If some of you don't want to use deadly force to protect property why do you so badly want to prevent me and others from doing so?
ETA: You're right too tele_mark.
ETA: You're right too tele_mark.
Last edited:
-
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
I thought I saw a bright flash to the north....We're getting fallout here in Tyringham...Donning my gas mask and chem suit now...
ochmude
Marine Veteran
Then it should be legal. My point is that if it is illegal, then you never have the option, regardless of the circumstances. Your only option would be to do what you feel needs to be done and hope that the jury will understand your reasoning. You should at least have the option to use your own discretion, because no legislator, no judge, and no jury is going to be with you at the moment you need to make that decision.
We've become so neck deep in "the rule of law", that it's like suckling on a security blankie...Some do not feel the need to self-regulate - the shepherd will do it for us....
I'm going to revise my previous thoughts on the subject based largely on the contents of this thread.
I would agree that in the case of a major emergency, where items (ie. a generator) are being stolen that may prove to be necessary to you and your family's survival, that deadly force is reasonable IF the threat of deadly force is not enough or if such a threat cannot be reasonably made without subjecting one's self or one's family to harm (in which case I would view the situation more as one of self-defense anyway).
Looking at the actual laws as they are written in TX has also made me re-think thing a bit as well. There are fairly reasonable restrictions on the application of deadly force when it pertains to matters of protecting personal property. Namely the following section:
So, I'm willing to adjust my views slightly. I still strongly disagree with those of you willing to shoot someone over your car when your life isn't in danger, sorry.
ETA:
In response to:
With the above legal restrictions I don't really have a problem with it. I get the general vibe that some people posting here want carte blanche with regards to deadly force in protection of property. I think that someone's life is worth more than property and don't think that some individuals would abuse their right to protect property with deadly force which is something that I think it bad for our 2A rights as well as the general good of mankind.
I would agree that in the case of a major emergency, where items (ie. a generator) are being stolen that may prove to be necessary to you and your family's survival, that deadly force is reasonable IF the threat of deadly force is not enough or if such a threat cannot be reasonably made without subjecting one's self or one's family to harm (in which case I would view the situation more as one of self-defense anyway).
Looking at the actual laws as they are written in TX has also made me re-think thing a bit as well. There are fairly reasonable restrictions on the application of deadly force when it pertains to matters of protecting personal property. Namely the following section:
I, and I am sure the courts, would likely view the case where someone is stealing a car or most other material possessions, as being replaceable by others means (insurance) in most cases but leaves open cases such as the generator in emergency situations because one could reasonably fear for the "substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury".
So, I'm willing to adjust my views slightly. I still strongly disagree with those of you willing to shoot someone over your car when your life isn't in danger, sorry.
ETA:
In response to:
With the above legal restrictions I don't really have a problem with it. I get the general vibe that some people posting here want carte blanche with regards to deadly force in protection of property. I think that someone's life is worth more than property and don't think that some individuals would abuse their right to protect property with deadly force which is something that I think it bad for our 2A rights as well as the general good of mankind.
Last edited:
That's fine, I'll still sleep well tonight. It's too bad thieves don't fear for their lives there would be less of them.
Because I don't think you can justify killing an 8 year old who trespasses to take an apple off the tree. He's posing zero threat to you. Go ahead, fill him with 9mm Jose. You're a real tough guy for showing him who's boss.
The guy breaking into your home? Kill him dead. The right should be there and ought to be exercised. But I don't think you can justify filling an 8 year old girl picking a dandilion off your lawn with 00 buck.
I love these f-ing liberal analogies. If you seriously think Jose is going to shoot an 8 year old for taking an apple off of his tree I've got some wet land for sale.
Seriously this is like reading a DU post...
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
This isn't about insurance - it's about responsibility. The thief used to know in his heart as he rustled up the horses, that if the landowner caught him, he would be shot. He also knew that if he escaped the landowner and the law caught him, he may not be shot, but would most certainly do hard labor - or worse, get hanged in the town square. Knowing this, he made a conscious choice to be a horse thief, or live a respectable life. Now thieves have no such worries and property owners have no balls to protect what is theirs...They've been castrated by the warm fuzzies that come with nestling amongst the herd...
I don't think we're talking about a law that says you have to kill someone to protect your property. I'd imagine Jose would have made a judgment call on an8 year old picking dandelions.
To clarify, I don't.
Agree.
Also, I got lost in the discussion a bit, but for clarification, I don't want to make anything legal or illegal. You have the right to defend your self. I just question whether or not it can be justified to shoot someone for stealing a piece of your property as opposed to defending yourself from an attack.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 645
- Likes
- 71
As a generalization, I can't help but agree with you.
But, if someone is trying to steal my stuff, infringing on my rights, they forfeit a bunch of their own rights.
