Use of deadly force to protect property

[former-republican]

Your thoughts on it.

It should be legal in all 50 states.

[creeksneakers2]

1. Life is more valuable than property

[former-republican]

3. I was asking about the law it self not how you personally value all human life

Do you think the states and federal government have your views on life being more valuable than property?

[Pacafishmate]

23. Life is not inherently worth more than property.

[former-republican]

28. I believe the Federal government has proven this

time and time again.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

94. Sounds like a complaint about a philosophy you also seem to be defending.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

95. Kill someone because they dented your car and you'll see what humanity thinks of

abhorrent materialism.

[trouble.smith]

129. it's not about property, not at all. It's about being safe and secure in your own home.

any criminal brazen enough to loot a man's home in front of him should be shot and killed and put on display for all the other criminals to see lest they too think they can pillage and loot indscriminatly and without consequence. Shoot those motherfuckers like the worthless god damned animals that they are.

[Starboard Tack]

139. Ah, such eloquence and clarity of thought.

Maybe, if the native Americans had adopted your ideas, they might have, at least, slowed down the looting and pillaging of this great land by those who desired to "own" it. Yep, there's nothing like that feeling of ownership and property, is there, especially when you've got that bloodlust thing happening.

[trouble.smith]

142. that's the worst argument ever. You fucking fail.

[GreenStormCloud]

131. What if my own life depends upon that property?

A thief who steals my car could cause me to lose my job, and my health insurance, and my home. Loss of job would mean I would not have the money to buy my medications that keep me alive. Yes, I will shoot to keep my car from being stolen.

The TV set I don't really care about. But if someone illegally breaks into my home I don't know his intentions so I will assume the worst and act accordingly.

[hrmjustin]

2. I thought it was legal in all states.

[former-republican]

4. It's not

[AnotherMcIntosh]

101. Really? In what states? And under what circumstances?

[SheilaT]

5. I keep on reading too many stories of people who shoot and kill innocent people, sometimes strangers

sometimes the son or daughter of the idiot defending his home. I'm sorry, but using deadly force willy-nilly isn't a good idea.

[Eleanors38]

15. How (too) many have you seen? People complain

quite often complain about childhood accidental deaths due to guns; yet that death rate is falling, and is below those of drowning & electrocution & other categorized cause rates.

[SheilaT]

34. It happens fairly often.

A fast google search says about 500 children die each year from gun accidents. Lovely that the rate is falling but that's more than one child a day. Each and every day. One or two today. One or two tomorrow. One or two on Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, your birthday.

And if more kids die from other causes, does that make the gun deaths perfectly okay? Not to me.

Drowning deaths are largely preventable, but only a tenth as many people (again, from a fast look on the internet) die in this country each year from drowning than from accidental gunshots.

I'm reminded of the people who think dying from smoking -related causes is perfectly okay, because after all, look at how many people die from drunk-driving accidents. One act of stupidity is not okay just because you don't engage in some other act of stupidity.

[Eleanors38]

39. Respectfully, check the National Safety Council for

data regarding childhood deaths. Firearms rate lowest in the named categories the Council uses, and has been falling faster than the other categories. My hand-held is difficult to operate when it comes to links. Falls, drownings, electrocution all claim more children.

Perhaps the data you see includes homicide or a very liberal notion of "childhood," say 19 yoa?

[GreenStormCloud]

130. You are off by a factor of ten.

The actual number of child deaths due to gun accidents is about 50 per year. That is using the standard definition of a child as a human under the age of puberty. For statistical purposes age 12 is generally used. Gun controllers, seeking a more horrific number for propaganda purposes have been known to use age 24 as the cut-off.

Against that you must balance an unknown number of children saved because the parents were able to defend the family using a gun.

[Eleanors38]

154. You didn't cite sources. I will give one to you...

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_12482.pdf

Go to Figure 1, and you will see a pie chart. It is self-explanatory.

When you use "people" in your contentions, do you mean "children" specifically? What source do you have for this "tenth as many people?"

[Sekhmets Daughter]

152. So what is the acceptable number?

[Berserker]

19. If you use forceful entry

into my home I will suspect you are not there to borrow sugar. This Idiot and his little friend will perform a meet and greet and just take a couple of photos of the nice criminal.

[IMG][/IMG]

[Glaug-Eldare]

6. I see it a bit differently.

Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:55 AM - Edit history (1)

I would rather have deadly force reserved for two cases: When a person's (or another's) life and limb are in imminent danger, or when an observed felony is being committed. Property owners should never be required to comply with a criminal's demands, or punished in any way for refusing to give up their things. If a criminal persists and threatens to use force to get them, deadly force should be an option for the defender. Similarly, a forceful intruder in your home, workplace, vehicle, etc. has already demonstrated that they are a felonious threat, and should be dealt with that way. I've also got no problem with holding an intruder at gunpoint (or knifepoint, or hammerpoint, or knife-handpoint) so he can't flee.

On the other hand, if somebody is just running away with your cellphone, that's an entirely different animal. Be a good witness and leave fleeing suspects to the police.

