-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Should the law allow the use of deadly force to protect a person's property?
- Thread starter zeppelinfromled
- Start date
Not to bust balls here, but It seems you don't understand what deadly force as a legal term/concept actually is. It's force which -may- result in the death of another, but it does NOT explicitly entitle the person using it to intentionally -kill- another person, not even in self defense. It only allows you to use the level of force necessary to stop the criminal from doing whatever it is they're doing. Deadly force is force which -may- result in the death of another person, it doesn't dictate that you must kill the person!
It sounds like I'm nitpicking, but this is a VERY important distinction- namely that there is a difference between employing deadly force to stop the actions of a criminal and employing deadly force with the intent of killing someone. The law NEVER allows for that, not even in Texas!
-Mike
Last edited:
J
Jose
Why not? Why should trespass not be answered with deadly force except when the mercy of the aggreived prevents it?
Because someone sitting in a faraway place who doesn't even know you knows better than you how you should conduct your affairs.
I guess it depends on what they steal... They can take the tv and dvd player and not get shot.. But if they come after my truck or bike thats a different story..
I have had this discussion with many people over the years.
As it stands now there is no consequences for committing crime (theft for instance). I sat in a courtroom a couple of times in the last year and not 1 person received jail time, not 1!! The charges ranged from simple possession to armed assault and attempted murder. Because of this it only makes criminals more brazen!
Do I think someone should be shot/killed for stealing property? Probably not but I voted yes and believe that is the only correct answer now.
If theft was punishable by death on the spot by the owner of the property, there would be a lot less theft.
As it stands now there is no consequences for committing crime (theft for instance). I sat in a courtroom a couple of times in the last year and not 1 person received jail time, not 1!! The charges ranged from simple possession to armed assault and attempted murder. Because of this it only makes criminals more brazen!
Do I think someone should be shot/killed for stealing property? Probably not but I voted yes and believe that is the only correct answer now.
If theft was punishable by death on the spot by the owner of the property, there would be a lot less theft.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 11,722
- Likes
- 12,002
Definite Yes....
Someone has thought about it and made a choice to come to my house to steal, rape, injure or terrorize my family. I get to make the choice to shoot them. I may not shoot them for just stealing, but I shouldn't need to be justified by some bullshit law for doing what I feel is proper at the time.
Like Alien said....people would think twice and maybe not make the choice to steal if the law allowed you some latitude. Most of these idiots are let right back out on the street......
Someone has thought about it and made a choice to come to my house to steal, rape, injure or terrorize my family. I get to make the choice to shoot them. I may not shoot them for just stealing, but I shouldn't need to be justified by some bullshit law for doing what I feel is proper at the time.
Like Alien said....people would think twice and maybe not make the choice to steal if the law allowed you some latitude. Most of these idiots are let right back out on the street......
Last edited:
I vote NO for this type of situation. Entering a home with family inside is a different story.
Remsport Mfg
NES Member
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.
If your stuff is that important to you I think you have a problem.
agreed.
I think that this sort of thinking will only lead to "how much is this guy's life worth" conversation, and then compare with what hes stealing. It wouldn't take a nasty turn when someone says "hey, my mercedes is worth more than your life. don't touch it" and blasts them away. While I agree with sean C that there should be some discretion, I think that you should only be able to protect property vital to your life, ie - generator in ice storm, medical equipment, etc. Like remsport said, there is insurance for everything else. You'll get your car replaced when they steal it and run it off a cliff.
Actually, it's "It isn't worth losing your life by stealing from me", but of course, that's just my opinion.
I went and read the RSA here in NH when this thread started, and I believe even firing a warning shot could be considered use of deadly force.
I agree the laws favor the criminal, NH may be a little better than MA but still not right.
MetalgodZ
NES Member
Quoted because I think a HUGE number of people are either missing this, or aren't able to separate killing someone versus stopping a crime being committed.
When you use deadly force to stop a crime in progress (theft in this case), it's the same situation as when you're stopping an assault on your person. The distinction is (apparently - IANAL) EXTREMELY important to your defense in court - you are not playing judge, jury, and executioner because you're not trying to kill someone. You are stopping a crime in commission with force from which death may result.
If you can't get the distinction sitting on your butt in front of a computer where it doesn't matter, it's unlikely that you'll get it sitting in a courtroom where your freedom and/or bank account are on the line. Fail to learn the distinction before carrying at your own risk.
Mike, please correct me if I'm wrong, but in the case of a robbery in MA, it sounds to me like you're taking a huge risk to escalate in order to stop an in-progress robbery of your own possessions outside your home. Once you're outside your home, even if the robber DOES threaten you while you're attempting to stop him/her with less than deadly force, it sounds like you're opening yourself up to criminal/civil issues if it results in injury or death because you escalated it. If I'm right on that, it's pure B.S.
