Would you shoot a person for stealing your vehicle?

[TX-RAT]

[dsc]

1. only if my kid were in it

other than that God no.

[Nlighten1]

2. It depends...

on what kind of day I am having...

just kidding.

[ret5hd]

3. Or would you stand on the porch laughing at the damn fool...

who is wasting his skills stealing 10 year old smoke-belchers?

[TreasonousBastard]

4. I'd shoot...

the motherfucker for just LOOKING at my vehicle!

(So, what kind of a question is this, anyway?)

[KissMyAsscroft]

5. no...

I would shoot them with a potato gun.

[hippiechick]

6. Only if he brought it back with an empty gas tank

:silly: Seriously, when my car was stolen awhile back, it was a gang initiation ritual and it was found 4 days later, sans battery but with more gas in it than when it disappeared. Figure I made out ok in the long run.


:hippie:

[thebaghwan]

10. I used to have an old VW that I bought through a family friend at a great

price. I bought it as a backup car and swear family and friends drove it more that I. It was stolen three times and I swear the insurance fixed it up better and better each time.

[CO Liberal]

7. Wouldn't You Worry About a Stray Bullet Scratching the Paint?

:shrug:

[Gman]

11. Nah, turn it in

on insurance!

[FeebMaster]

8. It would be tough to justify if the person

stealing it were unarmed. You could always do what the police do and say he tried to run you down with it.

[Gman]

9. You betcha!

Its 100% legal in Texas. I'm a live and let live type person. But if someone tries to harm me or my family or take something of ours I can be a bear.

[rocktivity]

12. Do you mean while it was in the act of being stolen,

or as punishment after the fact?

:headbang:
rocknation

[Wickerman]

13. What a hot button issue

enquiring minds want to know.

:eyes:

Would you kill a man just to watch him die?

Sorry JC, RIP.

[slackmaster]

14. Absolutely not - it would be illegal

I live in California.

I take your question to mean either:

A) Would you shoot someone to stop the theft of your vehicle? Or

B) Would you exact revenge for the theft of your vehicle by shooting someone?

Either state of mind would put you squarely into the definition of murder in California at any time, any place, and any circumstances I can think of. I believe Option B would be murder at any time, any place in the civilized world.

[Pert_UK]

80. You don't do it because it's illegal, or because it's wrong?

I'm not making the accusation against you, but it's possible to interpret your comment as meaning that the only reason you wouldn't kill someone stealing your car is because it's against the law (and therefore you'd do jail time).

I personally would choose not to shoot dead someone stealing my car because I don't consider it right to take someone's life when they are not representing a threat to your own health and safety.

P.

[slackmaster]

83. Both

Thanks for asking.

If I lived in Texas or some other place where it was legal to shoot (at least at night) in scenario A in my previous post, I wouldn't do it because it would be immoral.

I personally would choose not to shoot dead someone stealing my car because I don't consider it right to take someone's life when they are not representing a threat to your own health and safety.

That's exactly how I feel about it, but reasonable middle-ground positions don't often get responses around here.

[russian33]

15. I just bought..

...a 2004 Maxima...so you bet your sweet a$$!

[natasha1]

16. Presumably...

You mean "Would you shoot a person to prevent them from stealing your vehicle."

If it is already stolen, no, I wouldn't hunt them down and shoot them (that should be the government's job).

But if the question generically is would I shoot someone to defend my property, the answer is yes, definitely.

Everything I own represents a part of my life that I exhausted to aquire it. I believe deadly force is appropriate to preserve such things.

Nat

[Prozac]

17. No material possession is worth taking a human life over.

[DavidMS]

18. Short answer: no

Longer answer: If a threat of physical violence was involved on their part, then yes. My Camry isn't worth killing someone.

I think we need a poll.

[DoNotRefill]

19. Nah....but I would seriously chastize them if I caught them.

If I caught them in the act, I'd make them stop and take them into custody. Now if they tried to hurt me while I was stopping them, that's a different issue, but I wouldn't shoot them if they didn't threaten my safety.

[solinvictus]

20. Yep, if it were legal.

My car is my largest single investment. I got a great deal on it, it's mine, and if some SOB deems to rob me of it, his life should be forfeit.

[Prozac]

21. Your priorities are seriously askew.

A car is a mere material possesion. You can get another car, that's what we pay insurance for. You can't possibly believe your car is more valuable than the life of a human being, can you?

