goal - stopping him is. His death is merely a side effect - unfortunate for him, beneficial to society in general.
digonswine
(1,487 posts)a little too gung-ho for me. That looks like the black and white thinking that makes me not trust others.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)And, it is a problem we need to resolve before another 100 million guns are floating around to make the solution even tougher (which is what some people want, including those who profit off the dang things).
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)It's presumed that a lethal threat or threat of great bodily harm exists if your home or occupied vehicle is broken into - thus satisfying the requirements for the defensive use of lethal force. This is true whether or not the intruder is armed. If it is a case of self-defense then the requirements for lethal force are assumed to be met and the onus is on the STATE to prove to the grand jury otherwise - before you can be indicted & tried for manslaughter or assault.
This is "castle doctrine". It protects people from excessive legal costs and lawsuits arising form self defense situations by placing the burdens of proof on the prosocuting parties.
You're an ohio resident... you should know this.
safeinOhio
(37,613 posts)with tools in it assumes that the owner was not in it at the time it was stolen. The question in the topic was about, would you shoot someone for stealing property, not self-defense.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)In Texas, Deadly Force may be used in Protection of Property. Read the Statues very carefully, it does not say anything about the person who is committing the theft, robbery, burglary, etc being armed.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 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.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Hey, I heard that one on Walker, Texas Ranger this morning. Is that where you got that line?
It was the bad guy saying it, by the way.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)If the property is essential for life, then it's worth shooting someone over. Otherwise it's not worth it. But what property is essential for life? Right now, in this the most wealthy country in the world, not a lot. It's easy for most people to say they won't kill over property. I think most people's opinion will change when oil hits four hundred dollars a barrel and we don't have nearly as much extraneous stuff as we do now.
The most important metric is the cultural context in which self defense with deadly force occurs. And that will change over time and individual circumstance.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)What is difficult is trying to play both sides of the fence.
I can specifically state that the simple fact that you're trying to take my property without permission is reason enough to shoot you. I may choose not to depending upon circumstances but that is my choice and mine alone to make. You made yours the moment you decided to take my property.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,763 posts)Threats, verbal or implied, brandishing of a weapon, forced entry...
"Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one's life, one’s goods or one's physical integrity; sometimes, even 'til the aggressor's death... In fact, this act is aimed at preserving one's life or one's goods and to make the aggressor powerless. Thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim." [There are three conditions under which legitimate self-defense must lie:] "That he who is the target of the force is an... unjust aggressor... That the object of the defence is an important good, such as the life, physical integrity or worthy goods... [and] That defensive violence is proportionate to aggression." [Under these conditions,] "One is also allowed {but not required} to kill other people’s unjust aggressors." Thomas Aquinas, Dizionario ecclesiastico
Aquinas and I agree with you.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)By violating my home, he has already caused me harm.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,763 posts)...forced entry satisfies my test for aggression. However, stealing my Sunday paper from my driveway does not.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)you can be very specific about your own criteria, and you should. But how could you or I be specific about anybody else? Or everybody else? In the context of changing cultural circumstances?
One man's trash is another man's treasure. I don't see any way to legislate that in the present moment, much less write legislation that will be relevant in ten years.
Speaking from a strictly philosophical point of view, killing someone is never a moral act. Killing over property doubly so. But real life rarely allows such an easily defined set of parameters.
Euromutt
(6,506 posts)In addition to the property being "essential for life" (and that will greatly depend on the circumstances) I think we can make a case for using lethal force if the theft of the property is likely to result in threat to human life that is not imminent. As I've remarked before on this forum, when I was doing national service in the Dutch army, our "violence instruction" for guard duty authorized us to shoot at center mass without warning if the subject appeared to be in the process of stealing weapons, ammunition and/or classified materials, on the basis that misuse of such items as a future data could lead to (increased) loss of life.
As you rightly note, whether a particular good is "essential for life" very much depends on the circumstances. The theft of a case of bottled water or a personal supply of insulin is no big thing in normal circumstances, because those items can be readily replaced. In the middle of natural disaster, on the other hand, with pharmacies closed or not being resupplied and utilities disrupted (which means no potable running water), the theft of such items becomes a lot nastier.
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)We used to pull guard on a NATO weapons site. We had shoot to kill orders. Nukes are only stuff, but who do you want to have them? There are depots with stores of chemical agents we can't use and can't get rid of, with guards who will kill anyone tries to steal the stuff.
The use of lethal force to prevent a dangerous felon from escaping with weapons of mass destruction is justified. I would likely add anyone who breaks into military stores and is taking weapons, ammunition, and explosives probably needs stopping as they likely intend to cause real harm.
You really believe they want a case of grenades to go fishing?
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...if you realized that you're not killing in defense of property - you're stopping the theft. If the criminal ends up dead, too bad for him, but it is only a side effect.
A better question is, why should people NOT stop the theft of property? Should we simply let thieves take what they wish with impunity?
digonswine
(1,487 posts)I don't see it.
if you kill to prevent property theft-you have decided that your property is worth more than the perp's life. It really is that simple. Maybe your stuff is just that awesome.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)The thief is. If he doesn't want to take the risk, he needs to find a new job.
