Should the law allow the use of deadly force to protect a person's property?

[ochmude]

Even TX law which is one of the more sane approaches on the topic limits deadly force to night time and the replaceability of the item. So is your question; Should there be NO LIMITS on the use of force or should there be NO OPTION WHATSOEVER? ie; a very black and white approach at the extremes. Or is your question; should there be some reasonable barriers to the use of deadly force (ie; gunning down the dandelion picking 4 yro) or a blanket prohibition like we have here in MA?

Black and white. From reading everyone's responses, it seems like many of those that are voting "no" to the original question are doing so because there isn't a "yes, but only in certain circumstances" option. I just wanted to try and see who really thinks it should never be an option, as is the case in MA.

 

[lupis42]

I just wanted to bump my question from a couple pages ago, as I haven't seen any responses to it yet. I suppose this question is directed to anyone who's on the fence or in the "no" group for the poll.

If the law does not prohibit the use of deadly force by default, I doubt anyone here would argue that an exception should be made for protecting property.

As long as deadly force is prohibited by default, however, situations where it is not prohibited are exceptions which must be positively defined or "explicitly permitted".

<end semantics rant>

Consider the following scenario:
A homeowner shoots a fleeing thief in the back.
Is the homeowner justified?
What if the thief was getting away with two armloads of jewelry of high sentimental value?
What if the thief is getting away with vital medication?
What if the homeowner isn't sure what the thief is getting away with?

 

[lupis42]

Black and white. From reading everyone's responses, it seems like many of those that are voting "no" to the original question are doing so because there isn't a "yes, but only in certain circumstances" option. I just wanted to try and see who really thinks it should never be an option, as is the case in MA.

I went with yes, but I would clarify it as follows:
The law should permit the use of deadly force to prevent the theft if there is no other reasonable and effective means of preventing said theft.

If non-deadly force can be employed without substantial increase in risk, non deadly force should be used first.

 

[zeppelinfromled]

Black and white. From reading everyone's responses, it seems like many of those that are voting "no" to the original question are doing so because there isn't a "yes, but only in certain circumstances" option. I just wanted to try and see who really thinks it should never be an option, as is the case in MA.

I wanted to put that option, but I decided not to at the last minute. I should have though. Another alternative is "yes, but I would most likely choose not to exercise that right."

 

[TheIglu]

I voted no, then read pages 1-15, then skipped to here.

Yes, but only in certain circumstances.

The lowlifes whole robbed our house last year deserved to get caught. They deserved a lot more than that. Hell, I'd sleep well at night shooting the living crap out of their knees, arms, shoulders, etc if I had caught them. But until they were a threat to me or my family and I was assured of that (and only I could make that determination, not a prosecutor), I would not want them to die at my hand all. I don't know their situation, I'm not the judge, jury and executioner.

Now if they reached for something when I pulled out my Ithaca?

I would have found a new Christmas Tree to light up.




Turns out one of the kids killed himself when the police found them selling the stolen merchandise. Good.


In summary, I think people should have the right to shoot. But not shoot to intentionally kill over property. If that is a by product of a non-deadly intentioned shot, so be it.

 

[zeppelinfromled]

In summary, I think people should have the right to shoot. But not shoot to intentionally kill over property. If that is a by product of a non-deadly intentioned shot, so be it.

No one has the right to shoot to intentionally kill over anything, not even if someone is threatening your life. You shoot to stop, and in many cases that results in the person's death. But using deadly force doesn't mean that you're trying to kill someone. Shooting someone is always deadly force, even if you shoot him in the knee. Or even if you miss. If I'm justified in shooting someone, I'm going to shoot them at center mass for a number of reasons (both legal and tactical).

 

[Bill Nance]

I can't countenance killing someone over simply petty theft. Allowing you to to shoot a shoplifter in the back as he's running away for stealing a pack of cigarettes is morally repugnant to me.

We don't have a death penalty for petty or even grand theft, and haven't for a very long time. The Republic seems to have survived.

If someone threatens my safety it's justifiable homicide. The generator example would be one of the very few examples of property theft where this standard would apply.

I don't think you should be able to execute someone for trying to steal the CDs in your car. You should, however, be able to use non-deadly force to detain. If, during that attempt the guy tries to hurt you, well then you're back to justifiable homicide.