[natasha1]

22. I do...

A car is a mere material possesion. You can get another car, that's what we pay insurance for. You can't possibly believe your car is more valuable than the life of a human being, can you?

I certainly believe that.

I do not hold the belief that all human life is sacred. Some lives are sacred, some are of no consequence, and others are vile. It all depends on how that person carries themselves through life. We all determine the sanctity of our lives by choosing the paths we walk in it.

A criminal who would steal from me is worthless, in my opinion. They have chosen a path that places the value of their lives far below the value of my my car, or even my VCR. My domain is sacred to me. It represents my very life. Anyone who would tresspass against that is worthless.

It is not the value of the item being stolen that is of consideration. It is the act of violation that renders them worthless.

Nat

[Prozac]

23. I don't believe that I have the right to take another's life.

Certainly not over material possessions. I make an exception for acts of self defense but mere theft of property is certainly not grounds for execution.

[natasha1]

24. Well, then we disagree.

In my state, I can use deadly force to protect property. So at least the law is on my side.

If someone breaks into my home, and I get the drop on them, they're dead. Simple as that. I don't care if they are making off with a box of Fruit Loops.

Nat

[Prozac]

25. The law may be on your side, but that doesn't make it right.

At one time it would have been legal for me to own another man, his wife, and all of his offspring. At one time it would have been legal for me to declare my neighbor a witch and have her burned at the stake. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

[iverglas]

30. and

... just because something is legal it isn't necessarily constitutional.

I look forward to the family of the first person our natasha1 kills for attempting to burgle her home for a box of Fruit Loops challenging the law that allowed her to do it as a violation of the right not to be deprived of life without due process, and of the right to the equal protection of the law.

Just can't see how the challenge could lose, myself.

.

[TX-RAT]

32. Some can't wait to pull the trigger.

Sadly the person behind this question did pull the trigger. He shoot his 14 year old son in the head with a 270 rifle. It wasn't until the paramedics arrived that he realized it was his son. It seems the son was listening to the CD in his fathers new truck. Six months later the father committed suicide.
This one changed my life forever.

[MrBenchley]

33. A tragic story...

Sorry to hear it.

[FeebMaster]

34. Always a classic.

Killing someone in defense of self or home is a violation of due process. Truly one of my favorites.

[iverglas]

35. gosh, if only

Killing someone in defense of self or home is a violation of due process. Truly one of my favorites.

... you could find someone to quote who had said that.

I agree with most societies' consensuses, that killing someone to avoid being killed -- as long as one reasonably believes that one is about to be killed or grievously injured, as long as one has no reasonable alternative to using force to prevent it, and as long as one uses only as much force as is necessary to prevent it -- is justified, and that permitting this is not a violation of due process.

On the other hand, there is no such thing as "defense of home", there is resistance to trespass or to an attempt to take one's property. (Oh, hell, I suppose that if someone were trying to burn your house down, you might be "defending" it.)

And yup, it surely is a violation of due process to permit people to kill other people engaged in trespass or theft.

Next, we'll discuss the constitutionality of laws permitting homeowners to kill people who spit on their driveways ...

.

[FeebMaster]

36. Here you go:

"I look forward to the family of the first person our natasha1 kills for attempting to burgle her home for a box of Fruit Loops challenging the law that allowed her to do it as a violation of the right not to be deprived of life without due process, and of the right to the equal protection of the law."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x48352#48594

[iverglas]

37. gosh, if only

... you could find someone to quote who had said:

Killing someone in defense of self or home is a violation of due process.

.

[FeebMaster]

38. Oh iverglas, you are the living end. (nt)

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[FeebMaster]

46. Well as all sorts of people are so fond of saying

"Another "progressive" who seems bent out of rights that even criminals have some basic protections and rights under law..."

no right is absolute.


But then feeb is a different sort of "end".....

I don't understand.

[FeebMaster]

49. I know it's not the exact wording.

"And yup, it surely is a violation of due process to permit people to kill other people engaged in trespass or theft."

So this probably doesn't count.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x48352#48649

[iverglas]

54. if only

... you could find someone to quote who had said:

Killing someone in defense of self or home is a violation of due process.

.

[FeebMaster]

56. Yeah.

"And yup, it surely is a violation of due process to permit people to kill other people engaged in trespass or theft."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&a...

