Should it be legal to use deadly force to protect property when there are no serious stakes?

[TPaine7]

Poll question: Should it be legal to use deadly force to protect property when there are no serious stakes?

It is legal to use potentially deadly force to protect the life, limb or physical integrity—to protect yourself or another innocent against death, serious bodily injury or rape. It is also legal to use potentially deadly force in many locales to protect against forcible felonies, like kidnapping.


These are, IMO, just laws. A person who engages in threats like these has placed his life into the hands of his victim or into the hands of any innocent bystander who elects to intervene. Armed robbers, home invaders (who do not immediately and unconditionally surrender), rapists and kidnappers are quite deserving of whatever they get.


But there is another class of people who are, I believe, in quite another category—petty thieves.


Let me spell out what I mean by “petty thieves.” For my purposes, a petty thief is someone whose theft threatens no one. Let’s say Bill Gates is driving his Jaguar and stopped at a red light when a carjacker pulls a gun on him and demands the wheel. That is not petty theft—the armed robber is threatening life and limb, and has placed his life into the hands of Bill Gates, his body guard or any other innocent person who is in a position to help.


Let’s say that Bill Gates has parked his Jaguar and is sitting at a café sipping coffee. If a thief breaks into his Jaguar and drives it off, that is petty theft. Yes it is grand theft auto, but neither Bill Gates nor his loved ones will lose their livelihood as a result. So for my purposes in this discussion, it is petty theft.


There are not a few on this board who believe that even petty theft deserves to be met with deadly force. According to this argument, the thief has devalued his own life by choosing to steal from an innocent victim. But while I agree that the thief has morally degraded himself, I also believe that a society that allows potentially deadly force to be used for the sole purpose of preventing petty theft has also morally degraded itself. I believe that medieval societies (and current ones) that cut off the hands of thieves were (and are) wrong:

The Taliban chopped off a man's hand after he was found guilty of theft by a 'Shariah' or Islamic court set up by them in the restive Orakzai tribal region of northwest Pakistan, a day after beheading a fellow militant who was accused of spying for the government. Abdul Khaliq's hand was cut off by members of the banned Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan at Qureshan Chowk in Mamozai area of Orakzai tribal agency.


The act was witnessed by local residents, the Dawn newspaper reported today, adding that Khaliq was found guilty of theft by the Taliban.


Source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/Taliban-cut-off-man-s-hand-for-theft/Article1-646218.aspx

I disagree with the Taliban, but as horrific and disproportional as their “justice” is, there is a more horrific theory of justice that has been propagated here. It is shocking to me that so many appear to believe that they can legitimately use potentially deadly force to defend property when absolutely no one’s life, physical integrity, health or livelihood is at stake—and no home is being invaded leading to a reasonable and lawful presumption of serious ill intent.


I would like to think that the vast majority in this place do not take a position that makes the Taliban relative moderates! So I am posting a poll:

From a moral standpoint, should the law allow potentially deadly force to be used to protect property when no one’s life, physical integrity, health or livelihood is at stake? For example, should my snatching a penny off of the table in front of you in a restaurant and sprinting for the exit legally justify your shooting me in the back (assuming, of course, that you didn’t thereby endanger any innocent bystanders)? Should we have a legal system where your establishing that factual history would guarantee a not guilty verdict?

[dkf]

1. Your example of stealing a penny is pretty lame.

Hardly anyone would bend over to pick up a penny they dropped much less shoot someone over it.

[ileus]

2. What if it was a 1943 copper cent?

[krispos42]

27. Trick question!

The Mint only made steel pennies in 1943 :P

[TPaine7]

3. Maybe, but I wanted to take it to the smallest level possible.

Others have used items that can be had for prices well below a dollar, but I didn't want to use their examples.

If in principle, those items justify potentially lethal force, I see no reason why a penny doesn't also. They have spent some fraction of an hour of their lives earning that penny.

[dkf]

5. Well the question is would someone kill you to escape with your penny.

If not the perception of danger is much lower I imagine. Anytime someone is faced with the risk of being identified and jailed, the likelihood of being harmed is higher also.

When one's house is broken into there is an increased sense of vulnerability and yes there is a psychological impact and increased fear. It's not just that your money/belongings are gone, it's a violation of ones self.

That sense of security also has value. Feeling powerless vs powerful is key also.

[TPaine7]

24. I'm not sure I take your meaning(s)

Well the question is would someone kill you to escape with your penny.

If not the perception of danger is much lower I imagine. Anytime someone is faced with the risk of being identified and jailed, the likelihood of being harmed is higher also.

I take it that if I am sprinting away from someone, I cannot be intending to kill them in my escape.

When one's house is broken into there is an increased sense of vulnerability and yes there is a psychological impact and increased fear. It's not just that your money/belongings are gone, it's a violation of ones self.

That sense of security also has value. Feeling powerless vs powerful is key also.

I agree. I left home invasions out of the question.

[provis99]

4. it's even worse than that in Florida and Texas.

The law they passed in 2005 essentially says you can kill someone (as long as it's with a gun) if you think there is a possibility you might be carjacked. So if you have a feeling that that little kid playing in the street might carjack you, you can shoot him dead, without provocation.
http://law.justia.com/codes/florida/2005/TitleXLVI/ch0776.html

Likewise, Texas law already says you can kill anyone who is fleeing with your property. so if indeed, a little kid takes a penny from your porch and runs off, you can kill him.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/petoc.html

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

10. You believe that don't you...

[aikoaiko]

18. Your sardonic depiction of Brady Bunch or VPC hyperbole is spot on..

Oh wait... you're serious....

:rofl:

[krispos42]

28. !

[akvo]

35. You didn't even read your own link......

You are so wrong.

In Florida, from your own link to the Florida statutes.....

"the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony"

"A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence"

The Castle Doctrine is based on the idea that a criminal who forcibly invades your home or occupied vehicle has demonstrated through his actions that he is there to cause death or great bodily harm.

Learn to read.

[petronius]

6. I vote 'no', from a moral standpoint. From a practical standpoint, however, I would

want there to be an immensely high burden of proof on the no-possible-risk claim. I would want zero possibility of a self-defense shooting being mistakenly judged as unnecessary after the fact, and absent that guarantee I prefer the law err on the side of protecting the shooter.

Frankly, I really doubt there are many people - despite internet and other bravado - who would actually choose to fire without a real sense of a threat...

(Not really clear what the last sentence in your poll means, by the way.)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

17. you mean this one --

Should we have a legal system where your establishing that factual history would guarantee a not guilty verdict?

Because I do not understand that question either.
Therefore I have not voted.

He asks 2 questions. How many questions can one poll answer?

Me :confused:

[petronius]

30. Yes, that one made me scrunch my brows a bit. I'd forgotten what an

incorrigible penny thief our Mr Paine has turned out to be... :)

(Edit: "Yes" is more affirmative when a capital 'Y' is included...)

[TPaine7]

46. Sorry I should have asked one question.

I thought they were equivalent (or one was an example of the other).

Should we have a legal system in which preventing the theft of any property--even the theft of a penny where the thief is sprinting away and poses no threat to anyone--justifies the use of potentially deadly force?

That's what the poll question is supposed to be asking.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

59. if those are the only circumstances then I would probably vote no

I already voted not sure. However, extenuating circumstances could alter my conclusion.

[TPaine7]

20. My last question asks whether we should have a legal system set up so that

establishing that I stole your penny and ran would ensure that you would prevail in court.

[petronius]

29. Ah, got it. My answer is the same then: I'd prefer that we didn't, but think that we should

in the absence of the guarantees I referred to previously...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. There is a lot of gray and fuzz in your examples...

