Is the theft of your money really worth shooting someone over?

[mvccd1000]

That argument seems to pop up frequently in self-defense discussions. It's usually used to imply (or outright state) that you're better off simply handing over your wallet... after all; there's nothing in there that you can't replace, right?

What happens when you DO comply and you still get murdered, though?

"Authorities allege the 17-year-old from St. Louis Park, Minn., walked into two convenience stores in northern Iowa on Monday night, demanding cash and in one case cigarettes. They say he shot the clerks even after they complied."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/11/16/national/a111353S86.DTL#ixzz15Ww5BP6Q

I just don't see the advantage in trusting your life to an armed robber.

[jazzhound]

1. No.

But as you rightly point out, when a perp is pointing a deadly weapon at you it's never just about robbery.

[Hoopla Phil]

43. delete - wrong place

[RSillsbee]

2. Money is just stuff

it can be replaced. That said, I have no intention of trusting my life to the good will of a thug

[Euromutt]

42. Bingo; resisting a robbery isn't about protecting your wallet

It's about resisting a threat of unlawful violence to your life and limb. It's not that the contents of my wallet are worth more to me than the robber's physical well-being, it's that my physical well-being is worth more to me than his. And dammit, with reason; I'm not the one violating the social contract in that kind of situation.

[TheWraith]

57. Or put another way, how do you know he just wants your wallet?

I'd like to know how someone tells the difference on sight between, say, a regular mugger; a mugger/rapist; and a mugger who will shoot you afterwards just to keep you quiet.

[tularetom]

3. If he doesn't shoot you you can identify him

So I guess you can assume that being shot is a distinct possibility.

And act accordingly.

You won't be convicted of anything even though you'll probably have to go through a bunch of crap.

But at least you'll be alive.

[sharesunited]

4. Nice try. His access to a gun is the problem, not whether or not to shoot him.

Guns and ammo in the hands of the public is the problem.

THAT is the problem.

[Remmah2]

7. "in the hands of the public "

I guess only the police, military, politicians and celeberties should be allowed firearms.

[benEzra]

8. Or a knife, or a sharpened screwdriver, or a pipe wrench.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Your continued slagging of unions and union made products is noted

[Callisto32]

27. Elitist drivel.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. fixing this for you --

Guns and ammo in the hands of the public criminal is the problem.

yw.

[MicaelS]

31. If you don't trust ME

With the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, I and other gun owners across the political spectrum, could easily decide we do not trust YOU with the Right To Choose. You want to take away a right we highly value, we can do the same to you. See how easy that is?

[proteus_lives]

32. No, he was the problem.

Not his access to a firearm.

I have access to a firearm and so do millions of others. And everyday is the same, we don't shoot anyone.

[lawodevolution]

35. "his access to a gun is the problem"

Like I've pointed out again and again to you SU. Your gun free paradise already exists in Nigeria where the public has no access to guns, yet they have mass violence events with the largest body counts in recent history (one with 500 dead) and it is still a violent society. The government there does not have to fear or be accountable to the people.

[slackmaster]

46. Your typical armed robber wouldn't have access to guns if he was in jail

Where he belongs.

[DrDan]

5. NO!

[PavePusher]

17. So you seem to be implying that we should trust to the good intentions....

of a criminal, despite evidence to the contrary.

Not only can this get you killed, but it encourages the criminal to continue her/his actions.

What is your solution to the problem?

[oneshooter]

20. He has no answers.

You are only to give up that which you have worked to obtain. Trust the friendly goblin not to harm you, and then thank him for only robbing you.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[geckosfeet]

6. Is it worth risking your life...

to steal something?

When thieves asks themselves this question, they answer by either getting a bigger gun - or a job.

If productive jobs were easier to get, and guns were better regulated, it would help potential thieves answer that question the right way.

[one-eyed fat man]

10. You seem to believe

that there are no really evil bastards out there hurting people because that is their idea of fun. Just poor misguided souls whose lack of social skills and work habits leads them to stick guns into the faces of minimum wage clerks at convenience stores for insignificant amounts of cash.

You tell us when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, there might be a little waffling on this point. How can anyone be so callous as to expect a woman to, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods? The suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want," is stupid beyond belief!

Just like rape is not about sex, robbery is not about the money. It is about the humiliation, degradation, and terrorizing the victim. The criminal wants to smell your fear, he wants to see you beg. He is cancer on the body of society and like any cancer needs to be excised. There is little chance he would ever aspire to a "regular" job. They have been criminals since they started stealing the change from their mother's purses, bullying their classmates for lunch money through grade school. After setting kittens on fire, killing you AMUSES them. That is how their misbegotten brains are wired.