Again - KILLING is not the goal. STOPPING is. Killing the fucker is an unfortunate (for him) side effect.
Bonhomme Richard
(9,544 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)You're welcome to that opinion. Feel free to exercise it at will.
My opinion, however, is that it is perfectly OK. After all, the thief decided it was worth the risk of getting shot to try and take my stuff - I'm just letting him know what happens when you're on the losing side of the bet.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)And as far as I know, it doesn't happen that often. People, even in a very proRKBA state like TX, use restraint and moderation in using lethal force to stop property crimes.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Oklahoma allows for the same although the limitations are slightly different.
Yes, we tend to use restraint and moderation, and truthfully, the criminals have learned that yes, they WILL get an acute case of lead poisoning, so they tend to stop when they're told to stop.
jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)myself or others from the threat of death or serious bodily injury. Property? Who cares? It's all temporary anyway.
Bonhomme Richard
(9,544 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)to this question. First you have the individual state laws governing when lethal force is legally acceptable. Second you have the situation itself.
Example 1: If I am sitting on the couch and someone tries to steal my car, it is likely that the theft of the car, if not recovered, will cause me financial hardship as I am unlikely to get enough from my insurance company to get something equivalent. However I am going to call the police and let them deal with it, as the car thief is not in position to present a threat to me.
Example 2: I am at home and someone breaks in to steal my flat screen TV. I don't care about the flat screen TV, however by breaking into my home while I am present, he now presents a danger to me. So if it becomes necessary to shoot him, I am shooting him because of the threat he presents to me, not because he is trying to steal my TV. (I'll note, since it is relevant, that given the layout of my home, the only feasible exit would be the same entrance the criminal used to break in, if I was inclined to flee my home and if I was even to able to out run an attacker)
There are lots of variables on when legally you CAN shoot and whether you SHOULD shoot. Far more then will ever be correctly covered on a discussion board such as this.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Try to take my stuff, and I'm going to try to stop you. If you end up dead, that's your problem. Simple as that.
There is no reason to make the situation any more complicated. If you don't want to get shot while stealing, the solution is DON'T FUCKING STEAL.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Doesn't get any simpler.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)I really don't understand why so many people try to read so much more into it.
It really IS simple. If it isnt yours - keep your booger hooks off of it
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)based on all the variables involved.
CT does not currently have Castle Doctrine, so even if I shoot someone justifiably, I can expect a Grand Jury, probably a civil suit and maybe a criminal trial. Even if I win both trials, I've just spent a LOT of money on one or more lawyers. I chose to plan for worst case based in part how CT is and based in part that while I think I am capable of doing so, I have no wish to shoot someone, so losing a TV or a used, older car to theft is well worth it to ME.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Here in Texas, we have not just legal immunity but civil immunity.
digonswine
(1,487 posts)and not "can legally" shoot. I agree about the unknown variables.
SteveW
(754 posts)The points made upstream by some have dealt with the law's purpose; that is, to give presumptive justification to the victim using deadly force when a property crime is committed. I don't think the law gets one of the hook for just any kind of shooting, but it can be subject to abuse. But the greater abuse is to systematically put the victim through the legal grinder while the state tries to figure out if a criminal was miss-treated. That grinder should be the criminal's burden since the criminal initiated the whole ordeal.
Castle laws are not perfect, they just shift the burden onto the criminal.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Premise appears generally flawed in that the victim will have zero idea if the intruder that breaks and enter into his house/business is there for him or there for his property.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)And in most places, breaking into an occupied home by someone other than the owner/resident is considered an attack.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine any "duty" we have are merely the ones we set for ourselves...
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)In states without castle doctrine or stand-your-ground laws there is a legal duty to retreat before lethal force may be used. In other words, if you are assaulted and defended yourself with lethal force the jury had better determine that you could not have escaped or reasonably evaded the intruder somehow (ie: you were cornered. .
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)it makes me wonder what everyone's ETA is for 911 in their areas. Mine can be as long as 20 minutes depending on where they are in the county and what they are doing at the time of the call.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I never even got the reporting forms in the mail that they claimed would be sent.
But when my truck was broken into in a bar parking lot and my hand-gun stolen, they got there in 3 minutes.
Huh.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)of course, I can understand not wanting a gun to get into the wrong hands.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I think that's a good thing, by the way.
Sadly, it has not been recovered. I hope it is never used in a crime.
For the record, I was following the law/owners' preference of not carrying into a posted bar. Gun was in a locked case cabled to the seat frame, tucked under the rear of the seat, not visible through windows, doors locked. Apparently not good enough. I no longer leave firearms in my vehicles, locked or not. That is all.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Ba-da-bumpf!
ileus
(15,396 posts)? 
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)And if you think i give a damn what the laws are when it comes to defending my child, think again.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)or at least paycheck to paycheck.
I was once one of them. For them (us), having their wallet or cash stolen can mean no food for themselves or family. For them it may mean not being able to pay the rent and being evicted (under some leases its possible). For some having a coat stolen means walking in the cold.
For many of these people it is unreasonable to say "well they should have premium replacement insurance" because such insurance is not in the budget.