If someone is just stealing property, the loss of which will not impact your life or livelihood, and poses no threat to persons in the act, I would not be in favor of shooting them. For example I would not snipe someone stealing from an outbuilding from a kitchen window. Exception: breaking into an occupied home would trigger Castle Doctrine/Castle Defense laws. If the residents come home while the thief is there...too bad for the perp. Similar feelings about Stand Your Ground. There should never be legal requirement to retreat from a crime/criminal.

I am not without experience in this area. My wife shot a killed a home invader who had just declared his intent to kill me. I have also had to deal with break ins and street violence over time. I try to end such events with the minimum of violence, but ending it immediately and decisively comes before being nice and minimizing injury to perps.

I am against any civil penalties against victims. It is way too easy to second guess things afterward. Self defense is not smooth sliding scale. There are distinct steps in the line, including lethal force. There is also tremendous about of capriciousness and gender bias in second guessing as well. I also feel that criminal penalties for excessive force in self defense be strongly limited on the grounds that the the perp started the chain and bears most of the responsibility for the outcome.

I am a lifelong martial artist and teach firearms on the side mostly to GLBTs and women. I actually get quite upset when things come to violence...but I refuse to be a victim of it.

[TPaine7]

22. Take out the guesswork...

I am against any civil penalties against victims. It is way too easy to second guess things afterward.

Let's take the guesswork out of this. Let's say that the whole thing was recorded on a security camera. The facts are not in dispute. You shot me in the back after I stole your money. I was sprinting away from you with the stolen penny (or dollar).

[rrneck]

25. Are you rich or poor? nt

[TPaine7]

45. Very poor. And take the penny branch of the question. n/t

[rrneck]

52. If you need the penny (or dollar)

to sustain your life, then lethal force would probably be justified. But that depend on what the term "life" means. For over half the planet eating every day is life. For many in this country three hots and a cot means life. For some therapy at $150 an hour means life. For many others cable TV and a bass boat are indispensable.

What sort of law would we write to distinguish life from lifestyle? Or are creature comforts worth killing a man over?

Also, if we attach property to lethal force, how would corporate America respond in the event of labor trouble? What constitutes damage or theft if the injured party is defined by property, or if life is defined by profit? It brings a whole new meaning to the term self defense. A law on the books today shapes the culture of the future. Given the way things seem to be going I'm not sure giving property more rights is such a good idea.

[Ready4Change]

11. How much of a persons livelyhood = serious stakes?

People work for their property. For some it is the reason why they work. For others, it is the tools of their work in the first place.

How much of their property needs to be taken, or at risk of being taken, before it becomes 'serious stakes?' How many times should, say, a plumber, have his work van broken into, in spite of locks, and have all his tools taken, before it becomes 'serious stakes?'

Should someone consider keeping less money in a wallet, just to keep a mugging from becoming 'serious stakes?'

Let's say a person earns $40,000 a year. How much of that can be stolen, in terms of replacement costs, before it becomes 'serious stakes?' Give me a percentage of what should be considered acceptable. Keep in mind, if it's 100%, the person in question no longer has food, or a roof over their head. If they are self employed they've also lost the tool of their trade, so they can no longer work.

[TPaine7]

23. Good question. I don't claim to know the answer for anyone else.

That's why I chose examples clearly on both sides of that line. Assault murder, rape, and kidnapping, and loss that will destroy your livelihood on one side and the loss of a penny on the other. I assume that most people will agree that the line is between those points. The rest I leave up to you.

[ileus]

12. 5-20 smoeone's DU'd this poll.

[rrneck]

13. Life or lifestyle?

We can always count on you to produce something worth talking about.

Just offhand, if the loss of items will cause death or severe physical injury then the proper response would be the use of deadly force as defined by statute. That, of course, is a quick and facile answer that does not address a whole host of complications.

It's no secret that the bulk of bankruptcies in this country are the result of medical expenses. If you beat somebody to a pulp you could easily ruin them financially; maybe even put them on the street. So if you steal their means to make a living, a truck full of tools is the most common example here, would that also mean deadly force is appropriate? Of course insurance is an option, but a lot of people who make a living with a truck full of tools can't afford to insure them. They are also most at risk of being put in a situation where they may have to defend a good more than just property (which drives up the cost of insurance). That's why firearms laws, like most other regulations, fall heaviest on the least prosperous in this country. In the case of the means to make a living I think deadly force may be appropriate, although I don't think I could shoot somebody even for that.

A large screen TV isn't worth shooting somebody over, I don't care how much it costs. People frequently argue that the time it took to make the money to pay for the TV is time out of their lives, and that's true. But to take an entire life to compensate for a portion of another is punitive in the extreme. I don't think it even makes sense from a utilitarian standpoint, much less from any other moral system I ever heard of.

So the difference is, it seems to me, to be a difference between life and lifestyle. If the loss of the goods will result in the loss or severe impairment of life, then deadly force may be appropriate. If the loss of the goods will result in the damage of a lifestyle, then deadly force would not be appropriate. The question is how would the defender prove to the court that the loss of the goods constitutes damage to his or her life? Should there be classifications of goods that would trigger the authorization of deadly force? I don't know how that would be possible. Should the net worth of the goods as a percentage of the total worth of the defender be the determining factor? That seems absurd as well since it puts an arbitrary dollar value on a life.

The moral dilemma you present is one of wealth. If we actually needed all our possessions to stay alive, there would be no question about using deadly force to defend them. Since the bulk of the things we own are conveniences rather than necessities, the default position is that a life isn't worth stuff, which is to say a life isn't worth the maintenance of a lifestyle. But in a country where just in time manufacturing has met the service industry the loss of a cell phone could mean both the loss of a bit of social plumage and the loss of means to get work.

I don't see how statute law could make any meaningful distinction between damage to a life and a lifestyle. In the plethora of things that we need to survive in this world, there is just no way for us to define what is and is not necessary for life in any meaningful way. But statute law isn't the only way we have to coexist in a civilized society. We don't have to run to the courts to tell us what is worth a human life and what is not. In fact, it is only when we have exhausted all other means of making that determination do we wind up in court anyway.

In the case of defending property, if you catch some guy stealing your lawn mower you have the option of trying to stop him or letting him get away. You have the option of fighting for your stuff. If you want to escalate the confrontation to the point of using deadly force to keep it, then the thief will have probably given you reason to do so. Thus, if you point a gun at him and tell him you will shoot him if he doesn't leave your lawn mower alone he can either try to run with it which leaves you to shoot him as he flees and having to explain to the police why your lawn mower is necessary for you to survive, or the thief can rush you and try to force you into letting him take it and get shot in the process and give you a justification for self defense, or he can just leave your shit alone and nobody gets hurt.

Laws are a codification of popular consent. Those laws spring from the interactions between people, whether they are writing contracts or stealing from each other. As things stand now we are so wealthy that I think the default position is to use deadly force to protect only one's person from assault exclusive of whatever property may be involved. If the property in question is worth fighting for the issue will be settled long before the police arrive because the defender will be willing to escalate the confrontation to the point where deadly force will be necessary. After the fact, defense of the goods in question may be presented as evidence to support a claim of self defense, but it is impossible to write a law that will adequately define what goods or the value thereof alone will be sufficient to warrant the use or deadly force.

This position ain't perfect. It isn't even close. I have basically left it up to the jury to decide. That's because the process of writing a law that would tell us what to do would be circumvented by thieves before the ink was dry. The only solution I can offer is the same one that has been offered time and again in this forum: education and social support. Both the assailant and the defender will benefit from a society that taught them not only that stealing is wrong, but that killing someone over something you really didn't need anyway is wrong too.