[natasha1]

40. It's quite simple...

And yup, it surely is a violation of due process to permit people to kill other people engaged in trespass or theft.

If somene is engaged in theft of my property, I will be sure to tell the police when they arrive that I "feared for my safety".

This is more difficult in the hypothetical situation of catching someone attempting to steal my car.

But in the case of a home invasion, where someone is trying to steal something from me, frankly, if I find someone in my home, I'm not going to stop and ask them, "Excuse me, buddy, but are you here just to steal my stuff or are you planning any alternative activities, like, say, rape, while you are here?"

No, I'm going to blow their ass away.

Nat

[iverglas]

43. indeed it is

If somene is engaged in theft of my property, I will be sure to tell the police when they arrive that I "feared for my safety".

You obviously know that if you did this, it would be illegal, and so you know that you would have to lie in order to avoid the consequences of what you had done.

Plain as nose on face. As is your respect for laws, and other people's rights.

Like I did say: you have removed yourself from the discussion.


But in the case of a home invasion, where someone is trying to steal something from me, frankly, if I find someone in my home, I'm not going to stop and ask them, "Excuse me, buddy, but are you here just to steal my stuff or are you planning any alternative activities, like, say, rape, while you are here?"

No, I'm going to blow their ass away.

You forgot to add: "and lie about it to the police" -- perhaps the only aspect of all this in which I find it easy to believe that you're anything more than lots of mouth and little money.

.

[MrBenchley]

44. I guess "feared for my safety"

is slightly more plausible than "the glorious revolution has begun!"

[TX-RAT]

45. She makes my argument for Mental evaluations so easy

[MrBenchley]

47. A lot of them on here

make that case...

[slackmaster]

55. Come on, MrBenchley, name some names

I double-dog dare you.

[FeebMaster]

51. I wish more people would listen

to my argument in favor of disarming the police.

[FeebMaster]

50. Why would someone have to lie?

"I feared for my safety." Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[iverglas]

29. thank goodness

for things like governments, eh?

A criminal who would steal from me is worthless, in my opinion.

Imagine what my opinion of our natasha1 might be.

And think how lucky she is that if I were to act on it (not that *I* ever would) I might expect the government to cause me to suffer some rather serious consequences.

That right to life / equal protection business really does come in handy on occasion.

No matter *why* we agree that we all have the right to life. (It certainly doesn't have the first thing to do with "sanctity", in my own opinion.)

We have agreed that we have it, and natasha1's opinion on the matter just isn't anything we need to pay any mind to. She can value her car above someone else's life all she likes; she just can't expect US to apply her value system to her acts, if she acts on her beliefs.


It is the act of violation that renders them worthless.

Ah, somebody forgot to add that old "in my humble opinion". And a humble one it is, despite the hubris of it.

.

[natasha1]

41. Not a very good comparison.

for things like governments, eh?

Imagine what my opinion of our natasha1 might be.

And think how lucky she is that if I were to act on it (not that *I* ever would) I might expect the government to cause me to suffer some rather serious consequences.

That right to life / equal protection business really does come in handy on occasion.



It's one thing to act on your impulses based on your opinion of someone. It's quite another thing to act on your impulses when someone is committing a crime against you.

No matter *why* we agree that we all have the right to life. (It certainly doesn't have the first thing to do with "sanctity", in my own opinion.)

I do not believe everyone has the right to life. It is something earned, and likewise, something that can be forfeited. Hitler had no right to life, as far as I'm concerned. Jeffrey Dahmer likewise. People who invade my home likewise.

Nat

[iverglas]

48. but the damned thing just is

It's one thing to act on your impulses based on your opinion of someone. It's quite another thing to act on your impulses when someone is committing a crime against you.

Sez you.

That damned thing is that everyone -- that's EVERYONE -- has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. What that means is that no one may be punished for a criminal act unless s/he has been found guilty of it by the procedure established for that purpose.

You remember: due process?

My opinion that you're worthless would no more be justification for me offing you than your opinion that someone is committing a crime against you is justification for you offing him/her.


I do not believe everyone has the right to life.

And I believe I've already explained how much I care about what you "believe".


It is something earned, and likewise, something that can be forfeited.

Have you looked up "unalienable" in your Funk & Wagnall's lately?