And this issue is not about guns, per se, it is about using lethal force which could be done with a bat, knife, or even bare hands.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I believe in having the right to use deadly force to defend property.
Here's why:
Firstly, and most importantly, when you encounter someone in the act of burglary you have no idea what their intentions are. If you find someone in your home, you should assume the worst - that you and your family are in imminent danger. When you discover an intruder that is not the time to play 20 questions with the criminal to try and decide if they are just there for your television or if they also mean to kill people.
But even with the issue of safety aside, the fact of the matter is my property is valuable. It cost me money, and thus by extension, part of my lifetime, to acquire it. My lifetime is precious to me. It is priceless. It is time I will never be able to replace. So when you steal property from me, you are essentially stealing a portion of my life from me.
Then, of course, there is the fact that theft of property can have life-destroying consequences for the victim. If you steal a man's means to provide for himself and his family, you might put him and his family into destitution.
But mostly for me it is principle.
My things are mine. Anyone who would steal from me is showing a complete lack of disregard for me and my family. They have absolutely zero regard for the effort required to obtain the property, nor the emotional and financial strain the theft may put on me and my family. Their victims are entirely inconsequential to them. People who would do this are worthless to me.
Nor do I buy the argument that "no one's life is worth a television", or whatever other piece of property you might name.
It should be common knowledge that thievery can get you shot dead. So if a criminal decides to undertake thievery in spite of that knowledge, then it is a given that the thief has made the decision that his life is worth whatever property he is aiming to steal. If a thief wants to risk his life over my television, then it is he who has set the value of his life equal to my television.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)What about instead of shooting him just hold him down and cut off his hand? That's what they do in much less civilized countries.
Your property, whatever it is, required a given portion of your life to acquire. It is excessively punitive to demand the entirety of someone else's life in compensation. And actually, compensation isn't the right word to use either because you aren't compensated for anything except for the violation of your principles. You actually gain nothing meaningful by killing him. You won't get to live any longer by ending his life. You won't get more or better property. All you get is the satisfaction of knowing that your principles are intact. You are, in effect, enforcing a solipsistic set of ideals with deadly force. Which is about the most selfish reason for killing someone I can think of.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)The law will likely say that if I was able to control him sufficiently to do that that I nor my property was in any danger.
Someone else said it best:
If you try to steal my stuff, I will try to stop you. If you happen to die in the process, that's too bad.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)between trying to stop someone from stealing your stuff and declaring that their life is forfeit if they try. The effort to stop them gives them the opportunity to retire unharmed. The offer to escalate a confrontation that could require deadly force becomes a contest regarding the respective value of the property to the thief and the owner. That evaluation is dependent of exigent economic and cultural circumstances including what may or may not be legal, which relies on the same factors.
A life is not worth property. Moving the confrontation from a life for property to a life for a life is an entirely different issue.
edit for spelling.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Then my advice to people living in states where the use of deadly force to defend property is legal is to not steal things.
The effort to stop them gives them the opportunity to retire unharmed. The offer to escalate a confrontation that could require deadly force becomes a contest regarding the respective value of the property to the thief and the owner. That evaluation is dependent of exigent economic and cultural circumstances including what may or may not be legal, which relies on the same factors.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Anyway the original point still stands. If you try to steal my stuff, I will try to stop you. If you happen to die in the process, that's your problem. I might not shoot you if I feel it's not necessary, but I might if I do feel it is necessary.
A life is not worth property.
If you don't think your life is worth property, then don't try and steal my property and you'll be all good.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Please. You know better than that.
Then my advice to people living in states where the use of deadly force to defend property is legal is to not steal things.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, moral, or advisable. Do I really need to list all the things that have been legal but wrong?
Trying to stop someone from stealing your stuff changes the nature of the confrontation. It then becomes a matter of who is most willing to fight for the stuff, a criteria that is established by cultural and economic factors. The same factors that determine the nature of the law.
If you need the stuff so badly because you will die without it and you are willing to fight to the death for it, and the other guy feels the same way, somebody will likely die. A willingness to fight to the death for virtually anything one owns regardless of its survival value reveals a sort of materialism that is generally frowned upon in any enlightened society. A willingness to kill someone for merely attempting to steal your stuff shows greater respect for one's own ego than another human life.
I just listed three offenses against you in the above paragraph. An offense against your chances of survival. An offense against your property. And an offense against your pride. Only the first is worth taking a life over.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)If someone takes the personal responsibility for their life by risking it to steal, then all of the responsibility, moral or otherwise, rests with that individual.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, moral, or advisable. Do I really need to list all the things that have been legal but wrong?
It is quite right and moral to kill people for property. In many states this has been codified in law, and I'm glad for the people who live in such places.
Trying to stop someone from stealing your stuff changes the nature of the confrontation. It then becomes a matter of who is most willing to fight for the stuff, a criteria that is established by cultural and economic factors. The same factors that determine the nature of the law.
I agree. I'm willing to fight for my stuff, using a gun.
If you need the stuff so badly because you will die without it and you are willing to fight to the death for it, and the other guy feels the same way, somebody will likely die.
Yes, it is true that people defending their property risk death. Doing the right thing, especially at personal risk, is the very essence of being a hero.