[former-republican]

7. I think we are pretty much on the same page

What I'm a little confused about is your statement on an observed felony.
Do you mean an observed felony theft ?
Or an observed aggravated felony ?

There are a lot of different felonies.

If a person observes someone stealing their car that is a felony in most cases.

[Glaug-Eldare]

11. If you see them do it, and you know for a fact it's a felony,

I believe you should have the legal option to threaten deadly force to stop them, and use it if they persist. Non-cops are not cops, but they're almost always the first ones on the scene, and should be empowered to stop criminals in the act. After the fact, I believe sworn police should take over. That is, private citizens should not shoot fleeing suspects -- they're not LEOs, and their authority to enforce law should be limited.

I believe this is a matter for the states to decide, though I would like to see a similar policy enacted in every state.

[Starboard Tack]

29. Are you serious?

You think it's OK to shoot shoplifters, unless they are fleeing?
You make an excellent case for outlawing public carry.

[glacierbay]

31. I believe he's talking about personal property

not shoplifting.
My personal belief is that you shouldn't shoot a thief unless they threaten bodily harm.
Here are the Missouri State Statutes for self defense.

Chapter definitions.
563.011. As used in this chapter the following terms shall mean:

(1) "Deadly force", physical force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which he or she knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury;

(2) "Dwelling", any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night;

(3) "Forcible felony", any felony involving the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual, including but not limited to murder, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnapping, assault, and any forcible sexual offense;

(4) "Premises", includes any building, inhabitable structure and any real property;

(5) "Private person", any person other than a law enforcement officer;

(6) "Private property", any real property in this state that is privately owned or leased;

(7) "Remain after unlawfully entering", to remain in or upon premises after unlawfully entering as defined in this section;

(8) "Residence", a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest;

(9) "Unlawfully enter", a person unlawfully enters in or upon premises or private property when he or she enters such premises or private property and is not licensed or privileged to do so. A person who, regardless of his or her purpose, enters in or upon private property or premises that are at the time open to the public does so with license unless he or she defies a lawful order not to enter, personally communicated to him or her by the owner of such premises or by another authorized person. A license to enter in a building that is only partly open to the public is not a license to enter in that part of the building that is not open to the public.

[Starboard Tack]

32. Hope you are right. Imminent life threatening danger is the key.

I've seen others post here supporting the use of deadly force against those who would steal or damage property. Hell, we have one member who thinks it's OK for citizens to hold teenagers at gunpoint if he suspects they have toilet paper in their car for the purpose of TPing someone's house.
Some think it's OK to shoot people who try to steal tools, because it threatens their livelihood. Others have said they would shoot window breakers.

[oneshooter]

37. since you are apparently independently wealthy, you can let someone steal your tools.

As for me, my tools are my livelihood, the way I make the money to feed and clothe my family. Yes I am insured, but if I lose the use of my tools for a week I will lose any work that I have schedules. Customers will go looking for someone who is"more reliable" to meet the schedule.

If you want to support my family while the insurance company dicks around for a couple of weeks, or months, then I will consider letting them be stolen.

Till then, they have placed their general health in serious jeopardy.

[Starboard Tack]

43. Not wealthy. On the contrary. Not financially, anyway.

I also depend on tools to make my living. Most humans do, whether those tools be microscopes, table saws or computers. And I have had tools stolen in the past. Tools I used to make a living. Didn't please me, but didn't make me want to hurt anyone, let alone shoot them. We get over shit like that, learn from it and move on, at least I do. Try it, it's quite a rewarding growth experience.
You can take responsibility for your life and the welfare of your family without resorting to killing people over tools, even if you depend on them to make a living. Lives are not replaceable, it's really that simple. You seem to take a way too dramatic an approach to life, my friend.

[oneshooter]

45. So you believe that I should just give my tools to the goblins that want them?

And let my family suffer just to protect those who would steal from me?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

48. You don't have to kill someone to stop them taking your tools.

[Starboard Tack]

57. No, not unless you feel like giving them.

Why can't you stand up for yourself without feeling the need to shoot people? Who's suggesting you protect those who steal from you? If you don't want to lose your shit, then take better care of it. You might want to consider being prepared by having extra tools or extra security or getting insurance if you're so worried. Tools tend to wear out anyway and need to be replaced every so often. What do you do when that happens, shoot yourself?
Such drama? Think about how your family will suffer if you go down for killing your "goblins".

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

93. "What do you do when that happens, shoot yourself?" Funny comment on a not at all amusing topic.

[Starboard Tack]

111. Ah, there's a funny side to most things in life. Too many take it all way too seriously.

This obsession with possessions is the American Dream gone awry.

[MrDiaz]

52. if everyone

thought like you crime would be going up, but it is going down every year because people put up are able to defend themselves and their families from criminals thinking they can do what they want when they want. If you just allow a criminals to take something from you it will give them confidence and a sense of arrogance, that they can't be stopped and it would give them every reason to continue their ways! By not defending your self against these people you make the problem worse.