Hitler had no right to life, as far as I'm concerned. Jeffrey Dahmer likewise. People who invade my home likewise.

Hey, as far as I'm concerned, you have no right to open your gob in public.<*> Fortunately for you, the consensus is against me.


<*> Probably necessary disclaimer (in order to avert comment by people claiming to believe otherwise): Statement made for effect, not reflecting actual views of author. If only one could say the same of our Nat.

.

[natasha1]

52. If I catch 'em...

That damned thing is that everyone -- that's EVERYONE -- has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. What that means is that no one may be punished for a criminal act unless s/he has been found guilty of it by the procedure established for that purpose.

You remember: due process?

If I catch 'em in my house going out with the VCR, I don't need anyone to prove to me they are guilty.

Like I said, I catch a home invader, they are going to be taking a dirt-nap.

Nat

[slackmaster]

57. You and I are not the criminal justice system

You and I aren't responsible for administering due process. That doesn't give us license to violate someone else's civil rights, but the concept of due process doesn't apply to a legitimate self-defense situation where your goal is to preserve life, limb, or (where applicable) property.

[Pert_UK]

69. Hallelujah, brother......well said.

:toast:

P.

[Pert_UK]

70. "taking a dirt-nap"?????????

I don't think that I've got anything but disgust and contempt for someone who can describe the cold-blooded murder of a human being (even a petty criminal) as them "taking a dirt nap". Never mind that you are tacitly stating that you'd act outside due process and the law provided that YOU believe it's OK.

There are a few people each year who genuinely believe that they (morally) ought to kill their children, are we going to let them be the judge on that?

[iverglas]

31. oh, and

... isn't it always fun to get a glimpse into the workings of the minds of the great "rights"-defenders among us?

It's ME ME ME, alla time, in every way. "Rights" are defined as those things that enable me to do what I want and get what I want alla time, in every way.

MY property rights trump someone else's right to life, just for starters.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no further need to even consider the views of such an individual, on any other matter, ever.

S/he has expressed her refusal to adhere to one of the most fundamental values of the society she lives in: the equal right of every individual to life.

Discussing anything further about rights with him/her would be just as pointless as discussing the itinerary for a round-the-world cruise with someone who claimed the earth was flat. May as well save yer breath.

Fruitful discussion of policy options can be had between people who agree on the basic premises, the goals that policy must serve - in this case, the equal right to life of every individual is the most basic premise.

Anyone whose basic premise is, essentially, whatever s/he chooses to make it -- the earth is flat, my stuff is more important than anything and anyone else -- simply is not engaged in the discussion.

.

.

[natasha1]

42. I'm amazed...

... isn't it always fun to get a glimpse into the workings of the minds of the great "rights"-defenders among us?

It's ME ME ME, alla time, in every way. "Rights" are defined as those things that enable me to do what I want and get what I want alla time, in every way.

When it comes to a discussion about my rights vs. the rights of a criminal, yes, my rights trump theirs every time. A criminal is deserving of no respect.

MY property rights trump someone else's right to life, just for starters.

Yup. That's a fact. If some imbecile has the audacity to invade my home and attempt to take my things, they are finished if I catch them at it.

S/he has expressed her refusal to adhere to one of the most fundamental values of the society she lives in: the equal right of every individual to life.

Except our society does not have that fundamental value. Not everyone has the right to life. For example, we routinely kill fetuses and criminals. Our government goes forth and kills whoever stands in its way. Clearly not everyone has the right to life.

One thing's for sure. I catch anyone in my house and they just lost theirs.

Anyone whose basic premise is, essentially, whatever s/he chooses to make it -- the earth is flat, my stuff is more important than anything and anyone else -- simply is not engaged in the discussion.

I'm not engaged in a discussion. I'm presenting my opinion. I'm not interested in discussion or changing your mind, or having mine changed. I was asked a question, I answered, and I'm defending my answer. Simple as that.

Nat

[iverglas]

53. am I assuming incorrectly?

S/he has expressed her refusal to adhere to one of the most fundamental values of the society she lives in: the equal right of every individual to life.

Except our society does not have that fundamental value. Not everyone has the right to life.

... Nope, it says right there in your profile: living in the USofA.

Did you miss the bit in civics class where you get to see the Constitution of your country?

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

That there's a "right": the right not to be deprived of life without due process of law. EVERYONE indeed has it.