A willingness to fight to the death for virtually anything one owns regardless of its survival value reveals a sort of materialism that is generally frowned upon in any enlightened society.
Simple solution: Don't try to steal the stuff of materialistic people. If you decide to try your luck, you takes your chances.
A willingness to kill someone for merely attempting to steal your stuff shows greater respect for one's own ego than another human life.
I have zero respect for the life of someone who wants to steal from me.
I just listed three offenses against you in the above paragraph. An offense against your chances of survival. An offense against your property. And an offense against your pride. Only the first is worth taking a life over.
Fortunately, in more and more places this is changing in the eyes of the law.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)I cannot imagine a situation which has any great probability under which I would steal something. If it were the sole option I had (as in I tried buying, begging, selling myself into slavery in exchange) and there was no other possible option, I might consider it - but I would do so knowing full well the risks.
Some of us have morals and respect our fellow man and his property.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)All of the arguments for the keeping and bearing of arms support the armed response of the populace to the outrages of an oppressive government or any other entity.
The periodic labor and racial struggles throughout American history are littered with armed violence against a ruling oligarchy that had commandeered a disproportionate share of national wealth. Wealth that had to be redistributed after violent struggle. Remember the battle of Blair Mountain?
It is incredibly myopic to confine the concept of defense of property with deadly force to some sort of bourgeois suburban homeowner context. Read a newspaper sometime. We have the income disparity of a third world country. That imbalance is worse than it was in the Gilded Age. There are people in the streets right now.
Now, unless you are a member of the 1% (and if that's the case fuck you) your ownership of anything is in danger. Don't assume for one minute you won't be in a position of having to steal, or even kill, to eat. The exercise of considering that possibility for yourself or others is called a Theory of Mind. In other words, putting the shoe on the other foot. The ideology that you express is not much more than that capable of an average ten year old.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)If I were married.
None of us knows what the future may hold. To set the value of a life at the possession of property is to dehumanize not only others but ourselves. Property can change hands. Lives do not. You or I may easily find that we have no property to defend at all and we will be the ones stealing.
If you can imagine someone stealing from a homeowner and getting shot for it, it's not hard to imagine that same homeowner stealing from a wealthier homeowner or a corporation and getting shot for it. It's easy to imagine because it's happened.
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma
http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
ileus
(15,396 posts)Besides it's not murder if it's defense of someone being attacked.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)A criminal chooses to steal my stuff. That's the original crime. Do TRY to keep that in mind.
At that point, the criminal is deciding he is willing to risk his life and freedom in exchange for my property. You following along here?
By assuming that risk, he is accepting the consequences if he does not obtain my property and escape. We still clear?
Because of his actions, the criminal has placed me in a position of either letting him take my property or keeping him from taking my property. Again - this is the criminal's choice.
If I make the choice to stop him, that choice is reactive not proactive. I did not seek out the criminal - he came to me. I'm being forced to react.
Once I choose to stop him, the criminal may or may not end up dead, but at the end of the day, it was the criminal's choice to start the whole process.
At every point in this process, the criminal has made or forced every single choice. The sole choice I as the victim can make is to choose to be a victim or not.
By the way - i consider the use of lethal force to protect myself or my property to be the legal, moral and ethical choice. It is absolutely legal, certainly moral within the Judeo-Christian standard of morals and absolutely ethical.
Seems to me, you're advocating for the criminal and suggesting people have an obligation to be victimized.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)That would be the stuff acquired by a citizen of the greatest empire the world has ever seen. An empire that has perpetrated human rights abuses, political mechanizations, extra legal killings and extraditions, and unnecessary wars resulting in the destruction of entire cultures and millions of lives. That's how you got that stuff. I wouldn't brag if I were you.
At that point, the criminal is deciding he is willing to risk his life and freedom in exchange for my property. You following along here?
The criminal is making that decision for a given set of reasons. Those reasons may or may not be valid, nevertheless they are being made by a human being. Stopping to inquire as to the nature of those decisions is called a Theory of Mind. Most adults with an understanding of morality beyond that of a ten year old are capable of that.
By assuming that risk, he is accepting the consequences if he does not obtain my property and escape. We still clear?
The default position that you are willing to escalate the theft of any portion of your property to that of a life and death struggle is a morally bankrupt and hopelessly blinkered view of both the way people should behave and the way they have actually lived their lives throughout history.
Because of his actions, the criminal has placed me in a position of either letting him take my property or keeping him from taking my property. Again - this is the criminal's choice.
The criminal is forcing you to measure the value of your property against his life. The fact that you are perfectly willing to value your property above a human live reveals a, well, truncated level of moral development. "Look what you made me do" ain't much of an excuse for killing someone over a TV.
If I make the choice to stop him, that choice is reactive not proactive. I did not seek out the criminal - he came to me. I'm being forced to react.
The decision to react the way you do is proactive, as is the default position to shoot anyone over property.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proactive
pro·ac·tive
   [proh-ak-tiv] Show IPA
adjective
serving to prepare for, intervene in, or control an expected occurrence or situation, especially a negative or difficult one; anticipatory: proactive measures against crime.
Once I choose to stop him, the criminal may or may not end up dead, but at the end of the day, it was the criminal's choice to start the whole process.