[Atypical Liberal]

14. I say yes.

Property is property. Either you can use deadly force to protect it or you can't. If I can use deadly force to protect expensive property, then I can use deadly force to protect inexpensive property. No one has a right to tell me what is valuable to me and what is not.

Here's a guy who got shot in the ass for trying to steal a package of fake pot:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/29/2011-08-29_texas_thief_uses_hammer_as_fake_gun_to_steal_fake_weed_gets_shot_with_real_bulle.html?google_editors_picks=true

Probably worth a couple of bucks.

"The customer will not face any charges for the shooting, which according to Texas law, was justified.

"You can use deadly force to protect property and prevent the other’s imminent commission of robbery," he said. "So he’s covered.""

My property is my property. If I catch you in the act of stealing, and I can stop you with a gun, I should be able to do that.

[rrneck]

15. "I should be able to do that"

Why?

[Atypical Liberal]

36. To protect my property from theft.

I should be able to decide what property of mine is worth keeping.

[Cirque du So-What]

38. If you're rich enough in the first place, you'll have no problem with the law

if you decide to execute petty thieves.

I know of a rich man - probably the richest in my hometown - who became aware of pilferage from a gasoline tank on his property. The tank was located far from his house, near the public highway, so it represented no threat to his household or family. He began laying in wait, late at night, until he surprised an adolescent boy stealing gas for his car. The rich man unloaded his 12-gauge shotgun on the boy, shooting him in the face, chest & abdomen, inflicting grievous wounds that were very nearly fatal. In an ironic twist, the boy turned out to be the son of the custodian at the church where the rich man was, of course, a respected deacon, but that's grist for a different mill.

To make a long story short, the law never gave serious consideration to charging the rich man with unnecessary force for nearly ending the life of a young person for a crime that would merit no more than a few months in jail at the most. Rumor is that the rich man bought off the judge, prosecuting attorney, the boy in question & his family - a monetary price far exceeding the value of the pilfered gasoline (35¢ a gallon, assuming, of course, that it was 'regular'). The man became a pariah in my hometown for most; if he was a 'hero' to anyone, those individuals - including the most strutting of martinets - kept their admiration to themselves. Before the end of his life, the man performed a mea culpa by announcing just how wrong he was to act as judge, jury & executioner over some automobile fuel - coming forth only by dint of his own conscience.

Now, you can come into this Democratic forum and announce that you possess a gift of discernment that empowers you to take human life in exchange for property. Your username is quite apropos; you're not like any other liberal I've ever met. If you ever get around to unleashing deadly force against someone stealing your property, get back to us, wouldja? Let us know how you're coping with everything that precipitates from it.

[rrneck]

40. What

makes your determination about the relative value of your property better than anybody else's?

"Because I say so" is not really a reason, it's an opinion. Your opinion assumes an ability to accurately appraise the life of another. How are you able to do that?

[Atypical Liberal]

47. Because it's mine.

What makes your determination about the relative value of your property better than anybody else's?

Because it is mine.

"Because I say so" is not really a reason, it's an opinion. Your opinion assumes an ability to accurately appraise the life of another. How are you able to do that?

As I have said many times before, I don't assign any value to the life of a thief, he does that himself when he decides to risk his life for some piece of property.

Some people decide their life is worth risking by throwing out of an airplane. Others decide to risk it for the excitement of running in front of bulls. Others decide that jumping from high places with a bungee cord attached to them is worth risking their lives for. Who am I to argue with them over what they have decided their life is worth?

My property is mine. Only I can decide whether something is precious or not. A paperclip might be priceless to me and a gold bar might be worthless to me, but it is for me to decide how valuable it is and how much force I am willing to use to protect it from theft.

In many states, like Arkansas, Texas, North Carolina, Indiana, Washington, and West Virginia, this is legal.

[TPaine7]

49. So if your (hypothetical) 18yo kid was caught stealing flowers from a neighbor's flower bed

to give to a girl he was interested in, you would sanction his killing?

(If it was necessary to retrieve stolen flowers he was fleeing with.)

[Atypical Liberal]

57. As I have said before...

So if your (hypothetical) 18yo kid was caught stealing flowers from a neighbor's flower bed to give to a girl he was interested in, you would sanction his killing?

(If it was necessary to retrieve stolen flowers he was fleeing with.)

As I have said before, it depends on the context and the value the neighbor places on the flowers.

If this is a person picking a couple of flowers off of a plant or two, probably no big deal. If someone is digging all the flowers out of the flower garden, as has happened in new construction homes, that's another matter altogether.

The bottom line is, either I can defend property with deadly force or I can't.

If I can defend my car from being stolen using deadly force, then any other property can likewise be defended with deadly force. This does not mean that the property owners has to use deadly force to protect all property, only that he has the right to do so if he chooses.

[rrneck]

53. So, whether you realize or not

you have assumed arbitrary power of life or death by declaring yourself the sole arbiter of the value of another person's life by shifting responsibility for your values onto others. You make that claim based solely on your ability to acquire material goods. If you can get your hands on it, you can kill to keep it. That is the same rationale that has driven every imperielist injustice in the last seven thousand years. And it was perfectly legal every time; for the one who had the most stuff.

[Atypical Liberal]

58. Still legal in several states. And I am not setting the value.

So, whether you realize or not you have assumed arbitrary power of life or death by declaring yourself the sole arbiter of the value of another person's life by shifting responsibility for your values onto others.

Again, the only person who makes that value judgement is the thief. If the thief understands that his life is on the line for stealing, and he chooses to steal anyway, then that is on him. If the thief doesn't understand that, well if more thieves did there would be less theft.

You make that claim based solely on your ability to acquire material goods.

It is wrong to steal. It is not wrong to stop people from stealing, by any means necessary. In several states, it is also legal.

If you can get your hands on it, you can kill to keep it. That is the same rationale that has driven every imperielist injustice in the last seven thousand years. And it was perfectly legal every time; for the one who had the most stuff.

Even today it is legal in several states.

[rrneck]

61. Lots of things have been legal thst shouldnt have been.

How do you feel about the return of the AWB?

If you're willing to shoot someone for stealing anything you think is important enough to kill them for, how far are we from a world where dueling becomes popular again? Were talking about a moral imperative here that will not simply be confined to property. People frequently care much more about words than stuff.

I still don't understand how you can set the bar that low. Do you not see how unusual that is? I mean, could someone really be expected to know you would kill them over a ball point pen? People walk off with pens all the time and you seem willing to assume the worst and deal out punishment accordingly. Do you think that's fair? Don't you think they could use a little warning? How popular do you think someone would be if everyone thought he would kill them if they stole anything of his? Is it even possible to structure a society to function like that?

I'd be interested to hear how you think we could all live that way. I can understand you not wanting people stealing your stuff, but how can you value the least of your stuff over the life of a human being you've never met? Why could you reasonably expect a stranger to share your values and pay with his life if he does not?

[Atypical Liberal]

62. On stealing pens.

Obviously I probably would not kill someone for stealing a ball point pen.

Every situation is unique and would have to be assessed individually.

The bottom line is, if I can use deadly force to defend property, then I can use deadly force to defend property - any property. Since any shooting is going to cost you at least $10K in legal fees, you'd be smart to consider the value of the property being stolen before deciding to kill over it.

Also, there is a difference between walking off with a pen from the bank teller window and taking one off of my desk in my home in the middle of the night. Context is everything.

[rrneck]

65. Absolutely.

So, is it possible to codify that context into a workable law? I tried to make a distinction in post 13(?) between material goods to support life and material goods to support a lifestyle. But I'm not a philosopher so that's as close as I could get. But I think any fair law should be based on some objective standard.

There are so many things that can affect the value of material goods I just don't see how any objective standard can be established. But I know every human being gets exactly one life. And when they lose that they lose everything. No object in the world can replace that.