For example, we routinely kill fetuses ...

Yeah, and cows and chickens and canola plants. Funny how "everyone" pretty much always means "every human being".

... and criminals.

Yup. They are deprived of life after having been given the benefit of what is, in the US, regarded as due process.

If they don't have a right not to be deprived of life without due process, exactly what do you imagine all those judges and juries and lawyers are up to? Shouldn't they have just invited you in to pull the trigger and saved a lot of time and money?

Our government goes forth and kills whoever stands in its way.

Like I did say, you do remind me mightily of it. No respect for rights. Which just doesn't mean that the rights you aren't respecting aren't there.

I'm not engaged in a discussion.

Good to know. Now I can just wonder what it is that you do call copying and pasting the things someone else said and commenting on them to him/her. As if I cared. Given your evident propensity to say strange and wonderful things as the fancy strikes you, I shouldn't be surprised if you called it dinosaur.

.

[natasha1]

58. Funny...

How you parade out the Constitution, and ignore the 2nd ammendment.
:rolleyes:
Tell ya what. I'll mind the parts that I agree with, and you can mind the parts you agree with.



Nat

[iverglas]

59. where you been?

How you parade out the Constitution, and ignore the 2nd ammendment.

*My* constitution doesn't have no second amendment. I don't have to "mind" any parts of *your* constitution. Your governments, on the other hand, have to "mind" *all* of them. And a government that did not prosecute and punish you for killing someone who you had no reasonable grounds for believing was about to cause you serious harm just wouldn't be doing that, y'see.

My constitution does, however, have the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with fundamental justice -- as well as the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law.

That right to life stuff that's in my constitution, and your constitution, can also be found in things like, oh, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the American (that's "American" as in "of the Western Hemisphere") Declaration of Human Rights, and all sorts of other things like that.

Words to that effect are quite common in most of the world's major religions, too, which for some reason seem to include prohibitions against killing people.

Yup, it's a pretty broad consensus, across time and space.

And the whole rest of the world really does ignore that second amendment of yours. You need to get used to that, maybe. Kinda like how we also ignore some of the other odd oddments that your constitution has contained from time to time, like that 3/5 taxation rate for non-free men. The US Constitution, and USAmericans, just are not authority for anything having to do with human rights.

In any event, the point we are engaged in discussing has absolutely nothing to do with your second amendment, so dog knows why you'd vomit it up here. Do you imagine that your second amendment entitles you to kill trespassers? If so, do feel free to explain your, uh, reasoning.

.

[TX-RAT]

60. Remember your are to lie about it to the police

According to Natasha1

[MrBenchley]

61. My Constitution has the Second Amendment, Iverglas,

which says explicitly it's about citizens bearing collective arms in well regulated militias for the defense of their free State, as in today's National Guard, which evolved from the Colonial militia.

Courts have upheld that meaning time and time again, despite pressure from the sort of right wing humholes trying to steamroll legal rights and add amendments to ban gay marriages and let The Terminator become president. You know, the gun rights crowd like Orrin Hatch and Trent Lott.

There's not a word in the Second Amendment about any "right" permitting irresponsible trigger-happy individuals to shoot their fellow citizens over a box of Froot Loops and lie to the police afterward.

Nor is there anything about that anywhere else in the Constitution...although I do see "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

There's also something about the right to a speedy and public trial and cruel and unusual punishments not being inflicted...

[Pert_UK]

65. Oh iverglas, when will you learn?

You are talking to someone who believes that the laws and Consitution of their country allow them to do x,y and z. They are happy living in that make-believe land and don't want to discuss whether or not it actually is the case.

natasha1 has a view of how she'd like the US to work and then made the simple transition to believing that that is how it does actually work. Didn't you spot that bit in the 2nd amendment that says you're allowed to shoot anyone who you think you believe might be considering taking your box of Fruitloops? After all, you're doing society a favour by removing people in the same league as Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer....

She doesn't want this fantasy destroyed, thank you very much, so please stop talking to her....

P.

P.S.
I find it very odd that someone would bother to come in here just to dogmatically state their beliefs, and then announce that they don't want to discuss them....Especially when their beliefs are factually incorrect.