Or you may end up dead. Over a TV. Unless you're Chuck Norris. This "process" is one of your design and your inflexibility regarding its execution reveals a rigidity not in keeping with one who might consider themselves a productive member of society or in full possession of their full emotional faculties.
At every point in this process, the criminal has made or forced every single choice. The sole choice I as the victim can make is to choose to be a victim or not.
If he elects to do that after you have demanded he stop whatever it is he is doing an escalates the confrontation to a contest of a life for life rather than a contest of a life for property, you are justified in shooting him. But you have to go through the steps, all of which may take only two or three seconds. If your default position is to shoot anyone stealing, you will fight like you train and you have removed any sense of human decency or morality from you response.
By the way - i consider the use of lethal force to protect myself or my property to be the legal, moral and ethical choice. It is absolutely legal, certainly moral within the Judeo-Christian standard of morals and absolutely ethical.
You are wrong. That Judeo-Christian standard of morals has been used to perpetrate some of the greatest outrages against humanity in history. If you want to argue the morality of killing someone over property I suggest you go read a book so I don't have to walk you through Philosophy 101.
Seems to me, you're advocating for the criminal and suggesting people have an obligation to be victimized.
Wrong again. I'm advocating for compassion, justice, and civilized behavior, ideals that are not always possible, but for which we should always strive.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Excuse me? You're suggesting that because I am a citizen of the United States, and I have worked for everything I own, I do not deserve it because of the actions of the government? Many of which occurred before I was even BORN?
Um yeah - ok...
The criminal is making that decision for a given set of reasons. Those reasons may or may not be valid, nevertheless they are being made by a human being. Stopping to inquire as to the nature of those decisions is called a Theory of Mind. Most adults with an understanding of morality beyond that of a ten year old are capable of that.
His reasons do not ultimately matter. My stuff is my stuff. Period. I may consider his reasons after the fact, but at the moment, I'm only concerned with the fact that he does not respect me or my property.
Just because a 10 year old understands it does not make it wrong. 2 year olds understand the concept of personal property, and by 4 tend to have figured out (regardless of the semi-humorous "toddler rules of ownership"
that if it is not theirs, they need to keep their booger hooks off of it. Apparently you have an issue with this concept and seem to believe that "I want" is a good enough reason to take it - that is the mentality of a 2 year old my friend - not an adult with a supposed understanding of morality.
The default position that you are willing to escalate the theft of any portion of your property to that of a life and death struggle is a morally bankrupt and hopelessly blinkered view of both the way people should behave and the way they have actually lived their lives throughout history.
By preventing the theft, I escalate nothing. There is nothing morally bankrupt with wishing to keep my property. If the criminal insists upon pushing the issue and gets himself killed, HE has escalated it.
The criminal is forcing you to measure the value of your property against his life. The fact that you are perfectly willing to value your property above a human live reveals a, well, truncated level of moral development. "Look what you made me do" ain't much of an excuse for killing someone over a TV.
On the one hand, you're saying "Look what you made me do" isnt an excuse, and in the prior breath you're blaming the victim for having his property stolen?
It certainly appears your moral development is well beyond your capacity for comprehension my friend.
Again - I am not claiming he is making me do it. I am stating the criminal is choosing to commit the crime and accepts the risk. You are suggesting that once the criminal makes the choice to commit the crime he should be permitted to do so without fear of retribution. Why have personal property at all, in such a case?
The decision to react the way you do is proactive, as is the default position to shoot anyone over property.
No, the decision to be prepared is proactive. Being forced to protect my property is reactive.
Or you may end up dead. Over a TV. Unless you're Chuck Norris. This "process" is one of your design and your inflexibility regarding its execution reveals a rigidity not in keeping with one who might consider themselves a productive member of society or in full possession of their full emotional faculties.
Yes, I may end up dead - and that is my choice to make. You see, I also have the choice to decide if the property is worth defending. If i've left it outside (other than a car for example) I may decide it isnt worth protecting. A TV on the other hand, is in my home. Pretty sure I don't really care WHY you are in my house without permission at that point. Violating my home is recognized as an overtly violent act in every state in the nation.
You also have no idea of the "process" i may implement. You are choosing instead to assume a process of your own manufacture.
If he elects to do that after you have demanded he stop whatever it is he is doing an escalates the confrontation to a contest of a life for life rather than a contest of a life for property, you are justified in shooting him. But you have to go through the steps, all of which may take only two or three seconds. If your default position is to shoot anyone stealing, you will fight like you train and you have removed any sense of human decency or morality from you response.
No shit. Really? As repeatedly stated, the intent is to STOP him. The decision to use lethal force depends upon a variety of factors. Further, as repeatedly stated, lethal force should only be employed as a final resort. Few criminals are stupid enough, upon looking down the barrel of a 12ga for example, and being told to stop, to continue their actions. If he's that stupid, well, I'm doing the gene pool a favor.
You are wrong. That Judeo-Christian standard of morals has been used to perpetrate some of the greatest outrages against humanity in history. If you want to argue the morality of killing someone over property I suggest you go read a book so I don't have to walk you through Philosophy 101.