Now granted he needs to think about that before he tries to take my life, or maybe even before he tries to take stuff I need for my life. But nobody should die at the alter of a lifestyle.

[Atypical Liberal]

66. Yes, and several states have.

So, is it possible to codify that context into a workable law? I tried to make a distinction in post 13(?) between material goods to support life and material goods to support a lifestyle.

I think it's simplest just to say that property is property and you can use deadly force to prevent someone from stealing it, and that you can simply use deadly force to stop any felony.

But I know every human being gets exactly one life. And when they lose that they lose everything. No object in the world can replace that.

And if it was common knowledge that stealing could cost you your one life, it would probably be a big incentive not to steal.

It is unreasonable to expect someone in the midst of being robbed to try and do a mental calculation to determine whether what is being stolen only affects the victims life or his lifestyle. Property is property. Theft is theft. Either you can use deadly force to stop theft, or you can't.

[rrneck]

68. Does that include ball point pens? nt

[rrneck]

86. If the victim has to do a mental calculation

about the necessities if life the object isn't necessary.

(Just reread your reply)

[Atypical Liberal]

89. Really.

Last year I went out to start up my new garden tractor parked in the back yard. It would not start. I got to looking at it, and someone had tried to hot-wire it. We don't leave the keys in it because it would be unsafe for the children.

Someone obviously saw into our yard from the back of the neighborhood at a higher elevation, opened our gate, came into our back yard, and tried to steal my brand-new $1200 garden tractor. I bought it because I got tired of fighting the 10-year-old garden tractor we had previously.

If I had been home and able to confront the thief, I surely would have, with a firearm. My homeowner's has a $1000 deductible, which would mean that I would eat most of the cost of replacing that tractor. I would probably shoot someone over $1000 worth of property if it was necessary to stop them from stealing it.

[rrneck]

91. That's understandable.

Y'know, I don't even know What constitutes a felony nowadays. Is it a thousand?

Some kids (I guess, it was Halloween ) stole a briefcase that held a checkbook, camera, day planner, and assorted paperwork that, along with the inconvenience it caused probably cost more than a grand. To me it was a sizeable loss and it upset me a lot. They were mischievous kids in an affluent neighborhood. This isn't the kind of place where kids end up in a life of crime. There is no reason to believe they wouldn't grow up to be a benefit to the community. Shooting them for stealing something, in this case something I really needed, would have been a tragedy.

That's why I question so many anti gun positions. They just don't take into consideration the reality of people's lives. Some things just have to be worked out in real time. We just can't demand statute law answer every question for us or show us how to get along with other.

My response would be the same as yours. Had I been there I would have confronted them - of course in my case a firearm probably would not be necessary. At that point they would have two choices - escalate or withdraw. If they escalate it's not about theft any more.

If we consider a felony the sole criterion for the use of deadly force , the people with the most stuff have the most reason to kill and the poorest have the least reason to do so. There was a time when only the king or he's agents had the right of deadly force. Our laws help shape our culture and that criteria, by attaching the right of self defense to property, begins to favor the wealthy.

There have been a lot of terrible injustices in this country because the law favored the wealthy over the individual. Thousands if not millions of people have suffered and died because power resided in property, and it was all perfectly legal in part because somebody decided it was OK to use deadly force to stop theft. How long do you think it will be before something like Blackwater becomes the new Pinkerton?

If I have to shoot somebody it will be because I thought I would not survive otherwise. And I won't be afraid to stand before a jury of my peers and be judged by them. I want some rich motherfucker to have to do the same.

Sorry about the terse reply before. Shoulda stopped postingabout two hours before I did.

[Starboard Tack]

60. "I don't assign any value to the life of a thief"

You, sir, take the prize as the most amoral member I have encountered in this forum. Your views on the value of human life are beyond despicable and have no connection to the Democratic Party. But we thank you for your honesty.

[Atypical Liberal]

63. To quote Kilrain from The Killer Angels...

"Kilrain rubbed his nose, brooding. Then he said, “The truth is, Colonel, that there’s no divine spark, bless you. There’s many a man alive no more value than a dead dog. Believe me, when you’ve seen them hang each other. Equality? Christ in Heaven. What I’m fighting for is the right to prove I’m a better man than many. Where have you seen this divine spark in operation, Colonel? Where have you noted this magnificent equality? The Great White Joker in the Sky dooms us all to stupidity or poverty from birth. No two things on earth are equal or have an equal chance, not a leaf nor a tree. There’s many a man worse than me, and some better, but I don’t think race or country matters a damn. What matters is justice. ‘Tis why I’m here. I’ll be treated as I deserve, not as my father deserved. I’m Kilrain, and I God-damn all gentlemen. I don’t know who me father was and I don’t give a damn. There’s only one aristocracy, and that’s right here–” he tapped his white skull with a thick finger–”and you Colonel laddie, are a member of it and don’t even know it. You are damned good at everything I’ve seen you do, a lovely soldier, an honest man, and you got a good heart on you too, which is rare in clever men. Strange thing, I’m not a clever man meself, but I know it when I run across it. The strange and marvelous thing about you, Colonel darlin’, is that you believe in mankind, even preachers, whereas when you’ve got my great experience of the world you will have learned that good men are rare, much rarer than you think. Ah,” he raised his hands, smiling, “don’t you worry about ministers. The more you kill, the more you do the world a service.” He chuckled, rubbing his face. His nose was fat and soft, rippling under his fingers."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRB2dGI1vRM

I believe that human life has no intrinsic value. We increase or decrease its value by our actions.

There is nothing immoral about defending property nor holding property of higher value than the life of those who would steal it, especially those who are willing to kill to steal it.

[Starboard Tack]

71. "I believe that human life has no intrinsic value. We increase or decrease its value by our actions.

By that criterion, you just devalued your life to less than that of an amoeba. I feel for anyone who comes in contact with you.:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Atypical Liberal]

87. How do you know that?

By that criterion, you just devalued your life to less than that of an amoeba. I feel for anyone who comes in contact with you.

Come now. Do you really think that Hitler's life was worth the same as your own?

[Starboard Tack]

94. I never said anyone else's was worth the same or more than my own

We are talking about property versus life. If you want to equate yourself with Hitler, feel free. If you would kill over property, then you have devalued your life, and the lives of others , to that level.

[Atypical Liberal]

102. You said mine was worth less than an amoeba.

By that criterion, you just devalued your life to less than that of an amoeba. I feel for anyone who comes in contact with you.

You seemed upset by my stating that life has no intrinsic value. I'm glad you now agree with me that this is the case.

And again, anyone who chooses to risk their life to steal property has set the value of their live all by themselves.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

105. There is nothing amoral about that

A thief chooses to live outside the norms of society. He chooses to live his life by making it clear to others he has no respect for them.

Frankly, I place more value on the life of a stray cat than I do on the life of a thief.

Personally, I find your views to be amoral. You consider the life of a thief to be equal to, if not greater than, his victim.

[Starboard Tack]

113. "You consider the life of a thief to be equal to, if not greater than, his victim."

I never said that. I consider all life to have value, including the life of a thief, a stray cat, or a killer. That does not mean a thief's life is worth more than that of his victim. When he engages in thievery, he is risking his life, but that doesn't give you the right to take it. Your right is to claim self defense. And you'd better make sure that claim is demonstrable, or you will truly be risking your life.

Last I heard, stealing is not a capital offense.
There wouldn't be many people in the world if everyone who ever stole anything was summarily executed.
Maybe you are one of that minority of saintly people who never stole a thing. What a heavy halo to carry.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

118. No, theft isnt a capital offense

What you keep missing though is, as the victim of the theft, I am not handing down a sentence. I am protecting my property. If, during the course of that protection, the thief ends up dead, that is his problem and fault - not mine.