P.P.S.
Talking of fruitloops........ :evilgrin:

[Pert_UK]

66. DUPE - server problems

[Pert_UK]

67. DUPE - server problems

[Redneck Socialist]

26. Nope n/t

[RoadRunner]

27. My car, Nahhhh. My dog, perhaps.

My vehicle is a Prius, so it would be not be internally consistent to do violence over it. My dog, 'nuther matter. You can have my dog when you pry my cold, dead finger off it's leash.

[MrSandman]

28. Would you hire someone to...

Kill a person for penalty?

Unless a person poses a reasonable and imminent threat to another, I do not believe agression, including the death penalty, is justified.

For stealing my vehicle...no

To intervene to prevent harm...yes

[Spoonman]

62. Absolutely!

No doubt in my mind!
If a piece of shit criminal tries to steal my vehicle, or any property of mine, I would shoot them to stop them.
Why should I claim it on insurance, so I and everyone else would have to suffer financially for their dishonesty.
If they have no respect for my property, why should I respect their life?!

In a heart beat, no loss of sleep, no regrets, no problem!

[iverglas]

63. my advice to you

If they have no respect for my property, why should I respect their life?!

Don't come throwing your 7-11 litter in my driveway. You might find that I have ways of offing scum who have no respect for my property even all un-firearmed as I am.

Well, maybe I wouldn't use them. But you never know what stranger might decide that your disrespect for his/her property places you outside the species homo sapiens and thus makes you fair game, eh?

Never mind protesting that you're perfect. You will stand charged with exhibiting disrespect for his/her property and be tried, convicted and sentenced by the supremely final court of his/her opinion, and s/he just might not agree with you.

.

[Pert_UK]

68. iverglas, what have I told you???

I think I'm going to give up coming in here as it's beginning to make me sick.

It's just stunning how some (NOT ALL) of the "law abiding" gun owners on here consider themselves to be infallible moral arbiters. Never mind what anybody else says or thinks, if I believe that somebody who steals from me has no right to life or due process then it's correct.

It seems to me that many are happy to follow the letter of the law (or their interpretation of it) when it lets them do what they want, but scandalised and repressed when it doesn't quite fit in with their beliefs.

Outrageous.

P.

[Spentastic]

72. Pert you big blouse

What could be more satisfying than gunning down criminals to save on insurance?

[MrBenchley]

73. Lying to the police afterwards

and then enjoying a big bloodflecked bowl of Froot Loops...

[iverglas]

74. you know, there's a serious point to be made here ;)

I know, it's too early in the morning. Well, not for you chaps.

The existence of things like insurance, and of the whole rest of the social infrastructure/safety net of a modern society, really is one of the reasons why it is unacceptable to kill or even injure human beings in "defence" of property in our societies.

In the wild west, or anybody's local equivalent of it whenever it existed, people were pretty much on their own. If someone rustled their cattle, they and their families might well starve. If someone stole their horses, they might have no way of communicating with the broader community and obtaining things like medical assistance and food supplies.

So theft of property really was an interference with people's ability to exercise the right to life -- to stay alive -- in such cases. Intervening to stop the theft of this kind of essential property *was* in a very real sense an act of "self-defence".

The penalty for horse-stealing was indeed death in many times and places. But even in the US's wild west, the penalty for stealing laundry off the clothesline was not death.

The theft of someone's car (or anything else) in 2004 is virtually never a life-threatening event. Intervention to stop the theft of one's car is therefore NOT "self-defence". It's just vigilante justice, to use that latter word extremely loosely.

.

[slackmaster]

75. I agree with your analysis up to a point

(unassailable stuff snipped)

The theft of someone's car (or anything else) in 2004 is virtually never a life-threatening event....

Unless the theft would leave the owner hopelessly stranded in the desert. But I would never drive into the desert with someone who would do that to me.

Intervention to stop the theft of one's car is therefore NOT "self-defence". It's just vigilante justice, to use that latter word extremely loosely.

Maybe you're being imprecise in your use of the word "intervention". If you mean application of deadly force I agree with the statement as it stands.

OTOH I see nothing wrong with using any available means to stop a theft in progress, short of actually injuring or killing the thief. I'd be willing to brandish a weapon but would not fire it unless the person tried to run me down or otherwise threatened my life. Some may consider that bluffing; that one should never brandish unless willing to shoot, but real life situations come in many shades of gray.

[iverglas]

77. hate to disappoint you

but I agree. Hahaha.