The warning shot is threatening the use of your gun, a deadly weapon, on the person - thus, threat of deadly force.
Last edited:
My car gets me to the job that keeps my family fed, clothed, and warm. Their lives and even their comfort is worth more than the life of some scumbag that cannot function within the norms of society and has chosen to take what I have earned.
Think of the saying "An armed society is a polite society" and all the implications that statement carries to both those that are armed and those that decide to be "impolite".
One would have to be very desperate, bold, or stupid to steal another man's property out from under him if he has a gun hanging off his hip AND THE AUTHORITY TO USE IT.The current laws have neutered the victim in an attempt to protect the criminals.
And herein lies the problem: We have become accustomed to letting someone else handle our affairs. "No big deal is a scumbag steals from me - I have plenty of stuff and insurance will pay for it".... "let the police handle it"..."Poor guy - must have really needed those CD's".... It's a house of cards which leads to one real conclusion: We have given up our rights to preserve life, liberty and property. We may as well just turn in our guns and get some Wal Mart Gift Cards....
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
There was a time in this country when horse thieves were shot or hanged - when the sanctity of a mans property meant something. Now, we have collectively become sheep - all too content to continue grazing in the meadow tilled by big government, seeded by law enforcement and watered by anyone else, (insurance companies, home security companies, etc). We are lost.
There was a time when a thief took a huge risk by violating the sanctity of a mans home. Now? It's a pretty safe gamble. For now, we are lulled into a false sense of security and are afraid to take a stand for fear of losing our big screen tv, our house, our car. We worry about facing the "justice system" - of losing our freedom, which is lost anyway, but our bellies are too full of green grass to realize it....
ochmude
Marine Veteran
Just saw this thread and read through it. It seems like there are a lot of people that are on the fence, or people that feel the answer should be "no" because they can't think of many material things worth using deadly force to protect. For those of you that feel that way, I'm not sure if you fully understand the simplicity of the question. It's not too open ended, as has been stated. If using deadly force in defense of property is illegal, you can absolutely never use it, regardless of the circumstances. The option is taken off the table. Referring to a situation mentioned earlier, if the power is out during an ice storm and you see someone walking off with your generator, well, I hope you have plenty of blankets for your family, because you have no legal means of defending that property other than harsh words and angry looks. If you can imagine even just one remote, far fetched unfortunate circumstance where you would feel deadly force should be justified in the defense of property, then it should be legal.
I agree with the statements in bold but I'm not going to kill someone who steals my property. There are other ways to deal with this. If my life, as in my self, or those close to me was in danger, then it's a no brainer. Shoot.
Yes. But I can't see how one can justify shooting someone who comes onto their property. If the intent is to cause harm to the self, shoot away. But if someone just steps on your property I don't think killing them can be justified.
Yes, you are right. MA law does not allow protection of property with deadly force. You'd be tarred and feathered in a court here, again, barring some mitigating circumstances or an extremely sympathetic jury that's willing to nullify. I can think of some fringe scenarios where you may be OK- eg, if you merely walked outside with a flashlight, and then this guy draws a gun on you, and THEN you react to -that- threat, then it's going to be a different ballgame; however, I'd place a fair wager the DA/prosecutor will try to still argue that you escalated the confrontation by coming outside with the flashlight, but that's MA libtard DA logic for you.
And that it is... which isn't much of a surprise for MA. Most states don't allow it either, but many may be more lenient in their laws (or for that matter, just prosecutorial discretion) especially with regards to the scenario I described above WRT escalation- eg, that "polling" a thief without using
deadly force, in and of itself, because it is legal, is not a form of "escalation". This may also be buried in case law in some states, I'd
have to do some digging to find out. (eg, it may not be written in law, but court cases may have set precedents that establish boundaries legally).
Yup.... IMHO in most cases a warning shot is nothing more than a waste of ammunition, and you're placing yourself at considerable legal peril for
doing it, since the DA/prosecutor can come up with all kinds of clever sounding crap to try to question someone's actions- eg, if a warning shot
was fired intentionally by the defender, then it raises a question as to whether or not the defender really believe the threat was imminent or
not- and "imminent" is something specified directly in the law, at least in MA. (and likely many other states. ) I have a feeling that the "warning
shot" that Harold Fish fired, for example, in the AZ case, may have been part of his undoing in the end legally.
-Mike
First, did ASHDUMP really quote his own post??? I'll have to try that sometime - that's a new one...
I don't think anyone is suggesting shooting someone who "just steps on your property"...Come on now - are you serious? Do you really think that's what we're talking about? Really? Ludicrous...