Incidentally, most people don't steal anything. It isn't a heavy halo to carry - it is simply having respect for others. I'm sorry you don't understand the concept.

[Starboard Tack]

119. It may end up being your problem.

You are entitled to protect your property, before and during it's being stolen, by almost any force necessary. After it is in the possession of the thief, the rules change. You need to be aware of that. I'm not giving you my opinion here, but sound legal advice, that may serve you well, should you find yourself in a situation where you may be tempted to shoot someone who no longer poses a threat to your person. There are many people serving a lot of time, who thought they had the right to shoot a fleeing criminal.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

120. I do not disagree with you at all

I really DON'T. Yes, Texas allows for lethal force in recovery of property, but only at the moment. No, you cannot hunt him down hours or days later and kill him. However, if he's running off and you shoot him as he's fleeing, too bad so sad for the criminal.

It is not carte blanche to round up a posse and go hunting.

I believe the victim should not be forced to have his actions analyzed and ripped apart by armchair generals days, weeks or months after the fact. As a society, we need to give the victim the same exact assumption of innocence we give the criminal. Yes, it is possible you could have one or two aberrant people using such a process to commit murder, but at the end of the day, you have to ask yourself what is more likely. Is it likely that Joe Homeowner with 2.5 kids, a wife, an SUV and a mortgage decided to randomly kill some crackhead for no good reason, or is it more likely that J. Random Crackhead was trying to run away with property that Joe Homeowner invested a good chunk of his life trying to acquire?

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atypical Liberal]

88. I did, and I am a parent.

I can't help wondering. Did you actually had parents? If not, I'm sorry. I do think you should think twice about having children. Most normal children steal something, at least once in their lives.

I did have parents, and I am the father of two.

[Starboard Tack]

98. Make sure you teach those kids your values.

Then, when one of them takes the other's toy, you'll only have one mouth to feed.

[Atypical Liberal]

103. .

[LAGC]

16. I disagree.

Execution is a pretty harsh punishment for just the crime of theft.

While I'm willing to give home-owners the benefit of the doubt WHEN IN THEIR OWN HOME and they are violated by an intruder whose intentions they don't know, I don't see any justification for potentially killing a mere property thief, especially in a public place or business, when no one's actual life is being endangered.

[azureblue]

31. true, but

in some countries, if you are caught stealing, you lose a hand, which serves three purposes- 1- to visually brand a person as a thief, forever, 2- as a warning to other potential thieves, and 3- to reduce a person's ability to steal again.

My take is this: If it is legal to shoot a thief, that does not mean that you have to. For sure, a burglar / thief would be less likely to try to steal, car jack, etc., if he or she knew they could die for it, and the person they tried to steal from did not get punished for it. It might make a thief, burglar, car jacker think twice, if they knew they could die.

I think that a scalable law would be more appropriate: something along the lines of: if you catch a person stealing from you, you are allowed to use a firearm (and receive no punishment for using it, brandishing it, discharging it, etc., nor have the weapon taken from the owner) to secure or recover your property. On one end, a simple display the weapon and tell the thief they will get shot if they do not put down your property and lie down on the floor until the cops come; in the middle, a stop or I'll shoot command, and at the other end, just pull the gun and shoot 'em on the spot.

But, in my mind, a thief is breaking the law, and a certain "take the law into your own hands" mentality is required when a person is confronted by a thief / burglar and about to suffer loss of property, along with the possibility of accompanying physical injury, or even getting killed by the thief. My belief is that a person that thinks it's OK to steal is very capable of also causing personal injury in the process - the cornered animal thing..

[oneshooter]

50. What if the thief is stealing a persons means of making a living for his/her family?

[aikoaiko]

19. I don't know, but I do know that stealing a poor persons car can ruin his/her life for a long while.

[DWC]

21. I voted Yes because

"serious stakes" is an extremely relative term.

In another thread a young man shot and killed an armed thief who stole all his money at WalMart. That amount of money would mean nothing to Bill Gates but possibly survival itself to the young man who defended his property.

So, yes is my answer. The Bad Guy made a free choice to initiate an attempted theft. The Good Guy should have the free choice to respond with whatever force he deems necessary to defend his property.

Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):
"Conceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made."

Semper Fi,

[Hoyt]

32. That guy at the Walmart has screwed his life up worse than losing a pay check.

Even if eventually cleared, he will lose more than his paycheck. He would have been better off without a gun.

I do understand what that paycheck probably meant to him, and I hope the jury is fair after hearing the facts.

[DWC]

39. His right to make that decision

is why I voted Yes

[TPaine7]

48. I actually meant "serious stakes" in the reasonable judgement of the person using deadly force,

and used the example of the penny to ensure that the poorest person could afford to lose it.

However rrneck makes an excellent point (post 13) that the reasonableness of the "serious stakes" judgement will be hard to judge in court.

So I leave it with you at the penny level. In the penny theft and sprint, should the law favor the shooter?

[DWC]

56. In the late 1980s

I remember a man was stabbed to death in Houston by a robber who stole 87 cents. The thing that made the event so memorable to me was the fact that the murderer even took the pennies.

You have posed a general question I feel unable to answer because of the uniqueness of every confrontational situation.

Definitely a thought provoking OP.

Semper Fi,

[Starboard Tack]

26. Good post. And I agree with you for the most part.

I guess the extremists are showing their true colors on this one.
We now know that about 25% of the voters think that property is worth more than a human life. There are many humans that you or I may think are just taking up space on this planet and are seen by many as the scum of the earth, but I would not intentionally kill them over property. I might fight them if they try to take my property and in doing so, they may die, but it would not be intentional on my part. Life trumps property.

[spin]

33. Let me reply honestly ...

Much depends on the situation.

Situation 1

My situational awareness fails me on the street and I find myself faced by an armed attacker who asks for my wallet. I appraise this individual. As my martial arts instructor told our class, "You look into the attacker's eyes, as the eyes are the mirror of the soul."

If the attacker looks stable and I believe that all he wants is my wallet, I'll just turn it over. I can always replace my money, my credit cards and my driver's license. I may not be able to replace my health or my life.

Situation 2

The same scenario as situation 1 with the exception that I seriously believe that even if I turn over my wallet, my attacker will hurt or kill me. I have little to lose and honestly believing that my life or my health is in danger, I will attempt to fight back. That may well involve using my concealed handgun and if I chose it, I will shoot for his center body mass to stop the attacker but not to kill him. Head shots are extremely difficult and if I miss, I may well endanger innocent people. Therefore I have no plans to try for a head shot. Handguns are not as lethal as portrayed on TV and the movies, so even if I place several shots into my assailant there is an excellent chance that he may survive.

If the attacker is extremely close to me, I may decide to attempt to use the skills I learned in jujitsu many years ago and try to disarm him. If I am successful but he attempts to continue his attack, I may decide to draw my handgun and stop his attack. If I can't disarm him, I may have little choice but to shoot him.

If he runs, all is well that ends well.

Situation 3

The attacker rushes me with a knife. There is absolutely no doubt of his intentions. He definitely plans to hurt or kill me. I will attempt to avoid his rush and disarm him if possible. I will then pull my concealed weapon and shoot him if he continues his attack and does not run.

(I should point out that I fully expect to get cut in such a situation.)

Situation 4

The attacker pulls a handgun and tries to shoot me. Once again, I know he intends to injure or kill me. If he is far enough away that I can't attempt to disarm him, I will move out of his line of fire to cover if possible and pull my own handgun and shoot for center body mass to stop his attack.