So, yes, it is my thoroughly atavistic opinion, armed robbers killed by their intended victims got EXACTLY what they deserve!

[geckosfeet]

48. The evil bastards are the ones who will just get a bigger gun.

[one-eyed fat man]

53. Why keep enabling them?

Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them.

Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you actually need them.

When some bastard sticks a gun or a knife in your face and demands, "What's in you wallet?" are you going to think you're in a credit card commercial?

"Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first." And unlike the police, the victim does not have to resolve the ambiguity of who is the bad guy.

Will there be any doubt in your mind just who the evil doer is? Even if you have 911 on speed dial do you think the cops will be able to arrive in time to draw the chalk outline around your body before the blood congeals?

Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but you're a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may play sports.

What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?

[geckosfeet]

56. God dammit no. I believe people should be able to arms themselves and

my post makes absolutely no indication otherwise.

It's the damn criminals that shouldn't be armed.

Just because I advocate sensible regulation does not mean I don't think people should be able to arm themselves if they want to.

I am so sick of this shit.

[PavePusher]

55. What does "a bigger gun" have to do with it?

Size isn't the issue here. Or maybe....

[oneshooter]

50. There are over 20,000 Federal, State, and local gun laws. How many more do you want? n/t

[benEzra]

9. It is almost never justifiable to shoot to stop a theft.

It *is* generally justifiable to shoot to stop an unlawful, imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

Self-defense is not about protecting money (although some would like to make it so); it is about protecting your *life* from someone who is threatening it illegally and has the imminent means and apparent willingness to murder you.

[lepus]

11. Not sure if serious

I will shoot to stop theft. This is not an absolute though. Kinsmen and children get a pass on being maimed.

I have too much of my life and income tied up in my property. My local LEO is only a short 45 minutes away.

If I am threatened with a weapon during a theft, I will do my damnedest to kill the guy. Otherwise I will try to use non lethal alternatives escalating up to kneecapping to hold them for the law, but they will not get away with my stuff, or get away for that matter. Even if it means a bullet in their back.

Any landowner/rancher in these parts will do the same. While we are not in the wild wild west anymore, the odds of me being prosecuted for killing a thief in the process of stealing my property is unlikely. Strangely enough, property crime is very low in this area.

Where the heck did modern society get this screwy idea that property is not worth dying over. Allowing people to get away with theft is the reason it has become such a problem and the thieves feel so safe to escalate their crimes.

No, it is not self defense, it is defense of property.

[benEzra]

12. Agree or disagree with the law, but what you describe is a crime in most jurisdictions.

And in those few jurisdictions where shooting *without* being in danger is justifiable (and there aren't many of those), you may spend a hundred times your insurance deductible defending yourself if you shoot an unarmed individual who is in the process of running away with a piece of property.

IMO, as long as we have a functioning justice and financial system, that's what insurance is for. For most of us, guns are to defend life and health, not stuff that I can replace for a $250 deductible.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Stand your ground and castle defense are all geared around insuring that there is little ambiguity

for prosecutors and those wanting to file civil suits to leverage from. Its clear to me that there is a level of property protection in those concepts. I live a long way from the nearest cop shop. Those laws protect me when I make a split second decision.

[benEzra]

24. Neither stand your ground nor castle doctrine laws apply....

...to shooting someone who is merely running away from your house with your stuff, or who is in your driveway stealing the wheels off your car. You can use *non*-lethal force to stop someone from fleeing with your stuff in most jurisdictions, but not lethal force.

Castle doctrine allows you to shoot to stop an illegal home invasion in progress, on the reasonable presumption that someone who is forcibly invading an occupied home is likely not there merely to steal your stuff and run away.

Stand your ground laws allow you to use potentially lethal force to stop an unlawful attack that places you in imminent danger of death, serious bodily harm, or a "forcible felony" (e.g., rape, etc.) without having to try to outrun your attacker first, but again do not allow you to shoot someone who is running away with your stuff or to kneecap someone who is not attacking you. And the limitations on civil liability for justifiable shootings are only that; they do not protect you from criminal liability for an unlawful shooting.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Some wordings are more flexible than others

I agree that someone running away should not be shot. Where I live, it means that they are going to die anyway in all likelihood, and it would not be as easy as a bullet.

[PavePusher]

18. And that is exactly a major part of the problem.

Apparently we are supposed to simply turn over our property to anyone who has a whim to it, with no resistance.

And some folks wonder why society seems to have degraded lately.... sheesh.