What we are talking about is defending life and property....If I need to spell this out for you, I will: You are awakened in the middle of the night to the sound of your dog barking. You unlock your gun from your properly Massachusetts compliant safe and investigate your house...While in the kitchen, you hear someone in your garage. You crack the door open to find someone pulling the stereo from your car, while his buddy is wheeling out your Dirt Devil Carpet Cleaner out the door.... They are clearly stealing your property. Do you defend it? Or do you take the chance that 5-0 will get there in time, or that if they spot you, they will bear you no ill will, have no intentions to do so anyway and after all, John Q. Insurance Company will cover everything anyway - no harm, no foul...Nitey night....
I don't think anyone is suggesting shooting someone who "just steps on your property"...Come on now - are you serious? Do you really think that's what we're talking about? Really? Ludicrous...
What we are talking about is defending life and property....If I need to spell this out for you, I will: You are awakened in the middle of the night to the sound of your dog barking. You unlock your gun from your properly Massachusetts compliant safe and investigate your house...While in the kitchen, you hear someone in your garage. You crack the door open to find someone pulling the stereo from your car, while his buddy is wheeling out your Dirt Devil Carpet Cleaner out the door.... They are clearly stealing your property. Do you defend it? Or do you take the chance that 5-0 will get there in time, or that if they spot you, they will bear you no ill will, have no intentions to do so anyway and after all, John Q. Insurance Company will cover everything anyway - no harm, no foul...Nitey night....
ochmude
Marine Veteran
If I may be so bold, I'd like to ask you a direct question. Can you imagine any circumstance under which anyone might ever feel the need to use deadly force in defense of property?
This is not how I originally interpreted the question. If I am using "my stuff" to survive some disaster then attempting to steal it constitutes a threat to my well being and deadly force would be justified. If some mook is stealing yard ornaments then no, you cant use deadly force.
No, I get it. And some people have definitely implied here in the past that shooting someone who comes onto your property is okay.
But in your situation, do you really need to shoot those people? Turn the lights on, they see you have a gun, point the gun at them and scream for them to get on the floor while someone calls the police. You don't need to shoot them. If they run away, then the police can investigate.
Now, if they start coming towards you, shoot away. But it seems out of line to start blasting people just for attempting to take your possessions. When you are armed you have a much greater amount of power over individuals and what you do in situations like this says a lot about your character.
ochmude
Marine Veteran
Not in MA. The fact that you'd get cold later on in the evening because someone is stealing your generator right now does not constitute imminent danger of grave bodily harm or death, at least I highly doubt any MA court would interpret it that way.
Imagine this. An ice storm has paralyzed the whole area. You're running off of a generator to keep from freezing in the house. Suddenly you hear the generator shut off. You walk outside and see a guy out there loading it onto his truck. You start screaming at him. He raises his hands and says "Listen, I'm not armed, I'm not hear to cause you any harm, but I need this generator and I'm not leaving without it." Is there imminent danger of grave bodily harm or death?
Last edited:
What kind of property? There are plenty of situations that one could come up with. But in certain circumstances, to answer your questions, yes.
Fixed it for you. That's somewhat of a myth. What if you have items that have a replacement value of X and your intrinsic value is higher than that? Insurance companies don't give a s**t about intrinsic values- they can't by design, as they only can offer monetary compensation for things. For example say a thief steals a german luger your grandfather brought back from WWII. Even if you have special insurance on that gun, and it still is worth a lot of money, that money will not enable you to replace that gun.
A stark example of intrinsic value- I read a story awhile ago where a firefighter went back into a burning house to get someone's family photo album for them. To an insurance company that album was probably worth $20. To a family, it's probably priceless- and that's why a man risked his life to recover it!
Your analogy works fine for commodity garbage like a television set, a fridge, or a PlayStation, but it may fall on its face for something else.
Another example- say I restore a classic car- insurance will only give me appraised value for it- it's say its appraised at 20K.... however, if I spent years and many man hours of time fabricating parts for it, or whatever, the intrinsic value (my personal investment!) far exceeds what some silly book says.
What if a thief steals your family dog from the yard? Are your kids gonna really believe that the insurance man will come to the house with a perfect
clone of the family dog?
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Insurance is good to have but the argument that it will cover any loss of property or "chattel" (in the case of pets) is dubious assertion, at best.
Tell that to a a tradesman that's living job to job (which many are probably, in this currently crappy economy) and has all his tools and truck stolen from his front yard. I'm sure the insurance company will walk up the next morning with a huge check which adequately covers the loss of all his gear plus whatever jobs he missed that week; I'm also sure they'll spend all day calling his customers and rescheduling the jobs he will miss that week so his customers don't hate him and dump him for another guy.
That will happen around the same time pigs start taking off and landing on a regular basis at Logan airport.
I can probably come up with a few dozen other fun scenarios, but that's the first one that comes to mind. "Stuff" can be worth a lot more than
just money.
-Mike
It's very rare that I actually laugh out loud from reading something on the internet, but that made me chuckle.
Similar threads