Handguns are not particularity lethal weapons and there is an excellent chance that I can shoot back even if shot and if I hit my attacker several times, he may survive.

Situation 5

I am sitting in my car at a stop light. I have foolishly left my window down. A man walks up with a handgun and points it at me and orders me out of the car. I have no cars in front of me and no cars are near the intersection on the cross street that I might hit. I will floor my accelerator pedal and jump the red light. I may stick my left hand out the window and give the carjacker the finger as I race off. (This actually happened to a friend I knew who always carried a revolver in a holster on his belt.)

Situation 6

Similar to situation 5 except there are cars in front of mine at the stop light. If I believe that the attacker is unstable enough or high enough that he will kill me even if I get out of the car, I will slam the car door into him if he his stupid enough to be beside it. I will then pull my firearm and shoot him.

If he looks entirely stable and merely wants my car, I will get out and let him drive away.

Situation 7

I foolishly leave my passenger car door unlocked and the carjacker opens it and jumps in, points a gun or knife at me and orders me out. I will get out and give up the car if I believe that is all he wants. If he looks like he intends to harm me, I will get out and shoot him.

Situation 8

I am in my home and hear strange noises and realize that I have an intruder inside my house and I am the only person in the house and have no family to worry about. I will call 911 from my cell phone and stay inside my bedroom with my home defense handgun or shotgun pointed at the door. If the intruder breaks down my door, I will have enough time to be absolutely certain that he has no right to be inside my home and I will shoot him.

Situation 9

I hear a strange noise at night but there are always a number of people in my home, including my family and visitors. (This describes my current situation.) I will pull on my shorts and drop my snub nosed revolver into my shorts pocket and check the situation out. If I encounter an innocent family member or visitor they will have no idea that I have a gun in my pocket and my hand is on it.

However if I encounter a stranger and I am absolutely certain that he has no right to be inside my home, I will draw down on him and order him to follow my instructions. If he does, that's fine. If he turns his back on me and doesn't immediately run, I will suspect that he is going for a weapon and I will immediately move sideways and if he starts to turn, I will shoot him. I can't take chances as if he gets past me, my family is in danger. The Florida Castle Doctrine allows this.

Former NRA President Exposes the Lies and Misinformation Aimed at Florida’s “Castle Doctrine” Law

***snip***

GIACHINO: One thing that is a little bit confusing – well, actually a lot of things are confusing about this law, particularly because of the misinformation that is being given by the Brady group, but one thing that confused me, and I read the law several times myself and would consider myself qualified to read it and understand it with my legal background, but nonetheless someone who is retreating, a perpetrator who is retreating, what happens then? If they had entered the person’s home unlawfully and the person felt that their life or someone in their family’s life was in danger, even if at some point the perpetrator turns to retreat, if deadly force is used against them would this law still apply?

HAMMER: The law is designed to allow you to use deadly force against an individual who breaks into your home. If someone turns around, you have no way of knowing whether or not they are retreating or whether or not they are going for a gun or something else. So yes, if someone breaks into your home they are at your mercy. Once they get outside your home – if they turn around and run and get outside your home, then you cannot take action against them.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/marion-hammer-nra-interview.htm

Situation 10

I am attacked by a much larger individual who is unarmed but younger and in far better physical condition than I am. He obviously intends to beat the shit out of me and put me in the hospital or six feet under. (I am 65 years old and have degenerative disk disease and am a candidate for a hip replacement.) I realize my limitations. I do carry pepper spray and that may be effective in many situations. If I honestly feel that my only way to stop his attack is to use my handgun, I will.

*****

The big advantage that I see in Florida's Castle Doctrine law and its Stand your Ground law is that I face far less chance of being harassed by some overzealous prosecutor who hates firearms and also if the legal system feels that I acted responsibly I can avoid civil lawsuits. Of course, there still are standards to meet and I just can't shoot someone because I suspect that they MIGHT be dangerous. If I am in the right, I stand far less chance of having to use all my life's savings to defend myself in criminal court or in civil court against a foolish lawsuit.

The third component deals with a prohibition against civil lawsuits by criminals or the families of criminals who had begun to profit by their crimes by suing victims who may have harmed or killed criminals who were attacking them or intruding into their homes. It is just wrong for a system to allow criminals who have attacked you to turn around and sue you when you defend yourself and do harm to them.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/marion-hammer-nra-interview.htm

I never want to have to shoot a person. My object is to avoid any encounters that will force me to make the decision to use my firearms for self defense. I do have options. For example, I carry pepper spray.

The chances of such a situation as described above happening to me are extremely slim but not impossible. I don't live in fear of ever being attacked nor do I fantasize about the opportunity to blow some bad guy away and become a "hero".

I fully realize that shooting someone, even if it is entirely justified, can lead to numerous legal and psychological problems. Currently I sleep well at night with pleasant dreams. I do not wish to spend the rest of my life having to deal with nightmares resulting from my decision to shoot someone.

[one-eyed fat man]

34. Fleeing Felon Rule

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

Some states have it, some states don't, but the basic premise is deadly force may be used to prevent the escape of someone who has just committed a dangerous felony.

You witness a murder, an armed robbery, a kidnapping, an arson, a violent assault or other serious and dangerous felony the use of force, to include deadly force is permissible in some states. In Kentucky, it is limited to peace officers under KRS 503.090

(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when:
(a) The defendant, in effecting the arrest, is authorized to act as a peace officer; and
(b) The arrest is for a felony involving the use or threatened use of physical force likely to cause death or serious physical injury; and
(c) The defendant believes that the person to be arrested is likely to endanger human life unless apprehended without delay.

KRS 431.005(4) is the Kentucky Statute providing for the making of an arrest by a "private person." Such action is commonly known as a "citizen's arrest." The statute provides:

A private person may make an arrest when a felony has been committed in fact and he has probable cause to believe that the person being arrested has committed it.

Once upon a time I used to pull guard on a nuclear weapons storage facility. You think shoot to kill orders to keep people from stealing that "property" excessive?

Or some guy has just robbed you at knife point and when he takes off with your wallet, you shoot him. Is that retribution or preventing a violent felon from escaping?

[TPaine7]

42. A fleeing felon may or may not be a threat to anyone

Once upon a time I used to pull guard on a nuclear weapons storage facility. You think shoot to kill orders to keep people from stealing that "property" excessive?

No. Someone stealing nuclear material is a clear and extreme danger to millions. Potentially deadly force is justified; stopping the theif is a duty of the first order.

Or some guy has just robbed you at knife point and when he takes off with your wallet, you shoot him. Is that retribution or preventing a violent felon from escaping?

That is a very good question. My take, considering human nature, would be that it would usually be adrenaline fueled retribution. However, that shot in the back would stop an escaping felon with the willingness to use the threat of deadly force against innocent victims. I'll have to think about that.

Great question.

[michreject]

37. Today a penny. Tomorrow a dollar

The stakes will keep rising until you kill someone.

[slackmaster]

41. Use of deadly force to stop any felony is legal in my state now

JADP

[TPaine7]

43. So stealing an unoccupied car would justify deadly force, but I should survive my

penny heist?

[slackmaster]

44. Maybe stealing YOUR unoccuped car would qualify as a felony

Mine, probably not. But I do carry comprehensive insurance on it in case someone does steal it, or set fire to it.

[Starboard Tack]

51. Well, it looks like you've really sorted the wheat from the chaff on this one.

I guess this is not a forum where there are only 2 sides, but many.
Right now, your poll says 35% of forum members are in favor of KILLING PEOPLE to protect property. We are hanging with some very disturbed individuals.
I don't care if someone steals my wheelchair, I'm not going to shoot them. I don't consider myself to be a highly moral person, but human life, no matter whose, trumps all and any property.