I don't work hard to give my stuff away unless it is in a manner directed by me. Such as, charity.
Now, I don't expect to shoot someone for taking my recycling bin from my porch.
I also wouldn't shoot them for stealing my weed whacker from the garage. Why? It is the law in this Vaggy-McGineGine state called Massachusetts.
I certainly would like to have the option, though.
Imagine how low the rate of recidivism would drop. Dead men don't repeat their crimes.
I love these f-ing liberal analogies. If you seriously think Jose is going to shoot an 8 year old for taking an apple off of his tree I've got some wet land for sale.
Seriously this is like reading a DU post...
Actually, Jose stated the only thing stopping him from blowing the kid away would be his mercy (implying that if he were not merciful, he ought to still have the right to kill the kid). I cited that specific example. How is the analogy "liberal?" DU post? I've already repeated how I believe the right ought to be there.
I'd hope so. I know the law wouldn't require you to kill them. The point I'm making is that I don't think you can make blatant statements like "If someone is on your property without permission, you can shoot them." I think there has to be something more than that.
Last edited:
MetalgodZ
NES Member
And herein lies the problem.
YOU don't think that someone's life is worth more than property.
YOU think that some individuals would "abuse" their right to protect property with deadly force.
YOU think that it reflects poorly on our (you're speaking of ALL people's, collectively) 2nd Amendment rights.
And YOU think it's bad for the "general good of mankind."
I would probably not shoot someone for stealing property even if it were not against the law. But I certainly would not deny someone else the right to protect their property based on my perceived worth of the item, or my perception of "abuse" of the right. I don't think it reflects poorly on people's 2nd Amendment rights, and I certainly don't presume to restrict those rights based on that presumption.
I would argue that a dead criminal, if indeed he/she was a criminal, far outweighs the "general good" done by allowing the crime to proceed, calling the police, and unnecessarily spending the time and resources of 2 cops, multiple lawyers, an entire court staff, and 12 citizens plucked from their daily jobs in order to oversee a court case which could have easily been prevented by allowing someone to stop a crime in progress using whatever means necessary.
So...Who's right, and why do you get to restrict me based on your assumptions? I already said I probably wouldn't shoot someone if it were legal, but how exactly do you presume to tell me that I can't, should I feel the need to?
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
The analogy was so over the top it is exactly what the liberals do when they chant "The streets will run with blood!" which is exactly what you are doing.
I honestly don't care if you want to house criminals at your dorm room, that's wonderful. However I do care that you want to prevent me from protecting my property because you don't agree with the method I want to do it.
There isn't anyone in here that would shoot an 8 year old stealing something from their yard. Even Jose wouldn't, however the option of deadly force shouldn't be taken away because some future criminal kid might get hurt.
Last edited:
I answer yes, I hate thieves. Obviously, some discretion applies. As someone else said, I will not shoot a kid stealing a pumpking off of my porch. If I catch you in my house taking my stuff, you're getting a .40 S&W bindi.
<snip>
I would probably not shoot someone for stealing property even if it were not against the law. But I certainly would not deny someone else the right to protect their property based on my perceived worth of the item, or my perception of "abuse" of the right. I don't think it reflects poorly on people's 2nd Amendment rights, and I certainly don't presume to restrict those rights based on that presumption.
I already said I probably wouldn't shoot someone if it were legal, but how exactly do you presume to tell me that I can't, should I feel the need to?
Buckle up for rep points...
And herein lies the problem.
YOU don't think that someone's life is worth more than property.
YOU think that some individuals would "abuse" their right to protect property with deadly force.
YOU think that it reflects poorly on our (you're speaking of ALL people's, collectively) 2nd Amendment rights.
And YOU think it's bad for the "general good of mankind."
I would probably not shoot someone for stealing property even if it were not against the law. But I certainly would not deny someone else the right to protect their property based on my perceived worth of the item, or my perception of "abuse" of the right. I don't think it reflects poorly on people's 2nd Amendment rights, and I certainly don't presume to restrict those rights based on that presumption.
I would argue that a dead criminal, if indeed he/she was a criminal, far outweighs the "general good" done by allowing the crime to proceed, calling the police, and unnecessarily spending the time and resources of 2 cops, multiple lawyers, an entire court staff, and 12 citizens plucked from their daily jobs in order to oversee a court case which could have easily been prevented by allowing someone to stop a crime in progress using whatever means necessary.
So...Who's right, and why do you get to restrict me based on your assumptions? I already said I probably wouldn't shoot someone if it were legal, but how exactly do you presume to tell me that I can't, should I feel the need to?
You're dead on. I think some of us, myself included, are beginning to blur the difference between what we morally ought to do and what we legally should be allowed to do. Legally, I certainly believe there's no question you should have the right to protect yourself and your property.