[Starboard Tack]

58. What a crock. Where did I say not to defend against would be thieves?

I'm talking about not killing people over stuff. Most people do agree with me on that. Those that don't are the problem. There are many ways to protect your precious possessions without resorting to homicide. We all do it every day.

[glacierbay]

61. I know that you've never said

that. You've been pretty fair about this subject.

[Starboard Tack]

64. Thank you.

Always good to see a little respect around here.

[MrDiaz]

62. I never said

that you did, and I never said that you should kill people solely for running away with your possessions, but if you catch someone in your home in the process of criminal activity you should have the right to defend yourself by way of a firearm, you don't have to fire...that is for extreme circumstances only, but the mere presence of a firearm lets the criminal know that you are armed and he would either flee, or you can hold him until the police arrive.

[Starboard Tack]

65. And I have no problem with any of that.

All I'm saying is you should not shoot anyone unless you genuinely fear for your life, or for the lives of others, not because you may lose some material possessions. This is not a complicated concept, but not all agree.

[Jenoch]

118. I agree with you on this subject.

However, if I'm in my home and a thief is standing there with my laptop in one hand and a gun in the other and I have a gun, the theif is either going to drop his weapon or get shot by me. I will not trust the thief that he will not harm me or my family.

[Starboard Tack]

123. Good. And I would do the same, so there is no "however" applicable here.

That situation would have nothing to do with the laptop, which is a red herring.

[oldbanjo]

104. I agree with you.

[Atypical Liberal]

71. Taking away property is taking away life.

I've seen others post here supporting the use of deadly force against those who would steal or damage property.

Here in Alabama, by law I can use deadly force to stop burglary or robbery, and I am glad for it.

Everything I own represents a portion of my life that I traded to acquire it. When you steal it, you are stealing a portion of my life. Yes, I have insurance, but it has a deductible, which again represents more of my life that I will have to expend to cover the replacement of the property, assuming it is replaceable.

But, as I have always maintained, it is not I who sets the value of a criminal's life at the value of my property, anyway - the criminal does. If a criminal decides that his life is worth my television set, who am I to argue with him?

Hell, we have one member who thinks it's OK for citizens to hold teenagers at gunpoint if he suspects they have toilet paper in their car for the purpose of TPing someone's house.

Yes, I am still completely fine with using firearms to stop and hold vandals for the police.

[Starboard Tack]

76. Good luck. Wouldn't want you to lose that deductible.

[Atypical Liberal]

107. Thanks. It represents about a week and a half of my life.

How much is a week and a half of your life worth to you?

[Starboard Tack]

115. " It represents about a week and a half of my life"

How do you know that? Do you have a due date or something?

[Glaug-Eldare]

121. I think he means that the deductible's cost

required a week and a half of labor. If he had to pay it for a thief, he might as well have that much time shaved off the end of his life. By the thief, I suppose.

[Starboard Tack]

122. I guess he doesn't like his job.

I can't imagine what that must be like. What a fucked up world some people create for themselves.

[Atypical Liberal]

137. It's OK.

My job is OK. I probably like it better than most people. Most people probably end up like my mother as a secretary. They don't really like their jobs but you take what you can get that puts food on the table.

[Atypical Liberal]

134. I'm figuring the time it takes me to pay for a $1000 deductible.

How do you know that?

I'm just estimating how long I'd have to work to pay the deductible.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

96. If you're the one killing someone for taking a tv, you're the one putting that

value--a human life--on a tv.

[Atypical Liberal]

106. Nope. If you choose to risk your life for a TV, you've made that choice for yourself.

Everyone should be aware of the laws where they live.

In Alabama you can use deadly force to stop robbery and burglary.

Anyone in Alabama who chooses to try their hand at robbery or burglary is thus risking their life to steal whatever property it is they are after.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

148. I was addressing this specific part of your post:

But, as I have always maintained, it is not I who sets the value of a criminal's life at the value of my property, anyway - the criminal does. If a criminal decides that his life is worth my television set, who am I to argue with him?

Even when someone has chosen to steal some thing of yours in a state where you are allowed to shoot, you do not have to shoot.

At that point, if you choose to kill someone who takes some item from you, you are valuing that item the same as a human life.

[Atypical Liberal]

155. Any would-be thief should assume that choice is the worst-case for them.

Even when someone has chosen to steal some thing of yours in a state where you are allowed to shoot, you do not have to shoot.

At that point, if you choose to kill someone who takes some item from you, you are valuing that item the same as a human life.

I'm assuming that the thief is fully aware of the risk of losing his life for stealing property. So I'm assuming the thief is OK with that valuation. So if I make the decision to shoot him, I'm assuming that the value determination of the thief's life has already been made.

[GreenStormCloud]

132. Read his post # 6.

From that post: "Property owners should never be required to comply with a criminal's demands, or punished in any way for refusing to give up their things. If a criminal persists and threatens to use force to get them, deadly force should be an option for the defender."

I believe that explains his position very well.

[Starboard Tack]

140. I have no argument with that. It is also my position.

When faced with life threatening circumstances, one always has the option of using whatever they have available. If I choose an option where I end up killing or injuring someone, then I also would have no problem answering to that in a court of law, if need be.