Unless the theft would leave the owner hopelessly stranded in the desert. But I would never drive into the desert with someone who would do that to me.

Best advice, of course. But if you happened to run out of gas in the middle of the desert and someone else who had run out of gas at that precise point decided to hijack your car and leave you there to die, yup, you would be justified, in my books, in using serious force to prevent it. If you succeeded, you would of course also have a moral obligation to send somebody back to get the would-be hijacker.

In the law's books, it might not be quite that clear, as what you did might not quite measure up to the "imminence" of the threat required, or the absence of any alternative. But it strikes me as one of those exceptions to the rule that the law can live with.

Intervention to stop the theft of one's car is therefore NOT "self-defence". It's just vigilante justice, to use that latter word extremely loosely.

Maybe you're being imprecise in your use of the word "intervention". If you mean application of deadly force I agree with the statement as it stands.

Yes, that -- but read it again. Or, you're right, let me expand it and say what I should have said, but contracted too much.

The intervention is not "self-defence"; nonetheless, if it falls short of causing injury or death, it is "justified" as lawful resistance to an attempt to unlawfully deprive one of one's property.

What would be "vigilante justice", and not justified, would be causing injury or death in the course of resisting theft, which isn't "self-defence".

May I presume to guess that we agree??

I'll just leave aside that "brandishing a weapon <firearm>" as not essential to the main point. ;)

.

[Pert_UK]

79. Bloody hell's teeth, will you stop agreeing with the other side!

:evilgrin:

Wow. I never thought I'd see the day where such entirely different species (pro and "anti" gun) were in agreement! That's pretty amazing!

To be more serious, this is excellent. Slacky (may I call you Slacky?) agrees that it's got to be self-defence to be a justified killing. This is the sensible face of the pro-gun position.

Iverglas agrees with Slackmaster and (WAIT FOR IT!) even goes so far as to say that she'd be prepared to kill someone in self-defence. This is the sensible face of gun control that we know and love.

You see, when it comes down to it I reckon that me, Benchley, Spentastic and Iverglas would be prepared to defend our lives and our families with deadly force, despite the blind assertions of some people that we're all tree-hugging hippies who'd never raise an arm to protect ourselves.

What we don't agree with is when nutters start suggesting that somebody forfeits the right to life just because they're stealing a box of candy, and then goes on to say that they won't even discuss this belief.......Now THAT is worrying! I don't care whether they shoot the candy thief or beat them to death with a chair, this disregard for human life, even human criminal life, is appalling.

I do genuinely think that the more intelligent and open-minded people on both sides of this debate agree on a number of issues, but it all gets clouded by those who repeatedly rant out the same accusations without looking at evidence or the responses of their opponents.

[MrBenchley]

81. There are those of us who actually don't feel the need

to skulk around churches with a popgun in our pocket and a neurotic claim of "self defense"...and some of us think it insanity to let the GOP and the corrupt gun industry set public policy...

And you know what? Most voters agree with that...it's called "gun control."

[iverglas]

82. now how do you ever expect to be taken seriously --

... when nutters start suggesting that somebody forfeits the right to life just because they're stealing a box of candy ...

-- when you don't even know that Froot Loops aren't candy, they're cereal??


Age, or foreignness?

A dog's breakfast: do USAmericans not know what it is, or have youngsters never heard the expression?

Froot Loops: do youngsters not know what oldsters ate for breakfast, or do Brits not know what North Americans eat for breakfast? (Can you still buy those things?)


I'd thought of saying something intelligent ... in fact, I even tried ... but my brain right now is just boggled by too many hours and days and weeks immersed in the unspeakably and incomprehensibly fine points of the history and theory of Quebec civil law ...

So I leave you with this. If you want the one of the proverbial scantily-clad woman (with a Froot Loops bikini bottom), perhaps to make a matched set with Mr. Volk's nipple/wrench masterpiece, you'll have to find it yourself.




edit: that's "now how do you ever expect to be taken seriously", not "how how do you ever expect to be taken seriously" ... although it almost just became "mow how do you ever expect to be taken seriously" ... sleep, I want sleep.

.

[Spentastic]

76. Buhh but

Paying more to insure me vehicle means I wouldn't have enough money to buy a plasma tv. That's the same isn't it?

