OK here is a topic that should keep us busy.

[ryan81986]

Am I the only one that thinks that kid looks like Sid from Toy Story.

 

[notalib]

The guy shouldnt have broken into the car if he wasnt willing to pay the price for his deeds.
.

If the bad guy thinks your in the way BANG you are dead(50% chance of never getting caught).. So we gotta play nice?????? I know the law, but.... lets be nice to felons???.. are they are voting Democrats?????......

 

[DustinK]

All that's great, but this applies to what..... .05% of all tangible property theft?

Or at least, I haven't exactly seen a rash of thefts where the motive was to get food for their family, or some guy robbing a bank to pay for his wife's cancer treatments, etc.

The reason for this is because even desperate individuals who are otherwise good people consider theft to be close to the absolute last thing they would ever want to do.

-Mike

The Heinz dilemma is an interesting read, but I don't think it applies here. Unless of course the guy stealing the subwoofer had a dying relative who could only be cured by very loud bass.

Just to clarify: I posted that due to someone else's when I stated that sometimes people steal for the "right" reasons. I don't feel it applies at all to this situation nor do I feel that it applies to many situations at all.

I still maintain my personal stance that life > property regardless. Most state's laws agree with me and some don't. Obviously a number of you don't agree either and I respect your right to your own outlooks. Just be careful of your actions with respect to the laws where you live because, as has been stated, you're likely to be spending a lot more on a legal defense than the property being stolen is worth. On top of that, each of these events serves as another instance that antis will point to. In the worst case you're looking at giving up your freedom (and your guns) because you didn't want to wait for insurance to replace your speakers some loser decided he wanted.

 

[drgrant]

I still maintain my personal stance that life > property regardless. Most state's laws agree with me and some don't. Obviously a number of you don't agree either and I respect your right to your own outlooks.

One thing to keep in mind is, more than likely, the logic behind the more "liberal" laws WRT protecting property, existed for the purposes of extending self defense. It would not surprise me for example, if the TX law was drafted simply because they recognized that there is a community danger of having thieves roaming around in the middle of the night taking stuff- eg, that the guys going onto someone's property at 3 am might also be willing to do more heinous crimes like full blown home invasions and the like- eg, the logic being that if the person was willing to use cover of darkness, trespass AND steal stuff, that it's not too much of a stretch to consider that criminal as having an above level average of dangerousness. I think we can all agree that a teenager stealing a $5 pink flamingo from your lawn in broad daylight is not the same ball of wax as 3 people poking around your property stealing things at 3 am. Both things are theft acts, but the latter is far more brazen, damaging, and dangerous than the former is, especially when you look at the relative levels of malicious intent.

Just be careful of your actions with respect to the laws where you live because, as has been stated, you're likely to be spending a lot more on a legal defense than the property being stolen is worth.

I don't think anyone here is disputing that the laws, in most cases (at least in most of the northeast) make using deadly force to defend property, a nonviable/untenable concept, legally speaking. (Although, it's worth noting that in NH, you can use deadly force to stop arsonists... which I find interesting. ) In MA you're basically screwed if you do it, unless there are intertwined/overriding circumstances which would represent a lawful use of deadly force. (A good example would be a carjacking- not only does the thief want your car, but he is likely threatening your life in the process- and if you shot him in that case, the primary reason is to protect life, and stopping the theft doesn't even enter your mind, even though that may happen as an indirect result of one's lawful use of deadly force.

I'll be the first person to tell someone the kind of crap that can get you in serious legal trouble. That said, what is actually legal, and what SHOULD be legal, are two very different things.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

I certainly understand that mentality. But how many people would drive recklessly if a driver that you cut off could kill you? That logic can be applied to anything that's bad.

That isn't even in the same ballpark as what we're discussing here, especially given that "getting cut off in traffic" usually happens without any real malicious intent on the part of the offender, not to mention that driving in and of itself is a fairly chaotic exercise, making it likely for events to occur as a matter of circumstance. Thieves, on the other hand, make a fully conscious, premeditated decision to take, or attempt to take, tangible property which does not belong to them. Deterrence can play a role in disrupting that decision.

-Mike

 

[dreamer]

I certainly understand that mentality. But how many people would drive recklessly if a driver that you cut off could kill you? That logic can be applied to anything that's bad.

That isn't even in the same ballpark as what we're discussing here, especially given that "getting cut off in traffic" usually happens without any real malicious intent on the part of the offender, not to mention that driving in and of itself is a fairly chaotic exercise, making it likely for events to occur as a matter of circumstance. Thieves, on the other hand, make a fully conscious, premeditated decision to take, or attempt to take, tangible property which does not belong to them. Deterrence can play a role in disrupting that decision.

-Mike

Not the same ballpark, but drivers in LA sure got a lot more courteous during the rash of car-to-car highway shootings!

--

I think a lot of people are missing the point that many of us have moved the discussion from the specific merits of shooting someone stealing our woofer outside of normal handgun range and to the general principle. I wouldn't have shot in the scenario presented at the start, but laws attempting to define the break would fail. Dollar value? Fails for unique/hard to get items which lead to our everyday survival, whether at work or another case.

 

[Gadsden]

That isn't even in the same ballpark as what we're discussing here, especially given that "getting cut off in traffic" usually happens without any real malicious intent on the part of the offender, not to mention that driving in and of itself is a fairly chaotic exercise, making it likely for events to occur as a matter of circumstance. Thieves, on the other hand, make a fully conscious, premeditated decision to take, or attempt to take, tangible property which does not belong to them. Deterrence can play a role in disrupting that decision.

-Mike

Bingo. Intent often makes all the difference in the world during a crime. That is a good example of why zero-tolerance is such a fail.. Intent is taken out of the equation. If someone takes a washing machine sitting in my yard () and honest thought it was a give-away, I would not be pissed off at them (although I would likely want my washing machine back so it can go on it's proper home, the porch). Now if they took it just to be a dick about it, then there is a whole different ballgame.

 

[cekim]

Bingo. Intent often makes all the difference in the world during a crime.

This needs to be part of a broader movement in judicial reform in this country...

We have so many laws that lack intent as an element of the crime...

There is a category of recklessness which itself obviates the need for intent, but that is the exception not the rule...

Not only should judges and juries protect people from this sort of abuse, the the laws should as well...