[sir pball]

150. That's my position.

Held CCWs and used them in every state I've lived in where I can get one (FU, NY). I hunt with an "assault weapon". Need my toes to count my weapons.

And I will eat the deductible or the loss of my tools or TV or laptop if the thief had turned tail and was running away. Might cover them, in case they decided to turn around and offer a parting shot, but no, I'm not shooting somebody in the back if it isn't legal. If I were to call myself a warrior, I would at least call myself an honorable one.

[Glaug-Eldare]

36. No.

Unarmed petty theft generally isn't a felony, and no, I don't think it's okay to just open fire willy-nilly on somebody stealing a DVD. Use of force has got to be justified, and that force should not be applied without warning, unless there's imminent danger to life and limb.

For instance, a DVD thief can be confronted, restrained, and have police called on him, but there's no excuse for a private citizen shooting him down. A kid showing a fraudulent ID can be confronted and restrained, but there's no sane argument for crushing his skull on the sidewalk.

On the other hand, if somebody's kidnapping a child, I believe bystanders should have the power to confront and stop them, even if they wind up having to brain them with a fire extinguisher to protect the kid. If somebody's about to set a house on fire, I should be able to stop them, even if it means I have to cut his head off with my broadsword and absorb his Quickening.

I'm sure there's a better way to write the rule, but I believe it should be substantially as I described. Many felonies are heinous and harmful enough that they should be stopped by anybody present, with whatever means they have. Anybody using deadly force under that rule had better be damn sure they know what they're doing, and I am all in favor of nailing aggressive vigilantes to the wall.

[Starboard Tack]

38. Good. Glad we got that straightened out.

Felony is a tricky word. We have 3 strikers in California serving LWP for stealing a slice of pizza.

[tortoise1956]

41. Depends on the pizza...

Some slices I'd rather give away - but that might be construed as an attempted poisoning...

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Well, the replacement cost of my phone is more than 500$, so

someone running off with it would be a felony. Not a violent one perhaps, but still a high enough dollar value to be a felony.

[Glaug-Eldare]

12. I'd support your right to fight back

if he attempted to take it by force, but after the deed is done, I think it should be a job for LEOs.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

14. Well then I support changing the definition of a felony. The monetary value threshold should be

something related to the financial well-being (for lack of a better term or determinant) of the owner of the property in question. Why should the theft of one person's phone be more important than the theft of another person's phone just because one person can afford a more expensive phone than the other person can afford?

[AtheistCrusader]

47. I think it's difficult to come up with a property asessment

as someone is running away with it.

I'm ok with theft, robbery, and burglary remaining a high-risk venture.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

49. Almost entirely beside the point of my post.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. It proposed using a different scale for determining felony status.

Which solves absolutely none of the problems the current scale has.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

97. Well, you talked about the difficulty of assessing value of something that someone is running away

with. The item existed and had an identifiable valued before it was taken, so there is no need to "come up with a property asessment as someone is running away with it."

And, again, that was beside the point of my post, which was to mention a particular problem related to the scale, not to offer solutions for other problems associated with the current scale.

My suggestion of an approach to solving that problem was more of an attempt to identify the problem then a an one to lobby for that particular solution, which was a little less obvious, and so more easily missed.

[Starboard Tack]

66. Are you saying you support shooting thieves in the back?

Is that what you mean by "high-risk"?

[AtheistCrusader]

68. No.

That wasn't the issue in question. That would be vigilantism. Clearly illegal. Plenty of case law on that point.

Risk is incurred at the moment the robbery begins. When the overt threat is made.

[Starboard Tack]

70. OK, I'm with you there.

I realize it can be a tough call in such circumstances, and I would always give more credit to the victim in cases that are not clear cut. This, of course, is much easier to do when the shooting occurs on private property, rather than in the street.

Theft is not always robbery. If we're talking robbery then there is always an inherent threat during the robbery. A fleeing felon presents no credible threat and anyone using the "lost livelihood" defense is dreaming if they think it is guaranteed to convince a jury.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. In some states that is not correct

but in my state, quite true. It is permissible here to draw a firearm if you witness a felony in progress, but justification to shoot does not automatically come with that.

IIRC in Texas, it is legal to shoot over property matters under some conditions, and some other states as well.

[Starboard Tack]

77. I guess that's how Kleck got all those numbers

From people using guns to defend their stuff, not those in fear of their lives.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. Potentially. The criteria was legal defensive gun use.

That would fall within the criteria.

DoJ pegged it about 100k per year. Same criteria. I tend to trust the DoJ more, however.

[GreenStormCloud]

135. No. Texas law was changed after Kleck's study.

However, I don't agree with Kleck's numbers. A new a better study needs to be done, as CCW was not common back then either.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. I'm of two minds on this one.

On the one hand, I wouldn't shoot someone over stuff. I tend to recoil from the thought. But my livelihood doesn't depend on my stuff.

Not so for everyone.