[benEzra]

26. You can legally use force to stop simple theft, just not lethal force. (n/t)

[jancantor]

59. Correct. You, just like the cops can use reasonable force

and proportionate. It does not have to be "equal", but you cannot pull a gun on a man who is stealing a candy bar from your store, or your sprinkler from your lawn. Nor could a cop. Otoh, if he attacks you, then you have the right to use significantly more force and you are not expected to be Muhammad Ali and have mad boxing skills. It may rise to the level where a firearm is justified.

If somebody is, for example, stealing your car - it's reasonable to approach them with a drawn gun. The cops would do the same. It is NOT reasonable to shoot them. That is a distinct difference. If the guy sees the gun and runs away. You can't shoot him.

[lepus]

30. What insurance deductable?

I'll defend myself in court if need be.

In this neck of the woods it would be hard to get a DA to prosecute it, or 12 jurists willing to vote guilty. Since I am a veteran, a landowner, and tied to the area by kin, bail would be minimum. The law and the courts out here have bigger things to concern themselves with than a thief getting shot.

How is it illegal? Oklahoma has made no laws concerning thieves rights not to be shot while stealing. A pretty good argument on natural rights can be made for defense of property. Once he/she decided that my property was worth their life, who am I to interfere with that decision?

Article 2,section 26 of my state constitution gives me a lot of leeway to defend property.

The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

[benEzra]

33. Homeowner's. If somebody steals my stuff, I pay a $250 deductible and replace it.

What insurance deductable?

Homeowner's and/or automotive comprehensive. If somebody steals my stuff, I pay a $250 deductible and replace it. That's way, way cheaper than the ~$20,000 that someone might pay in legal fees if a case of a questionable shooting went to trial. Representing oneself(unless one has a lot of legal knowledge) is dubious, and public defenders don't seem to be at their best in self-defense cases from what I've seen.

How is it illegal? Oklahoma has made no laws concerning thieves rights not to be shot while stealing. A pretty good argument on natural rights can be made for defense of property. Once he/she decided that my property was worth their life, who am I to interfere with that decision?

Homicide is illegal except when it is ruled justifiable, and justifiability is an affirmative defense, i.e. it is not automatically assumed to be justifiable except in certain very limited circumstances, i.e. someone unlawfully kicking your door in (which would fall under the Castle Doctrine). Shooting someone who is in your driveway stealing the wheels off your car would not generally be justifiable unless he attacked you or tried to force his way into the house.

You do have a strong defense under Oklahoma law for bearing (carrying) arms for defensive purposes, but self-defense law and case law do restrict the circumstances under which you can actually shoot in self-defense. In almost every state, you cannot shoot someone for simple trespass, or for running away with your stuff, without getting into trouble, and while there may be a few isolated locations where you might be able to get away with it, it is not IMO a good idea.

Again, we're not talking about arson here (which *is* considered a lethal threat to you), just simple theft.

[lepus]

37. The problem with your argument is a positive constitutional defense in my state.

Texas has almost the same idea but it is not rooted in the state constitution, but law.

Why should I have to pay insurance to allow someone to steal my stuff? This is one of the arguments that actually condones stealing.

State law is subservient to the state constitution. In any argument about defense of property, until article 2 section 26 of my state constitution is removed, I can kill to protect what is mine.

I can understand that it is not, in your opinion, a good idea. Look at it from my point of view.

Steal a few cows? each one of them is worth a paycheck. People have been shot out here for having someone else's cows in their trailer. This is the difference between my kids eating well, having good clothes, heat in the winter, etc.
Steal my truck? I cannot make a living ranching.
Steal my tools? I cannot make a living on side jobs.

Stealing other peoples stuff is serious business out here. It should be. A thief should really wonder when he makes a value decision to steal other peoples property, if it is worth his life. I have already made the decision that my property is worth my life, or for that matter, his life.

This is not an isolated local or regional thing. This is statewide and a few neighboring states. While many states do not have the positive affirmation that a person's property is worth more than the life of a thief, I am glad I live in one that does.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. I am in a situation similar to yours.

I had problems mostly with OHVs riders thinking my front yard was a BLM campground. I addressed that with the mother of all gates and a security infrastructure the secret service would envy. If they get past all of that, for me is presumptive that they are hostile, not just thieves. So far the cops have shown up before I have had to shoot anyone.

[oneshooter]

22. Texas Law

Deadly Force to Protect Property

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"



http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ManiacJoe]

38. This is the part that is overlooked by most who as the question in the OP.

> It *is* generally justifiable to shoot to stop an unlawful, imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

When defending yourself during a robbery, you are not shooting the criminal to protect your money. You are shooting the criminal because he has threatened your life with lethal force.

[slackmaster]

16. Money is a material manifestation of time. What is life, if not a finite chunk of time?

Someone who wants to take my money is really trying to take away the piece of my life that I will have to spend to earn that money back.