[rrneck]

55. The responses in the thread

for the most part seem to indicate a "depends in the situation" response.

[Atypical Liberal]

64. Funny, though...

Funny, though, that armed robbers don't share your opinion. Obviously they value their victim's property more than the victim's life. But when you decide to kill the robber instead, suddenly it's the height of immorality. Please.

[Starboard Tack]

72. Nobody is talking about armed robbers. There is no self defense here.

This thread is about killing someone purely over property. Larceny. No threats of violence. Just taking property and running away with it. You say you would shoot them in the back, because their life is worth nothing next to your junk.

[Atypical Liberal]

90. I was referencing previous posts on this topic.

Specifically the guy who was robbed in the Walmart parking lot with a pair of scissors for his paycheck, and everyone was upset that he shot the guy as he ran away with his money.

[Starboard Tack]

97. You approve of shooting someone who is running away.

You believe that murderers are better than thieves. Interesting priorities. I'm sure you never stole anything in your life.

[Atypical Liberal]

104. I believe in shooting someome IN THE ACT OF COMMITTING A FELONY.

You approve of shooting someone who is running away.

I believe in shooting ARMED ROBBERS IN THE ACT OF COMMITTING A FELONY, RUNNING AWAY WITH THE VICTIM'S PAYCHECK.

Caught in the act or caught running away having just committed the act does not matter to me so long as the victim gets to keep his property.

[Starboard Tack]

108. If they are running away, they are not committing a felony.

The felony has already been committed. That is a huge difference. Apart from that, a paycheck can be stopped with a phone call. It is a worthless piece of paper.
You can try to justify your position all day, but it doesn't alter your amorality.
Your primitive views may be atypical, but they are definitely not liberal or Democratic.

[Atypical Liberal]

110. No difference to me.

If they are running away, they are not committing a felony. The felony has already been committed.

As far as I'm concerned, running away from the scene of the crime with my cash is still the same felony in progress. The thief had not made it 10 steps from the commission of his armed robbery.

Apart from that, a paycheck can be stopped with a phone call. It is a worthless piece of paper.

Except it wasn't. Jesus had just cashed his paycheck at Walmart and was robbed with a pair of scissors to his throat of his CASH.


You can try to justify your position all day, but it doesn't alter your amorality.
Your primitive views may be atypical, but they are definitely not liberal or Democratic.

How exactly is it liberal or Democratic to take the side of an armed robber fleeing with a man's paycheck?

[Starboard Tack]

112. I am not taking the side of an armed robber or a thief.

I am advising you that your attitude, if you put it into practice, will likely result in your children being raised without their father.
I have no sympathy for thieves of any kind, nor do I for killers, except on the field of battle.

[Atypical Liberal]

114. Yup, for now.

I am not taking the side of an armed robber or a thief.

Sure sounds like it to me.

I am advising you that your attitude, if you put it into practice, will likely result in your children being raised without their father.

Yup, for now, Alabama does not enjoy the protection under the law like Texas, Arkansas, West Virginia, Washington, North Carolina, and other states have.

[DWC]

67. From your post #26

"I might fight them if they try to take my property and in doing so, they may die, but it would not be intentional on my part. Life trumps property."

What is the difference between your stated position and others who "might fight them" using tools in their defense? Would you fight them with your hands & feet? Would you employ a tire iron or a bat or a (fill-in-the-blank) to fight them?

Any defensive measure stops being a defensive measure when the bad guy is stopped. That includes using hands & feet, blunt objects, guns, or any other inanimate object. "in doing so, they may die, but it would not be intentional on my part."

The fact that You have the Right to Choose to fight them in defense of Your Life and / or Your Property is what this is all about.

Sounds to me like we are in total agreement.

Semper Fi,

[Starboard Tack]

73. I have a right to defend myself and my property.

I would defend my life with all the force necessary. I would not defend my property with tools of violence. If I chased a thief and caught him, which I have done on more than one occasion, I would restrain him and retrieve the property and if I considered it necessary would make a citizen's arrest. Guns and tire irons don't enter into the equation of defending property outside the home. The home, on the other hand, is sacrosanct, and if violated is a threat to one's life and defensible by any means. A thief leaving the home is no longer a threat.

[DWC]

76. You equivocate

You have predetermined the maximum force you would use to stop a thief outside your home. apparently based on your physical capabilities and will to resist. You have established a different level of maximum force you would use to stop a thief inside your home, apparently based on your physical capabilities and will to resist.

The fact that You have the Right to Choose to fight them in defense of Your Life and / or Your Property is what this is all about.

Please consider extending that same Right to Choose to all law abiding citizens equally and respect the choices they make when confronted by criminals.

Semper Fi,

[Starboard Tack]

77. You seem to be confused. I do not equivocate.

The only justifiable homicide is when one's life is in danger, not one's property. This has nothing to do with my physical capabilities.
I would not intentionally hurt someone, when trying to retrieve my property. If they fell, and were hurt during a tug of war, then that would be incidental. I would not club them or shoot them.
The rules change if the thief is entering, or has entered my home. That is construed as an attack on my life, unless he is in the process of leaving and no longer poses a threat.

[DWC]

92. I respect the rules you have established for yourself

and honor your Constitutional Right to make those choices for yourself even though I disagree with them, in part.

It seems, given the opportunity, you would limit my Constitutional Right to make choices and establish rules for myself.

Therein lies our differences.

Semper Fi,

[Starboard Tack]

99. Which Constitutional right would I be limiting?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

107. None

It affects only government, not the people.

In other words, the Constitution does not dictate our rights, and a private individual cannot violate any of your "constitutional rights". Only government can do that.

However, by advocating that people cannot defend themselves or their property, you are seeking to grant government the power to limit a man's right to property and self defense.

[Starboard Tack]

109. "by advocating that people cannot defend themselves or their property"

Who advocates that? Certainly not me. There is a big difference between defending your life and defending your property and the options available in each case. Killing another when defending your physical person is justifiable homicide. If your person is under no perceivable threat and you kill someone, be prepared to stand trial for culpable homicide. It's your choice.

[DWC]

116. The Right

to defend my life and my property with Force of Arms if I so choose.

Semper Fi,

[Starboard Tack]

117. And how would I be limiting that?

The limits I impose on myself are no different than the ones imposed by the law. It is illegal to shoot a person who does not pose an immediate threat to one's physical safety, unless you live in Texas, or Somalia, where anything goes, apparently.

[DWC]

121. Texan by birth. Texan by choice. Semper Fi n/t

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DWC]

125. I am honored!

Never been called Mr. Pistol Pad before. You are absolutely correct about my career choice. I have just entered my 5th decade in the electronic alarm industry and, without criminals I would have to find another job.

Questioning my "Democratic creds" because I am from Texas that gave us LBJ or the honesty of my work because I actively work to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people is a denigrating, personal assault beneath any civil discourse.

[rrneck]

84. A tire iron might enter the equation

for the theif. And he has a lot more to lose...

[Starboard Tack]

93. If you mean the thief might use a tire iron, then I would be under threat

That's a whole different equation. Theft+force or threat of force is robbery, where self defense is appropriate.

[oneshooter]

95. But only in the confines of your home,right?

"Theft+force or threat of force is robbery, where self defense is appropriate."

If you are outside your home then there is no self defense.

The rules change when not in your domicile, and you have to give up to the thief.

Hypocrisy is your middle name?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

100. Why only in the confines of your home? I didn't say that.

If your life is under threat, you have every right of self defense. If your life is not threatened, because the thief is leaving, running away, rolling the swag down the street (as in your case), you no longer have the right to self defense. You have the right to stop the thief, and apparently, in Texas, you can shoot them in the back. So enjoy.