Not all stuff is equal. Even with insurance, if you make off with some plumber's van, full of his tools, you might knock him right out of his home, or his job and THEN his home, etc, by taking away his ability to make a living. Insurance coverage takes time to deploy, AND, it never covers replacement cost, only current value.

So.. While I would generally not opt for it, I'm not sure it should be illegal to employ deadly force in the case of a felony in progress.

[former-republican]

10. I think even if it was legal in every state , many would opt out of using deadly force to

protect property.

I started the thread to see how members feel about the law and if they think it should be legal nation wide.

My opinion it should be legal.

[mercuryblues]

53. But that means

it would be a federal law. Let the states decide this.

[Eleanors38]

16. I don't think think I could shoot a fleeing theft subject.

Someone in the house by break-in, and who refuses to leave is another matter.

[aandegoons]

17. stuff = life is moral bankruptcy

You and criminals have so much in common.

[rrneck]

22. When we ignore the relationship

between survival and the tools that provide it for a largu swath of the working class we indulge in another sort of bourgeoisie moral bankruptcy.

[Starboard Tack]

67. Such eloquent grandiosity!

Why would or should we ignore such a relationship? The relationship is apparent. Point is, do you support shooting another when there is no immediate threat to your life? Not some fretting threat of not knowing how, in that moment, you're going to replace your stolen tools.

[rrneck]

69. I guess you didn't notice

but we're still trying to dig our way out of the worst recession since 1929. Millions of people are one paycheck away from living on the street. Lots of people can barely afford food and gasoline, much less insurance for tools and equipment used to make a living. Not everyone enjoys the bourgeoisie luxury of owning things for the pleasure of ownership.

I don't support killing people, period. But I'm not so arrogant and jaded that I judge others who may have to fight to survive. When all it takes is one asshole to steal something you have to have to keep a roof over your head and food on the table I would expect anyone with any self respect to fight for it.

Here's a book you might find interesting:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0375708219/ref=mp_s_a_1?qid=1353352596&sr=8-1-fkmr1?=SL75

through the lives of the working poor shatters the myth that America is a country in which prosperity and security are the inevitable rewards of gainful employment. Armed with an encyclopedic collection of artfully deployed statistics and individual stories Shipler, former New York Times reporter and Pulitzer winner for Arab and Jew, identifies and describes the interconnecting obstacles that keep poor workers and those trying to enter the work force after a lifetime on welfare from achieving economic stability. This America is populated by people of all races and ethnicities, whose lives, Shipler effectively shows, are Sisyphean, and that ncludes the teachers and other professionals who deal with the realities facing the working poor.

[Starboard Tack]

75. I didn't miss the recession. Far from it. I would fight that same fight to survive.

I'm still trying to get my business back on track. Fortunately, we haven't had to lay anyone off. We just cut all our salaries back to a level where the boat stays afloat, but making headway is tough. But I'm not complaining, others are far worse off.
But neither of us would shoot someone in the back just for stealing. The conversation here has been about $500 cell phones and accumulated wealth and gun collections etc..
I'm with you and Shipler on the Sisyphean nature of so many people. Something I have been fascinated with for many years. We live in a society that encourages people to be like Sisyphus, by setting them up to fail. Corporate and elitist subjugation of the masses, while selling figurative lottery tickets for success.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

26. don't dirty your hands, let your body guards handle it.

[ileus]

18. possessions = small - large chunks of our lives and history.

I've worked most my life to the items and people inside my home. It's insured with a great policy and several SD firearms. Many of the items in this home cannot be replaced by money from a policy. Every one of us here has multiple examples of property that never was or will be recovered.

Those items range from my coin collection that was partially passed down from generations to my mothers jewelery. Many, many family heirlooms are kept inside this home and no amount of angst from ninnies can convince me that giving up is the best tactical decision.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

98. The topic of this particular thread is *deadly* force. No one had justified the need for that in

justifying not allowing their possessions to be stolen.

[ileus]

120. Anything could result in death...just yelling at a thief could result in death.

Takes off running hits head on a object, dead right there...



Takes off in a panic crashes their car...dead.


Runs out into traffic gets hit...dead.

Call the cops, they give chase and end up shooting the robber...dead.

[slackmaster]

20. I think it depends on the value of the property. If someone threatens my house with a Molotov...

...cocktail, I'll shoot whether it's legal to do so or not.

If they want to steal my 14-year-old SUV, I probably won't.

[former-republican]

21. Do you think the person that decides to shoot a car thief who is stealing his 14 year old SUV

should be prosecuted?

I say no he shouldn't be.

[slackmaster]

24. I agree that it should not be a crime to shoot someone to prevent theft of your vehicle

But I still wouldn't do it. The fact that something is legal doesn't necessarily mean it's morally right, or wise to do.

I would have a lot of guilt after taking a person's life to prevent theft of a low-value vehicle.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. I hope that I am never in such a predicament. I aimed my gun at a bird once - could NOT pull the

Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:27 AM - Edit history (1)

trigger. However the bird was no Threat and I wasn't hungry.

-I don't like to feel threatened-

and it makes me mad to be scared.