Claiming Judeo-Christian morals have been misused in history somehow makes the morals themselves wrong is, well, bluntly put, stupid. From a moral perspective, protecting my property does not violate anything in the Judeo-Christian ethic. It isnt philosophy but theology. I'll be happy to walk you through that if you like. I enjoy educating the ignorant.
Oh yeah - it IS legal regardless of your opinion on the matter. So, your statement that I am somehow wrong in believing I am morally, legally and ethically in the right is itself wrong. This is not opinion - this is fact.
Wrong again. I'm advocating for compassion, justice, and civilized behavior, ideals that are not always possible, but for which we should always strive.
So you advocate for compassion by having none for the victim. Justice by expecting the victim to receive none. You consider penalty-free theft to be civilized.
Wow - just wow....
You are welcome to strive for it all you wish. I, however, will recognize the world in which we actually live and prepare and react accordingly.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)regarding demanding the thief stop their thieving or suffer the consequences.
Explain the difference between the contest of a life for property and a life for a life.
Clearly define what goods are worth the sacrifice of a life and what are not.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)I am not the one who decides the goods are worth the thief's life. The thief does.
If it is my stuff and I choose to stop him, I'll try to stop him. If he gets shot and dies? Oh well - tough shit for him. Guess he should have chosen a different line of work.
Ultimately the OP is flawed. The thief is not being killed for theft. He is being stopped from committing the crime. Sadly for the thief, getting shot is frequently fatal. Killing him is NOT the goal or intent though.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> i consider the use of lethal force to protect myself or my property to be the legal, moral and ethical choice. It is absolutely legal, certainly moral within the Judeo-Christian standard of morals and absolutely ethical.
Yes! I love the way the Bible points this out. From the Gospel of Matthew:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, shoot him with an AK-47.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, shoot him with an AK-47.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, shoot him with an AK-47.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee, shoot him with an AK-47.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)then dont steal. Is that really so difficult to understand?
Once you make the choice to steal, you are deciding to break the social contract that says you will respect my rights and I will respect yours. Upon breaking that contract, you are choosing to reap the rewards and accept the risks that go with it. The potential reward is stuff you didnt pay for. The risk is that the rightful owner of the property may choose to stop you rather forcefully.
Never bet more than you can afford to lose. If you're betting your life - be prepared to have the marker called in.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)digonswine
(1,487 posts)unfortunately, many have not read or understand the contract. The contract seems to have been drawn up by those who would kill for property. I can actually think of a(very) few reasons why a person might steal that is not necessarily ethically wrong.
I really do not understand how rational thinking people can say "It is legal here-so watch out." or "I paid my good money for it, so watch out"--thisTHIS-is why I have distrust for those militant types who defend gun-users almost to the point of absurdity.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I think Libertarian ideology drives a fair bit of that attitude rather than firearms ownership. It's just that the guns are used to enforce the ideology in the real world.
The use of deadly force to defend property most favors the owners of the most property. They have more to defend, thus, they have more reasons to use deadly force to defend it. Morality gets moved up the economic food chain right along with the wealth.
SteveW
(754 posts)Anyone should be on notice when a law (whether we like it or not) gives presumptive advantage to a citizen when he/she is victim of even a property crime. As I and others have said, laws which do this are not perfect, but they put the onus of injustice upon the criminal, and the law does not prevent the state from going after someone using deadly force way out of proportion and in violation of the law.
I'm not sure of your point about "distrust for those militant types who defend gun-users almost to the point of absurdity." I don't distrust people in Texas for carrying firearms (and I'm sure there are a few shit-heads out there with guns). The reason is because I know the law, and I am of the upbringing which places a taboo on stealing, robbing, trespass and certainly home-invasion.
You disagree with a few folks on this issue, but this is a varied group. While I agree that one should not shoot someone for stealing common goods, I do support "shall issue" concealed-carry laws (and in lieu of that "open carry" laws). And I don't support many of the niggling scab-picking which goes along with gun-control: Registration, waiting periods, number of guns purchased, types purchased, "cop-killer" bullet bans, bans based on "looks," etc. And most 2A-defenders think along these lines, and do not consider themselves militant types. Respectfully, you shouldn't either.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)If you don't want to die over a TV, then don't own one.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)....you're seriously suggesting that I should divest myself of property so as not to tempt the thief? Are you insane?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)and that will be the thief's position in the matter. Just like you say that if you don't want to get shot, don't steal, the thief is saying if you don't want it stolen, don't have it around. Someone who steals for a living has a, shall we say, flexible concept of private property.
When the thief goes to work and you defend your property, you guys are just going to have to work it out between you in about three seconds. The issue that you will be settling is who is most willing to die for the stuff - or who is more willing to kill for it. And that metric will depend on the level of desperation each of you has about the need for the stuff and the resulting amount of force each is willing to bring to bear to secure it.
If a thief is willing to kill for the stuff, and the homeowner is willing to kill to keep it, who has the moral high ground here? It's easy to say the homeowner since he or she obviously worked for the money to pay for it. But it's not that simple. Ask yourself these questions: Would I steal to secure medication to keep my wife alive? Would I kill for it? Who would I kill? Those questions are a variation of the Heinz Dilemma(1) based on Kohlbergs stages of moral development(2).