[oneshooter]

101. When they pull knives, they have the right , in Texas, to be shot.

Your telling of half truths is real close to being a liar.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in texas

[Starboard Tack]

111. If they pull knives and threaten you with them, you have that right.

If they are no longer a threat and you shoot them, you might want to pray that the jury agrees with you. And I wouldn't be surprised if you got away with it in Texas. I wouldn't try it in any other state, if I were you. Good luck.

Personally, if I had valuable tools, like you, I would make sure they were very secure and a couple of large dogs might not be a bad idea. Just saying.

[oneshooter]

115. Kinda hard to take "a couple of large dogs " to a clients home and/or business. n/t

[rrneck]

96. Yep. nt

[jmg257]

54. No. Human life is more valuable then property.

No one likes being a victim. But only the actual, implied, and/or imminent use of deadly force justifies using deadly force in response.

[DWC]

70. So, if you find yourself facing

"the actual, implied, and/or imminent use of deadly force, are you prepared to defend yourself against it to the best of your ability?

[jmg257]

129. Not always...I tend to go through phases. nt

[slackmaster]

75. You are welcome to formulate and exercise your own moral judgment. The law enumerates situations...

...in which deadly force is legally justified. In my state (California) those situations include use of deadly force to stop a felony in progress, which includes property crimes like theft and arson.

[rrneck]

78. But, as an intellectual exercise in moral judgement

is it a just law?

There have been any number of laws that should never have been passed. How do you feel about the AWB?

[slackmaster]

79. The expired AWB was completely unjust and unjustified

...is it a just law?

I assume you are referring to the sections of the California Penal Code that identify justifiable uses of deadly force, in particular the one that includes stopping a felony in progress.

Yes, I think it's justified. Felony crimes take away parts of peoples' lives. They're malum in se crimes for the most part. Take arson as an example. If someone were to attempt to set fire to my house, that would be like trying to destroy almost everything I've worked for all of my life.

I'd use deadly force to stop an arson attack on my property. If the perpetrator happened to die as a result, that would be unfortunate but I believe I would not feel morally culpable.

[rrneck]

81. How about a flat screen tv?

If someone worked a small part of their lives for something they don't really need to survive, does that merit the loss of an entire life? Sound punitive to me.

[slackmaster]

82. I wouldn't shoot someone for stealing a TV

I'd probably do a round of Corrective Phrenology with my Louisville Slugger instead.

[rrneck]

83. Heh. I agree.

But that's what we're looking for isn't it - he value of material goods set against the value of a human life. How much stuff is worth killing someone over? And how do we craft a law, which is to say a moral imperative, to tell us what that point is?

Some say anything, others say nothing. Are those kinds of extremes ever the right solution?

My default is to defend life because everybody gets one, although there can be extenuating circumstances.

I took a poke at it in post 13 (I think).

[jmg257]

130. Arson I understand, NY is similiar at least for LE from what I remember.

But I would think that is because of the life-threatening aspects of arson.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

106. I disagree.

Some human life is worth less than a used condom.

[ileus]

69. 22 to 31

[GreenStormCloud]

80. Don't shoot over the penny. Cartridges cost too much for that.

Joking aside. Should I ever have to shoot anyone, even a completely righteous shoot, it will likely cost me dearly, in several different ways. I don't want to pay that price unless I have too.

[SteveM]

85. I voted no on the "moral" standpoint. The "legal system" element is a problem...

Making a moral choice, I would not shoot someone who has stolen minor stuff from me, where there is no other threat. I'm not sure if my moral choice should be codified. The problem with all this is the parsing out of blame, proportionality, excess, etc. after the fact. I don't want someone to go to jail because he/she shot someone for stealing, but reasonable thought a third party was attacked, when such was not the case.

Law is a sloppy science, and one of the impacts of so-called "castle law doctrine" is that the burden is placed on a law-breaker instead of someone intervening. It is blunt-force, and can result in abuse by a gun-user. But I don't want the law trying to become a stilted, brittle arbiter of blame and proportion after each instance.

[ontime1969]

122. What you call no serious stakes I call the life of my family

petty theft is one thing. If a criminal breaks into my home with intent of theft, how am I supposed to know what his intent is or what the stakes are. My point is, the criminal has seriously raised the stakes them selves when entering a home while the occupants are inside. I would never kill anyone trying to rob my house. What I would do is confront them, tell them to drop what ever they have, lay on the ground and not move until the police show up. In no way would the scumbag be going any further into my home.

Now if the scumbag decides to get up and run away, fine I would not fire on him he is no longer an immediate threat. If he were to lay there and not move, no problem I would not fire on him. Now if scumbag decided to advance on me, fight or try to get closer to my family I would drop his ass faster than he could take one step.

No one knows what people will do, I have no idea if this guy is stealing beer money, or trying to kidnap, rape, or murder my family. TBH any fool who breaks into someones home while its occupied is really asking for trouble. I will always give a chance for non violence, but I would never fail my family during a home invasion if possible.

[TPaine7]

127. You misunderstand the OP. It is not talking about home invasions;

they are explicitly excluded in the paragraph after the quote box.

[iverglas]

123. the DU administrators know how you voted ...

I know of an instance where someone was shown the exit because of a poll vote.

Wouldn't someone espousing the bizarrely illiberal viewpoint that attempted theft justifies homicide be worried that they have just exposed themselves?

[TPaine7]

126. Get help reading the OP

the DU administrators know how you voted ...

OK

I know of an instance where someone was shown the exit because of a poll vote.

So?

Wouldn't someone espousing the bizarrely illiberal viewpoint that attempted theft justifies homicide be worried that they have just exposed themselves?

Get someone to explain the OP to you. Ask them to use small words.

[iverglas]

133. better you should have got help writing it

Here is the poll "question":

From a moral standpoint, should the law allow potentially deadly force to be used to protect property when no one’s life, physical integrity, health or livelihood is at stake? For example, should my snatching a penny off of the table in front of you in a restaurant and sprinting for the exit legally justify your shooting me in the back (assuming, of course, that you didn’t thereby endanger any innocent bystanders)? Should we have a legal system where your establishing that factual history would guarantee a not guilty verdict?

with options Yes, No, I'm not sure.

Run that by Gallop, will you?

When you post the results, what will they be? Exactly what did people say "Yes" etc. to?

It's irrelevant to my post.

Anyone who answered "yes" to any of those questions is espousing a bizarrely illiberal ideology.

One might think that even you were surprised by the results, though ...

[TPaine7]

134. "It's irrelevant to my post"

Indeed, it is irrelevant to your post. But it was your post that I responded to. Ergo, it is irrelevant to my post.

Your post asserted that the administration of this board knows how I voted. I know you are practiced in the art of saying nothing and maintaining plausible (to you at least) deniability, but it seems that you were also accusing me of "espousing the bizarrely illiberal viewpoint that attempted theft justifies homicide" and asserting that I should therefore "be worried that {I had} just exposed {myself}."

I am aware that you didn't mean that--or anything else for that matter--but that's what your words imply. You could have just as easily have written "the DU administrators know how people voted"--making it clear that you weren't addressing the author of the OP personally.

[krispos42]

128. I asked before in an example in another thread...

...if you saw somebody, say, running from your house carrying a safe that contains the birth certificates, social security cards, and other critical identity papers that could easily be used by a person to assume your identity destroy your life, would you be justified in using deadly force to stop them?


I think so. That theft can result in loss of your house, your savings, your retirement, your business, and the lines of credit needed to sustain yourself.



But not a TV set. Never a TV set.

[rrneck]

131. I might be tempted

to shoot if they brought one INTO the house.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

132. I don't know man....

I REALLY like my TV...