If someone goes to the trouble to make me feel scared in my own home or on my own property then they will be responsible for what ever happens. Come What May.

[Starboard Tack]

33. I agree 100%

I think we need to differentiate between property, as in junk that we own (regardless of value), and property we live in/on (our home). Entering the latter is a threat to personal safety, leaving it is not. Catch 'em on the way in or in the act and they are fair game. Shoot 'em as they leave, not so good.

[tortoise1956]

42. I can agree with you on this

I have trouble believing self-defense when the entry wound is in the back...

[Starboard Tack]

30. It should be illegal everywhere.

What does property defense have to do with self defense. Sorry, but the onus is and should be on the shooter to convince cops, prosecutor and/or jury that he/she was in fear of their life, not in fear of losing some junk, no matter it's monetary or sentimental value. No matter it's usefulness. No matter how dependent on it the owner is to make a living. If the taking does not immediately threaten life, then deadly force is never justified.

Anyone who considers property to be worth more than the life of even the most despicable of humans should not own a gun.

[former-republican]

46. Are you a religious person?

[Starboard Tack]

55. No.

[former-republican]

90. Then your statement is very odd

[Starboard Tack]

91. Which statement, and how is it odd?

[former-republican]

92. This one

"Anyone who considers property to be worth more than the life of even the most despicable of humans"

It sounds to me you have never ventured far from your comfort zone.

I have engaged with people in my former profession who's life isn't worth the air they consume breathing.


That's why I asked if you were a religious person . Some very religious people think all human life is worth
more than anything else in the world. I see it differently.

[Starboard Tack]

108. Really? You think having a moral compass is contingent on being religious?

Sounds to me like you might still be a Republican.
"I have engaged with people in my former profession who's life isn't worth the air they consume breathing."
And IMO, that makes you a huge part of the problem. What a truly disgusting post.

[former-republican]

112. I didn't think you would understand it.

It's alright and I take no offense by your post to me.

Too bad the world isn't filled with people like you it would be a better place to live.

[Starboard Tack]

117. Just because I find something abhorrent, doesn't mean I don't understand it.

We all have dark side. It's how we choose to deal with it that counts.

[Atypical Liberal]

72. What about the theives themselves?

Anyone who considers property to be worth more than the life of even the most despicable of humans should not own a gun.

What about the thieves themselves who set the value of their life against whatever it is they wish to risk it against by stealing?

Everyone should realize that the price you might pay for robbery or burglary is death. If you know this, and choose to undertake robbery or burglary anyway, who is it who has set the value of life here? The thief has.

If the taking does not immediately threaten life, then deadly force is never justified.

Thankfully this is not true here in Alabama. Here in Alabama, you can use deadly force to stop burglary and robbery.

[Starboard Tack]

78. "Everyone should realize that the price you might pay for robbery or burglary is death."

Well, I guess we should let the courts know and the prisons. We have a lot of people to execute. Better get started.

You get more ridiculous by the day.

[Atypical Liberal]

105. Oh the courts here in Alabama already know.

Here in Alabama, it is completely legal to use deadly force to stop robbery or burglary. Texas, too, from what I here. I'm sure in other states as well.

It's pretty common knowledge. I'm surprised you did not already know this yourself?

[Starboard Tack]

116. What does that have to do with anything I said?

I don't think the courts are handing out death sentences for burglary, even in your wonderfully progressive state of Alabama. Fortunately, they don't know about your ideas of justice, but if you start acting out your fantasies, I'm thinking it won't belong before you'll have the opportunity to explain it all to them.

[Atypical Liberal]

119. You said we needed to notify the court and prisons.

You said:

Well, I guess we should let the courts know and the prisons.

I was just letting you know they already know that people can be killed for burglary.

Fortunately, they don't know about your ideas of justice

Nope, they know - in Alabama we can use deadly force to prevent robbery and burglary, among other things.

[Starboard Tack]

124. You said "Everyone should realize that the price you might pay for robbery or burglary is death."

Has nothing to do with "can use deadly force to prevent robbery and burglary, among other things"

Do you really not understand the difference between "can" and "is"?

[Atypical Liberal]

125. I don't know what you are talking about.

Everyone should realize that the price you might pay for robbery or burglary is death.

It's the law around these parts. The courts and prisons know it. Citizens know it. Hell everyone except you seems to know it.

[Starboard Tack]

127. I give up

[Atypical Liberal]

133. Oh, good.

[Lizzie Poppet]

156. In my case, prudence might require me NOT to differentiate.

I'm 5'4" tall and weigh a little under 110 lbs. In the rather large majority of cases, a person committing a property crime is going to be significantly larger and stronger than I am. It is not difficult to envision a scenario in which they will be aware of my presence...and at that point I have to be ready to defend myself. I can't read minds...I cannot know their intent.

This certainly doesn't mean I'd automatically employ deadly force. Far from it. Chances are good that once observed, their priority will be to get away as quickly as possible, and in my view I have no ethical right to use force (even if they're carrying stolen property with them as they flee). However, if they begin to approach me (or reach for something that I can't immediately identify as not being a weapon), then prudence dictates that I act to defend myself. I can not allow them to get withing grabbing distance: I'd be essentially defenseless against what is almost certain to be a much more physically dangerous person. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that even if their obvious original intent was theft that once the observe that I've witnessed them, that intent won't change.