No, it isn't. The point is to find the difference that makes a difference between the kid taking an apple and the thugs stealing your car. Is there a difference? Should you be allowed to kill an 8 year old stealing an apple from your tree? Are there unlimited defense of property rights?
Read my whole posts. I've not once said you shouldn't have the right to defend your property. Please don't put words in my mouth. You should certainly be free to defend your property.
You SHOULD be allowed to use what ever force necessary to stop any thief regardless of age.
You didn't add your clarification until after you posted above, thus your edit.
Would be nice to hear from all the 29 'No' voters....
Meh, it's their opinion. As the jobless rate continues to rise this winter and oil prices go up with crime we can take another poll in the spring and see how they feel then. It's easy to say no when you've never had your home broken in to and your kids ask about the bad guy coming back.
And herein lies the problem.
YOU don't think that someone's life is worth more than property.
YOU think that some individuals would "abuse" their right to protect property with deadly force.
YOU think that it reflects poorly on our (you're speaking of ALL people's, collectively) 2nd Amendment rights.
And YOU think it's bad for the "general good of mankind."
I would probably not shoot someone for stealing property even if it were not against the law. But I certainly would not deny someone else the right to protect their property based on my perceived worth of the item, or my perception of "abuse" of the right. I don't think it reflects poorly on people's 2nd Amendment rights, and I certainly don't presume to restrict those rights based on that presumption.
I would argue that a dead criminal, if indeed he/she was a criminal, far outweighs the "general good" done by allowing the crime to proceed, calling the police, and unnecessarily spending the time and resources of 2 cops, multiple lawyers, an entire court staff, and 12 citizens plucked from their daily jobs in order to oversee a court case which could have easily been prevented by allowing someone to stop a crime in progress using whatever means necessary.
So...Who's right, and why do you get to restrict me based on your assumptions? I already said I probably wouldn't shoot someone if it were legal, but how exactly do you presume to tell me that I can't, should I feel the need to?
I read YOUR post. Did you read mine? I said I agreed with OUR right to defend property with deadly force, albeit with some legal restrictions.
Also, if you think that there won't be any kind of investigation involving at least close to the number of people involved in a trial just to be sure that the shooting WAS legal then I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken. They're not going to show up, take your name and say "Thanks, have a nice day." You're also (and I admit this is a VERY unfortunate condition in our times) very likely to see a suit against you from the "victim's" family. Which will certainly tie up a large number of additional resources.
Anyway... to reiterate since you apparently missed 90% of my post: I agree that the right should exist so long as there are reasonable restrictions placed on its application. Sorry if you don't agree with the restrictions.
ETA:
In response to:
Would be nice to hear from all the 29 'No' voters....
I'm one of the "no" voters because I voted based on the topic and the OP before I read through the thread. I would change my vote now as I have stated since I won't argue that there are certainly circumstances where the application of deadly force to protect personal property may be justifiable.
Last edited:
The funny thing is we've had people in threads state that they would resort to thievery in such times.
Don't think I'd have any problems installing a 400 yard doorbell.
This is where I disagree. I don't believe you should be allowed to use your home defense shotgun to stop the neighbor's 6 year old from wandering on your lawn. On the guy breaking into your garage or your home? Blast away. There are levels of force that are appropriate. It is perfectly appropriate on the thug who breaks into your home in the middle of the night - no matter his intentions. I don't expect anyone to find out what they are. "Shoot first, ask questions later."
Actually, I made it abundantly clear in my first post in this topic. If you need more, I voted "Yes." The law should allow the use of deadly force. But I don't think that means in any and all circumstances.
Last edited:
Sounds familiar...
http://gothamist.com/2009/07/20/schumer_against_law_allowing_concea.php
From Chuck Schumer..
But hey these "restrictions" have never bitten us in the ass before huh?
You're either for it, or against it. There is no middle ground.
ochmude
Marine Veteran
Okay, Derek said this:
And Kalahari said this:
Kalahari, how do you define theft? Wandering on a lawn is theft?
And Kalahari said this:
Kalahari, how do you define theft? Wandering on a lawn is theft?
Its not just the fact your opening fire on them for being in your house stealing its for the fact they have no right to be there and only god knows what else might be on there adgenda and to be blunt if it comes to me going to jail so my wife and daughters dont get raped and my throat slashed you bet your ass
He 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". At that point, you have to make a decision. Is the situation grave enough to warrant deadly force? Will you die if the guy takes your generator? If the answer is yes, then blast away. Just be prepared to defend your actions when the S is not HTF. In this particular case, I might put the gun away and get out a baseball bat, mace him or butstroke him with a rifle. I need my generator to get water out of my well so that would change things, I would not let him take it and he might be alive after we were through.
Similar threads