I think Auto insurers should give out free guns and little stickers of car theives with lines through them. Cars would look like WWII planes with confirmed kills proudly displayed. For every ten you kill you receive a 5% discount on your insurance.

[iverglas]

78. and

a lifetime supply of Froot Loops.

[Spoonman]

84. All I hear is waaaaaaaa waaaaaaaa waaaaaaa

The bottom line is simple, if I catch you trying to steal my $38,516.72 truck, I'm going to take aim and shoot you in order to prevent that from happening.

I'm not talking about a box of cereal here. Attempting to make a comparison takes a very small mind.

Violation of "Due Process", try again, that is a clearly spelled out as a restriction on the governing body, not an individual protecting life or in this case, property! Both of which are clearly stated as legal by state law.

If you don't like the answers I give, too friggin bad!

I have been a victim too many times, and as soon as you lay down with your ass cheeks spread to criminals, your gonna get fucked!

The last time I was robbed, they not only took my vehicle, they took all the clothes I owned (was working out of town). It took two years to recover financially from it, and my wife and I skipped a few meals so that the kids could eat.

So don't preach to me about how it's not "life" threatening. It damn sure can be life altering!

Once again, you don't like the "value" I place on a crooks life, don't try to steal my vehicle and we won't have a problem.

[slackmaster]

85. Thanks for sharing.

The last time I was robbed, they not only took my vehicle, they took all the clothes I owned (was working out of town). It took two years to recover financially from it...

I hope you made getting clothes your very first priority.

:evilgrin:

[iverglas]

87. you talking to me?

Violation of "Due Process", try again, that is a clearly spelled out as a restriction on the governing body, not an individual protecting life or in this case, property! Both of which are clearly stated as legal by state law.

Uh, duh. Yeah. The latter of which -- "protecting property" - is clearly made legal by some laws, in some states of the US, and not in others and not in other jurisdictions.

This would be the point, you see?

Making it legal to harm someone IS something done by the governing body, and IS a violation of due process. Getting it? I, at least, certainly wasn't saying that the individual doing the harming is the one violating due process. It is the government that permits it that is violating due process. I do hope this is clearer now.

It may be a justified violation, or an unjustified violation.

The question is whether it is a justified violation of due process to permit one person to harm or kill another one for allegedly committing a criminal act that does not involve harm or death to that person.

In the case of genuine self-defence, there has been, and is, and may or may not always be, a deep and broad consensus in human societies that the violation is justified; that we are justified in permitting one person to harm or kill another, without due process, where the person doing so reasonably believes that it is necessary in order to save his/her own life.

In the case of resistance to being deprived of property, where the deprivation does not endanger life or safety, there is simply no such consensus. There are the antiquated laws, or newer laws in clear violation of the rule of law and constitutional rights, of a few backwater jurisdictions in the world giving permission for such acts, and that's all.

That doesn't make it "right" or "wrong". It's a violation of the right not to be deprived of life without due process, and it's regarded by many, and by pretty broad consensus, as unjustified.

.

[Me Me Meme]

64. Which question are you asking?

This could be read a coupla different ways.

Would I shoot a person for stealing my vehicle?

After the fact? As in hunt them down? I think not. I'd probably want to for a while though. But I don't want to deal with the legal aftermath.

If I caught them in the act? Well, that depends what state I'm living in at the time. I live in Minnesota now, I'm pretty sure there's no legal grounds here for using deadly force to protect personal property. So again, no. Unless of course I felt I was in immediate danger. That could be arranged.

But that's not the question you're asking, is it? You're asking If I'd have any moral qualms about killing someone if I catch them stealing my Ranger - and the answer to THAT question is "YES". Without hesitation or regret. In the ultimate scheme of things, I'm just a working stiff, don't have all that much really, and what I have I've worked too damn hard for to let go of without a fight.

Now, do I hafta bury the sonofabitch too, or will the city come and drag 'em off for me? I mean what do I pay taxes for? :)

[Me Me Meme]

71. If that's true

then you're not shopping in the right places! :)

On edit: This was supposed to be a reply to # 17. Hmmmmmm.....

[TexasMexican]

86. I'd like to think that I would.

But I wouldnt know till it actually happened.

[bluestateguy]

88. Depends on my mood

I wouldn't want to endanger any innocent life in the vicinity. That would come first, but if that was not an issue, I would do it if I caught them in act.