I'm not aware of any police force in this country that allows cops to shoot a car prowler for simply running away after being told to stop. I don't we should be having civilians doing it either.

Maybe the right answer here is to apply the same standards to police and civilians. All the confusion seems to arise when we have two sets of standards. If a cop can tackle someone to the ground and beat on them/taser them or whatever for not complying with arrest for shoplifting, why can't a shopkeeper?

Maybe the real problem isn't over use of force as much as it's about the government wanting total control over the powers of arrest.

 

[cekim]

We don't have a death penalty for petty or even grand theft, and haven't for a very long time. The Republic seems to have survived.

Without getting to your prior statement the latter is certainly not true...

The Republic is dead... As evidenced by a Federal Government no longer bound by its enumerated powers and an electorate that has no qualms about this fundamental shift in its definition...

 

[economist]

I can't countenance killing someone over simply petty theft. Allowing you to to shoot a shoplifter in the back as he's running away for stealing a pack of cigarettes is morally repugnant to me.

You know what's morally repugnant to me? Thieving bastards who risk their lives for a pack of cigarettes.

 

[FreeWillie]

Hate to get all philosophical here but we are human for a reason. We get to think and make judgments. If someone enters my home in the middle of the night and loots me, so what! What did he do? He stole from me. Will I kill him for that? I don't think so. Same scenario but he has intent to harm my family... well I hope his kinfolk are good at writing obituaries. When he entered my home he said "you make the judgment as to my intent". If he's uncomfortable with my ability to make a judgment then stay out of my home.

 

[06LemansC6]

Hate to get all philosophical here but we are human for a reason. We get to think and make judgments. If someone enters my home in the middle of the night and loots me, so what! What did he do? He stole from me. Will I kill him for that? I don't think so.

Someone enters my home in the middle of the night while my family is there I could care less what the intent is. I'm not going to give him the chance to explain his "intent". It's the middle of the night and my family is there I can only assume his motives are less than pure.

 

[houdini]

you work hard for your stuff why should you let some on go, they are going to keep on doing it unilt some one stop them.

 

[TomH]

Everyone in this discussion is placing a value on someone else's life. Whether it's a high value (the don't shoot crowd) or a low value (the "thieves will taste lead" crowd). But everyone puts a value on someone else's life. All of us who carry or own guns have decided in advance that the life of the person who is trying to kill us is worth less than our life.

I disagree. I'd be putting a value on mine. I wouldn't give a crap about some scumbag robbing my place. There's no "value" to a life... it's worth what you do with it. A robber has decided to place his value exceptionally low.

 

[TomH]

Hate to get all philosophical here but we are human for a reason. We get to think and make judgments. If someone enters my home in the middle of the night and loots me, so what! What did he do? He stole from me. Will I kill him for that? I don't think so. Same scenario but he has intent to harm my family... well I hope his kinfolk are good at writing obituaries. When he entered my home he said "you make the judgment as to my intent". If he's uncomfortable with my ability to make a judgment then stay out of my home.

I disagree with you for two reasons. One is I think you should be able to shoot someone in your house if they are stealing something, regardless of intent. Second, how do you plan on coming up with their reason for their little visit, are you going to sit down for tea with them and have a conversation about it?

 

[06LemansC6]

are you going to sit down for tea with them and have a conversation about it?

Just give them a hug and they will be on their way.

 

[K-DUB]

No it's only stuff and if you are like me you have too much stuff anyway. There is no stuff worth a life. Besides your insurance will buy you new and better stuff.
If your stuff is that important to you I think you have a problem.

My stuff is important to me, which is why most of it is locked up in my home. I worked VERY hard to get each & every piece of "stuff". I depend on some of my "stuff" to make a living. Insurance isn't a pass for someone to steal from me.

Someone breaking into my home isn't going to stop & say "I'm just taking the computer & some jewelry, & I'll leave without harming you & yours." I'm not willing to take the chance. If you are, more power to you.

 

[Bill Nance]

My stuff is important to me, which is why most of it is locked up in my home. I worked VERY hard to get each & every piece of "stuff". I depend on some of my "stuff" to make a living. Insurance isn't a pass for someone to steal from me.

Someone breaking into my home isn't going to stop & say "I'm just taking the computer & some jewelry, & I'll leave without harming you & yours." I'm not willing to take the chance. If you are, more power to you.

You aren't addressing the question asked: "Should the law allow use of deadly force to protect a person's property."