All of these scenarios regarding whether or not to shoot the thief assume the thief is a loser lowlife crook moral deficient. The terms get flung around a lot: thug, goblin, etc. But as current events would show, there is a growing level of serious income disparity in this country, and many who were once upstanding homeowners have been transformed into deadbeats who walk away from mortgages through no fault of their own because the richest 1% turned the housing market into a casino with a rigged roulette wheel. The greatest number of bankruptcies in this country are caused by medical expenses. The cases of big pharma charging exorbitant prices for medications and manipulating patent regulations to maintain profit margins are no secret. Given the rising social and political turmoil in this country, the Heinz dilemma is much less of an abstraction than it might at first seem to be.
It's all well and good to declare what's yours is yours and you are willing to kill to defend it. But what you have may not always be yours, and you may find yourself in the position of having to steal from others who have more than you to survive. Even a cursory glance at American history will tell you that. A morality based on wealth is a poorly founded morality and an unwise way to deal with others around you. Wealth changes hands, lives do not.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Making gun-relgionists read about the deeper implications of their "harmless hobby" will make some heads explode.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)That means using the most efficient tools possible, in the most efficient manner possible.
Many scenarios can play out from there, depending on circumstances.
The question is whether one is defending their property or their life, how one gets from one point to the other, and why. The argument that if someone doesn't want to get shot they shouldn't steal or that one would never kill to defend property assumes a lot of things that may not be there.
It assumes an advantage in force for the defender. It assumes that the thieves won't change tactics to get whatever they think is valuable, be it your TV or potable water. It assumes we will continue to be the wealthy society we are today. All of these factors and more are exigent circumstances that will determine whether or not it is advisable or legal to use deadly force to defend property.
As it stands now, depending on the location, the thief and the homeowner are both making a bet. In a state where it is illegal to defend property with deadly force the thief is betting he can steal and run without getting shot in the back. In a state where the defense of property with deadly force is legal, the homeowner is betting he can bring more force to the confrontation than the thief who will be just as aware of the law. Time will tell which kind of law is the best, and that determination will depend on a host of factors surrounding our overall wealth and access to the necessities of life. These SHTF scenarios are like juggling spaghetti in a tornado.
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)I remember working in Riyadh about 20 years ago and seeing a number of one-handed people. Something I never remembered seeing elsewhere.
I also noticed I never saw anyone with BOTH hands cut off.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)On the other hand, if the thief is taking something that puts another's life in immediate danger, like stealing your water, horse, camel or vehicle in the middle of a desert, then you are defending life.
Obviously, this rule is for individual citizens, not armed guards or military defending sensitive areas.
There are states, like Texas and Oklahoma, that have decided to sanction killing over property. Doesn't make it right, but ultimately, we answer to our own consciences or to a higher power for those who believe in a higher power.
For those who really care, or are heavily invested in portable property, I would suggest they look into more sophisticated tools for protecting that property than firearms. We live in a hi-tech world where excellent tools are available.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)The goal is NOT to kill the thief. Read that over and over until it sinks in.
The goal is to STOP the thief. Read that as many times as needed until you understand it.
If the thief gets dead in the process, that is the thief's fault - not the victim's.
digonswine
(1,487 posts)this still is stuff vs. death.
OK--you stop a thief--you have them at gunpoint. He is unarmed. He runs from the house, after you tell him to not do so. Do you shoot or not?
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)mvccd1000
(1,534 posts)That's such a silly question it hardly bears asking.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Is he running off with my stuff?
If he is, then he gets shot. If he drops my stuff and runs, he leaves unharmed.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Anyone who threatened to destroy it would be threatening to take away a large piece of my life. I would use deadly force to defend it from something like a fire-bomb attack. The purpose of my action would be to stop the attack. If the attacker dies, that's sad but really not my problem.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,763 posts)...something threatens to deprive an individual or a group of something, for which they have worked, paid and sacrificed, they threaten to remove from the individual or group some of their freedom. Without the ability to resist a thief, we are all slaves.
41mag
(31 posts)With any tool at my disposal. I have been burgled too many times in the past. At my age my handgun is an effective equalizer, and whether I am forced to fire it is up to the criminal.
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)as a woman I can't really risk getting into a physical fight with a guy-that would probably end very badly for me; tazers have to be used in close range, so that leaves guns as the best way for a woman to protect herself in a home invasion.
DWC
(911 posts)It is absolutely "OK" to stop people from stealing your property.
If the thief dies as a result of being stopped, that is the risk he inflicted on himself.
Semper Fi,
chrisa
(4,524 posts)It depends on what is being stolen, and what the thief does. If it's someone who stole a bread from a corner store, and is running away - absolutely not. That's murder.
If it's a home invasion, the shooting is totally justified, because you have to assume that murder is the intent.
It's not OK to shoot and kill anything, ever. Sometimes people have to, though, unfortunately.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)..however, it is perfectly OK to shoot and kill animals for food or game management.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)If the theft would affect ones livelyhood and the loss could put that person into poverty or cause hardship then it would be justified. If the thief shows up with any type of weapon, they become fair game for counter force.