As said, I think the much more common scenario is that the would-be thief would flee. But it's not the only plausible outcome.

[Starboard Tack]

157. I agree 100%

You are the one who decides. Every individual and every situation is different.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. From the inception of this country...

...the basic rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness have little meaning if those pursuits may be lost or destroyed by the selfish, capricious and arbitrary decisions of criminals. Some folks after a lifetime of work may, due to bad luck or low wages, may have not so much worth of possessions but who am I to decide that while it might be okay to shoot someone over a truck and $15,000 in tools that it isn't acceptable to shoot someone over grandma's pearls.

"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." - Thomas Aquinas

[Eleanors38]

40. Gandhi pretty much agrees with Aquinas, if one does not practice Ahimsa.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

44. Ahimsa: "Avoidance of verbal and physical violence...

...is also a part of this principle, although ahimsa recognizes self-defense when necessary, as a sign of a strong spirit."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa

"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." - Augustine of Hippo

The only difference between the three criminals that break into one's home and the government that enslaves someone is how ways the victim's possessions are split.

"But now whoever has a purse or a bag, must take it and whoever does not have a sword must sell his cloak and buy one." - Luke 22:36

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

50. So many replies here basically saying Yes to your question because "property" is apparently more

valuable than anything. But it is not clear to me why deadly force would be necessary to protect property. Lack of skill?

[PavePusher]

88. Because no-one here knows the Vulcan Neck Pinch. n/t

[Glaug-Eldare]

89. Earther! Barbarian! Emotional Earther!

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

99. Nor how to shoot straight?

[Kolesar]

51. So, if you touch my bicycle, I would be justified in shooting you or beating you to death

Is that the America that you want?

[ileus]

54. 1-5k for a bike....that's a lot of scratch.

and they're not getting cheaper.


://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/keith-kirk-alleged-bicycle-thief_n_2145616.html

[Starboard Tack]

80. My philosophy is "if you can't afford to lose it, insure it."

Otherwise don't buy it. I notice the bike owner took care of the thief in an appropriate manner. I doubt he will be stealing too many more bikes. I have a bike (paid $600 for it 9 years ago). It is my principle mode of transportation when on land. I rarely lock it, never cover it, never clean it. I just ride it almost every day. It's a folding Dahon, aluminum frame and wheels, kevlar tires, rides like a dream. Not a thief magnet.

[ileus]

83. Everything I have is insured...it just depends on when and where.

If I'm away ERIE if I'm nearby by M&P.

[Starboard Tack]

84. That's good. Now you don't even have to think about killing anyone over a lawn mower.

[Glaug-Eldare]

86. M&P is short for Military & Police,

a line of pistols and carbines(?) from Smith & Wesson.

[Starboard Tack]

87. Yeah, I figured it was something asinine, and I guess Erie is just a lake.

I'm tired of chasing bones like that. Especially now we appear to have a solid group of rational and intelligent members who actually want a conversation. Who knows, we may yet make this place a little more palatable to a wider audience.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

100. With posts like #19, I think GC & RKBA is a long way from that.

[Starboard Tack]

113. This will always be a place where morons come in an attempt to pollute.

The key to making it a better place is not to respond to posts like that. Eventually, they get the message that some are here to have a conversation. The purpose of the troll is to disrupt by posting outrageous comments and ugly images. If nobody reacts, they slide back under their rocks.

[slackmaster]

59. It's ultimately a moral decision whatever the law says

That choice is always ultimately up to you.

[Starboard Tack]

85. I totally agree.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

63. While it is not wrong...

...to act with violence in self-defense or the defense of property, the most moral actions would include using the minimum of violence and showing mercy. Failing to show mercy isn't a crime but it is something you might have trouble living with afterwards.

It is also important to forgive the offender after the event; learn from what has happened but let go of the offense itself. You'll just feel better.

[MicaelS]

60. I live in Texas, and I'm satisfied with the Texas Penal Code as written.

Last edited Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:48 PM - Edit history (1)

And that includes the use of Deadly Force to protect People and Property.

Not going to post the entire relevant code. Here's the link, peruse it at your leisure.

PENAL CODE

TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY - Sec 9.41 through 9.44 refer to protection of property.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

[Kaleva]

73. I think it silly to risk one's own life or take another's to defend property.

One never knows how desperate, how well armed and/or well trained the other person or people may be. There is nothing I have that is worth a life.

[TPaine7]

81. I can think of some exceptions, at least for me.

If I were backpacking with someone who required daily medication to survive and someone was trying to rob us of the medicine, I would use deadly force if necessary to defend the medicine.

If someone tried to steal my car or motorcycle while I was in a remote, off-road area in a desert, I would use deadly force if necessary to protect the vehicle.

If someone tried to steal my oxygen tank in the proper situation underwater, I would use deadly force if necessary to protect it.