If they just grab cash and run, it's probably not worth chasing them down. But if they use any kind of threat to intimidate me, I will if possible respond with overwhelming force.

[PavePusher]

19. +1. As I've said many times. n/t

[oneshooter]

21. That is not all....

"the piece of my life that I will have to spend to earn that money back"

Also the time,sweat,and work to earn it the first time.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[X_Digger]

23. Why take them at their word, indeed!

The criminal is the one who broke the social contract and convinced you that your life is worth only as much as you have in your pockets.

(If they couldn't convince you, you'd just tell them to take a flying leap.)

[Kennah]

29. Never have understood this

I have never understood the "logic" of those who say give up the money, your life isn't worth it.

In places like my former home state of Maryland, and other places where it's difficult to get a license to carry a gun, business owners who carry a cash can generally get a license to carry. In fact, a business owner with a license to carry in Maryland likely has limits on the license, like one can only carry WHILE ACTUALLY CARRYING CASH.

WTF?

If I understand this correctly, a business owner with insurance, by Gawd almighty his interests must be protected by all means.

OTOH, the guy living paycheck to paycheck, a minor accident away from financial ruin because he doesn't have health insurance, or has health insurance with a $5,000 deductible, the $20 in his pocket--which represents bread, milk, a pack of bologna, mac and cheese, tuna, and spaghetti for his family--he can just fuck off and die?

Really?

[Euromutt]

41. And there you touch on an interesting point

It's true that in many "may issue" jurisdictions (not just for carrying, but for possession), a requirement for "good cause" involves carrying large amounts of cash or valuables. And that does seem to imply that the state regards large amounts of money to be worth defending with lethal force. Or, if not that, then the life and limb only of people carrying large amounts of money.

I mean, I'm sure there's some explanation along the lines that people carrying large amounts of valuables are more likely to be targeted by armed robbers, but I'm far from convinced this stands up to scrutiny. I suspect a convenience store in a high-crime neighborhood is more likely to be targeted than a downtown jeweler's. The net effect is that you can have gun to shoot someone to stop him taking a briefcase of diamonds, but not to stop him taking your rent or grocery money.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

34. Ban money,,, it's the only way we'll be safe.

[Euromutt]

58. Then we'll just end up asking the same questions about wampum and beaver pelts (n/t)

[Demstud]

36. Yes?

If I think someone is armed and a possible threat, then yes, it might be justifiable to shoot them if I were in a position to do so. It's not like I would advocate hunting down and shooting pick pockets though. In other words, theft of the money isn't the main issue.

[cognoscere]

39. How about if we ask the police, who almost always shoot bankrobbers? N/T

[benEzra]

40. If they shot an unarmed, fleeing thief, they'd be in hot water in most jurisdictions.

Police can shoot to stop a *violent* felon from fleeing in order to stop him from harming others, but they are generally not allowed to shoot in order to stop Aunt Lou's DVD player from escaping down the street.

[Kennah]

47. Yeah, one can shoot a feeing suspect ...

... but it would need to be:

1) someone who committed a felony in one's presence
2) it was a very serious felony
3) and the likelihood of capturing them through other means was very low

Wife and I were watching "Point Break" over the weekend. There's a scene where Agent Utah (Keanu Reaves) is chasing Bodhi (Patrick Swayze) when his knee blows out on him. Rather than shooting Bodhi on top of the fence, Utah fires in the air in anger.

Under those conditions, yeah, one could probably shoot. In real life, things like this rarely happen.

[ManiacJoe]

51. Utah fired into the air because he did not want to shot his friend.

[Hoopla Phil]

44. I will not trust the criminal to not try to harm me after getting my money.

I will take any initiative I have and use my legally carried firearm to protect me or my family.

[ZombieHorde]

45. "Is the theft of your money really worth shooting someone over?"

No.

You seem to be confusing two different crimes, there is a difference between stealing stuff and threatening someone's life, though these two activities sometimes go together.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. No.

I would shoot them for threatening my life. Chances are, the flag will fly before he or she even gets the words 'gimme your...X' out.

[lightfighter11b]

52. sheesh

If i have the means to defend myself, if someone tries to rob me for a piece of gum you better believe that I will defend myself.

The question is not whether we are willing to kill someone for a few bucks the question is are they willing to die for a few bucks. They are making the decision not me.

[east texas lib]

54. Many people have been shot and killed after complying with their attacker's orders...

Why give them the chance? The very fact that a criminal has decided to to use force against you for whatever ends they have in mind demonstrates their rejection of lawful, civilized behavior. They have earned their fate. I would ask, "Is attempting to take what little I have worth getting shot over?"

[SteveM]

60. They didn't want cigs, they wanted juice and street cred.