I'm in full agreement with you on coming downstairs in the middle of the night to find a burglar. I'm going to assume they're threat to my safety and act accordingly.

But if someone is prowling my car it's another question entirely. Now there is no implied safety threat at all. It's simply a matter of how much force is justified to stop the person.

I'd have no problem with you beating the snot out of them to hold them until the cops get there. I wouldn't have a problem with you displaying a gun and threatening dire consequences if you ever caught them there again.

But allowing you or me or anyone to essentially execute someone on the spot for simple theft? I think you need to really ask yourself whether that's a society you'd like to live in.

The question is kinda bogus because the answer isn't binary. There are just too many variables to make a 100% yes/no answer. Should you be allowed to kill someone to stop them from running off with your life savings? Yes, IMO you should. Should you be allowed to kill them for taking off with a pack of chewing gum? Certainly not.

Between those two extremes there lies a giant grey area that is not easily answered.

So far almost every "yes" answer I've seen has included some element of perceived threat to personal safety. To try to answer the question you have to assume no risk to your safety because otherwise it wouldn't be just in defense of property.

 

[K-DUB]

You aren't addressing the question asked: "Should the law allow use of deadly force to protect a person's property."

I should have made it more clear in my post...my mistake. No gray area.

YES.

 

[harrihiker]

I'd have no problem with you beating the snot out of them to hold them until the cops get there.

I sit at a desk all day, I'm not getting into a fight with a street rat criminal thug. I own a gun to prevent that scenario.

But allowing you or me or anyone to essentially execute someone on the spot for simple theft? I think you need to really ask yourself whether that's a society you'd like to live in.

A society where a criminal would have to decide if they want to risk their life to commit a crime? You bet your ass I want to live in that society, it would be a hell of a lot better than this one.

 

[Doc Holiday]

A person who has broken into my home, while I or my wife is home, WILL get shot, I have no desire to find out why he/she has entered, nor do I give a rats a**. If that person is still in my home by the time I clear leather and take aim, they obviously did not get the idea to leave. I do not take home invasion well. In fairness I will not shoot a person in the back as they flee, but if they continue in my direction, all bets are off. Cops may try to call it man slaughter, and I will call it a well placed warning shot.

As it stands, someone breaking into my car, if it is on my property, and I catch them, well I will have them in my sights, yes I will have drawn my weapon. If said perp runs, well mission accomplished, theft averted, perp is gone. Perp moves towards me, dead perp, simple. My reactions will be based on the perps actions, not intended or percieved actions, but the actions he takes at that moment. I do not have the will, time or desire to speculate as to what he will do, I will act upon what he is doing.

The OP's question was painted with to broad a brush, every single situation is different, and each person will see the situation differently, what I may consider a threat, someone may not and vice versa. I think the better question would be, what would you do in this situation, that way you get and induvidual perspective, rather that would you shoot someone for stealing your stuff. Given the right circumstances, the answer will always be yes. But that is my 2 cents.

 

[Chrisg67]

am i going to shoot someone that tried to steal my TV? most likely no.

am i going to shoot someone that poses a threat to my wife? i keep the spare mags close by when i sleep.

 

[FreeWillie]

Someone enters my home in the middle of the night while my family is there I could care less what the intent is. I'm not going to give him the chance to explain his "intent". It's the middle of the night and my family is there I can only assume his motives are less than pure.

You didn't read the second part. Your point is my point exactly

 

[FreeWillie]

I disagree with you for two reasons. One is I think you should be able to shoot someone in your house if they are stealing something, regardless of intent. Second, how do you plan on coming up with their reason for their little visit, are you going to sit down for tea with them and have a conversation about it?

"When he entered my home he said "you make the judgment as to my intent". If he's uncomfortable with my ability to make a judgment then stay out of my home."

What I stated was that he relinquishes the right to determine his intent and places it in my hands. If he's uncomfortable with doing that then stay out of my home or you will be shot.

 

[FreeWillie]

are you going to sit down for tea with them and have a conversation about it?

I was thinking more on the lines of a White House visit with me, the looter and THE BIG O sitting down with a beer.

 

[S&WM&P9]

If you catch someone breaking into your car or home and tell them to screw and they screw, that's the end of it. If they turn on you or you enter your home to find a scumbag indoors that's a different story and may the best man win!