Sometimes loss of property equates to loss of life.

[Glaug-Eldare]

82. Massad Ayoob has a lot to say on this topic, actually

He is of the opinion that, while it might be legal, it is generally foolish to escalate a potentially violent situation in any case. If life and limb are not on the line, it is rare that introducing deadly force will result in a better situation for anybody. Even if a shooter is justified, the consequences of a "good shoot" are still exhausting and difficult. Forget your ego, forget your jacket, forget your wallet -- don't bring out that gun, don't flick that knife, don't swing that bat, until and unless there's a dire need. I generally agree, though I firmly believe that the decision to deescalate by compliance should be at the discretion of the victim. It's his stuff, after all, and it should be his decision whether it's worth using violence to defend. It's usually not, but sometimes it is.

[YllwFvr]

145. good post to think about

As far as some people say they are willing to go to defend life and property because it would mean loss of income they should stop and think that a shooting may put them in court. That will certainly damage the bank account.

You could be out of work for quite a while. Lawyer fees may need to be paid. You may lose your firearm, for a time or for good.

If I were in a deadly force situation I would likely have my firearm taken for the duration and without my pistol im out of work and I cant borrow one.

Just something to think about.

Some in my field are so afraid of law suits they haven't fired on a criminal even when justified. Even when they have a firearm pointed back at them.

[graham4anything]

102. Like Zimmerman shot an unarmed innocent person way outside the perimeter of his home?

a real man gives up his wallet and then files an insurance claim and moves on with his LIFE

guns kill
brains beat braun in the long run

nothing one owns is worth killing another person for

(and the person who steals a wallet is most likely down on their luck and needs a meal.
For all we know, the kid Zimmerman killed could have been the one who cured cancer.

And Zimmerman in another age might have shot Jesus in the back too, with the paranoid delusions he had of being in danger, and having the all mighty gun in his hand, if Jesus was alive and walking around Zimmy's town.

the lengths gun lovers, groupies go to to attempt to justify their obsessions is beyond me.

(this of course is directed at gun lovers, gun groupies, NRA fanatics. Anyone posting in this thread of course who is not, this not directed at you).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

136. Zimmerman appears to be claiming self defense, not defense of property

The lengths you 1%er groupies go to defend your object of your adoration is beyond most of us.

[graham4anything]

138. How was the asswipe claiming self defense when he chased an unarmed man named Mr. Martin?

Had the idiot stayed in his own home, there would have been no problem

but the rightwing extermist went on a lookout to kill a black person and stalked Mr. Martin
and then shot him in cold blood

If anyone would have had a right to claim self defense it would have been poor Mr. Martin
not Zimmy the vigillante paranoid obsessive gun freak playing mall cop like he was the Paul Blart of the Florida area he was in

you ad homenim on me and other anti-gun people is pathetic.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

141. Claiming it is easy, proving it another. Why did you bring him into this thread?

It was not a defense of property issue, but then again, you feel so uncomfortable with out a few strawmen to keep you company.

You are the one with the never ending screeds of ad hominems...I and others are just point out your double standards and hypocrisy when it comes to 1%er idol you worship.

[former-republican]

144. lol

[guardian]

149. A "man" or sheep?

"...a real man gives up his wallet and then files an insurance claim and moves on with his LIFE "

Sounds like your definition of a "real man" and my definition of sheep or a door mat are essentially the same. Some gene pools don't need to propagate.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

103. Is there a standardized legal definition of "deadly force" among the states?

[former-republican]

109. Yes there is a standard definition of what deadly force is. There is not a standard definition of

when it can be used.

[slackmaster]

110. Yes. Force that is likely to cause severe injury or death.

HTH

[former-republican]

114. I was responding to the effect of when it can be used.

Some states include property also not just life and limb.

[notadmblnd]

126. My thought is- it's just stuff

Mostly cheap stuff so I really have no property worth taking hence no deadly force to protect it. What I would use deadly force for- would be to protect my loved ones if their lives were in danger.

[montanto]

146. For me, as for a few others here,

the idea of deadly force to protect property is a tough one. I don't really rely on any of my "stuff" for a living. If someone breaks into my car in the driveway, sets off the alarm, I'll call the cops. If I hear someone in my garage (below my bedroom, but I would have to go outside to get to it) I think I would let the situation run its course, though maybe I would investigate. Questionable behavior on my part here in SoCal. If someone broke into my house at night, I would have to assume that they were desperate and capable of anything, even though their intent might only be my TV and stereo. So there is the question for me: Is it my TV, or might my life be in the balance too? I have decided that inside my house I'm not going to ask any questions, or doubt that my wife and I are in danger.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

147. Other side of the coin: People's thoughts on the use of deadly force/threat to steal property...

Last edited Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:03 AM - Edit history (1)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

151. Is there even one State which does not authorize the use of deadly force against bank robbers?

[Sekhmets Daughter]

153. I guess it would depend on the monetary

value you place on your own life. As I don't value your life as much as I value my own, should I be allowed to use deadly force because you took something of mine?