The local soup kitchen I work at had a problem with theft and gross vandalism, repeadly. There was theft of food and damage to food that made it unusable. Some bastard even vandalized the compressor on the bulk freezer. Turns out it was a couple of local druggies who didn't even eat their. The police apprehended them by gun and K-9. The problem was that the theft and vandalism went on for six months. The kitchen manager was advised to not take the law into his own hands. Several of the volunteers at the kitchen are also clients, there's also a couple of paid staffers. They run a lean kitchen and the margin for theft-loss is very low.
I would have had little sympathy for the thieves.
Clames
(2,038 posts)"Hey, I'm coming buy to steal some of your stuff sometime between 3 and 4 tomorrow morning. I don't want to get shot so this is just a friendly letter to let you know my intent is just taking stuff and not harming anyone in the process. "
If just ask a LEO friend to post across the street and make the arrest and nobody will take a bullet.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,763 posts)I would have great hesitation over shooting someone taking stuff but not representing a personal danger.
In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas had this to say:
In fact, this act is aimed at preserving one's life or one’s goods and to make the aggressor powerless. Thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim. [There are three conditions under which legitimate self-defense must lie:] That he who is the target of the force is an aggressor and an unjust aggressor... That the object of the defense is an important good, such as the life, physical integrity or worthy goods... [and] That defensive violence is proportionate to aggression.
[Under these conditions,] One is also allowed [not required] to kill other people's unjust aggressor...
digonswine
(1,487 posts)I feel it amounts to the death penalty for stealing my stuff. It would be simply wrong.
By the way-I posted the OP last year and do not want to be part of the gun debate currently trending here.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,763 posts)Have a nice day. 
HALO141
(911 posts)The use of deadly force does not imply the intent to kill. If someone is stealing my property I have the right (and the will) to object and try to prevent that theft. If the would-be thief will not be dissuaded then he will have to peaceably remove my property. If a fight ensues then I will use whatever force is necessary to prevail.
digonswine
(1,487 posts)Anyway--at that time, people(I can't recall whom and will not look) were saying it is OK to defend(kill) for property. It may have had something to do with a story about a couple of dipshits who held an underage girl and guy(I think) at gunpoint when they saw they had a trunk full of toilet paper, presumably to be used to TP a house. Some said it was misguided, but not wrong. Buhwhaa? I can only assume that these fuckwits would have fired had the kids not followed orders.
I agree with you--I would let the thief go and not shoot. It just does not add up otherwise, unless they are taking my last IPA!
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Great post. Something I've wondered about myself but never bothered to put it into words.
I'm looking forward to reading the replies from the gun-relgionists. Should be some world-class twisting, turning, and spinning.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Look at posts #30 & #144. Compare & contrast. Talking Point echoes?
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Check this out!
From post #29:
> A better question is, why should people NOT stop the theft of property? Should we simply let thieves take what they wish with impunity?
The poster's sig line:
> Never be upset when you see your ex with someone else. After all, you should always share your used toys with those less fortunate...
(Besides 
for the misanthropy of the sig line)
digonswine
(1,487 posts)People with that mindset are the ones who should be barred from owning guns-if it was possible.
Yes, the sig line is disgusting.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)The irony.
A sig line that includes "share with others" (even if it was just a horrible "joke" , vs. "I will kill you if you try to take anything"
-------------------------------------
On the subject of sig lines, check out the general trend of the gun-relgionists who have one. There aren't many which are Liberal quotes, quips, etc. Mostly they are war-like or right-wing.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)To be brutally frank, I believe individuals have a natural right to protect their pocket lint with deadly force, if a criminal is willing to attack them for it. I also believe individuals possess a natural right to confront and interrupt thieves, and to use force (with or without a firearm) if they persist.
If a criminal demands anything from my person, I have the right to refuse and counter whatever force they decides to apply in pursuit of my stuff. If a criminal attempts to steal large property like a car or television, I have the right to confront them, stop them, and counter whatever force they decide to apply in pursuit of my stuff. If a criminal breaks into my home, I have the right to confront them, demand that they leave, and counter any force they decide to apply against me. In any of these cases, lethal force must be reserved for cases where there is a credible threat to my safety -- if the thief is running away with my Hogan's Heroes DVDs, I do not have the right to shoot him in the back to get them back. I'll admit that I'm conflicted on that point, but I prefer to err on the side that doesn't involve hot bullets of shotgun to die.
A thief is already known to be a person willing to disregard the law. It is not a safe bet that they value my life at all, let alone above property. It is more important for the innocent to have the right to enforce their absolute safety, even at the cost of another person's life, than for a criminal to enjoy occupational safety.
digonswine
(1,487 posts)my original OP was initiated by an event, maybe in Texas, where a man was shot in the back while stealing something from the shooter. Shot in the back. This does not apply to any of your scenarios.
I agree that you and I should be able to protect belongings. I also agree that a credible threat to one's own or another's safety, AND NOT JUST LOSS OF PROPERTY, is the only time where it would be acceptable to use deadly force. BUT--others with guns disagree and think their TV is worth killing over.
It is important to note--if one is being attacked for their pocket lint, it is not OK to use deadly force BECAUSE of the the lint, but because of the attack. These two things are completely separate.