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

Do you think that the law should allow the use of deadly force to protect property?

  • Yes

    Votes: 257 83.2%

  • No

    Votes: 52 16.8%
  • Total voters
    309
I would be in favor of the law. It would be nice to know that the law puts criminals LAST, just where they should be.

That said... I would have a difficult time shooting someone for just taking "stuff". That does not mean I would not physically try to stop or confront them. However, if through escalation I felt a deadly threat I would respond with lethal force. Without that escalation though, even if the law technically allows it, there is too much left open to interpretation for just shooting someone walking off with your tv/wallet/poodle - that's how laws get challenged every day in our country.

Of course realize that my opinion is formulated by a life in Assachusetts where if you look at a gun wrong you are a criminal (over exaggeration). [rolleyes]
 
MassMark said:
Would be nice to hear from all the 29 'No' voters....[thinking]
Click to expand...

I'd place a fair wager that most of them have never had anything stolen from them before of significant value. If they had, they'd probably be on the
fence at a minimum. Once someone gets "raped" of their possessions, things change upstairs a little bit.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
MassMark said:
Would be nice to hear from all the 29 'No' voters....[thinking]
Click to expand...

I think that a lot of "No" voters might actually support something that allows deadly force to protect property in certain situations only (probably more restricted than Texas), like the generator in an ice storm situation.

I think that using deadly force to protect one's property in many situations (maybe most) is wrong (morally). This is just my opinion, obviously. But at the some time, I don't think that something being morally bad necessarily means that there should be legislation against it (abortion comes to mind as a bit of a reversal where many conservatives think that it's bad, but liberals claim that they can't legislate based on their own moral system that isn't shared by everyone).

I posted this poll not having thought much about it, and thinking that my answer was "no." But my actual answer is more of a conditional yes.
 
drgrant said:
I'd place a fair wager that most of them have never had anything stolen from them before of significant value. If they had, they'd probably be on the
fence at a minimum. Once someone gets "raped" of their possessions, things change upstairs a little bit.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Amen...

I guess in a Beaver Cleaver world, we'd just hope they mean us no harm and just let them waltz away with things we work for - it's just a quick call to John Q Insurance Agency after all - "we'll send a check out in the morning"... I guess as well that the invasion of privacy, the violation of the sanctity of property and home is a no biggie to some...[thinking]
 
MassMark said:
Amen...

I guess in a Beaver Cleaver world, we'd just hope they mean us no harm and just let them waltz away with things we work for - it's just a quick call to John Q Insurance Agency after all - "we'll send a check out in the morning"... I guess as well that the invasion of privacy, the violation of the sanctity of property and home is a no biggie to some...[thinking]
Click to expand...

16 years ago when I lived in Newton, I came home to find my front door ajar and a gentleman inside my livingroom holding my stereo amplifier. Fortunately, I was armed with my 9 MM with 15 in the clip. The subject in question noticed me standing there when I cranked one into the pipe. I assisted him in dialing 911 and requesting that the police save his ass.

The point is that my house was invaded, my property was in jeopardy and still I did not use deadly force. If the burglar had failed to comply with my wishes, or turned on me in any way, I would have interpreted that action as a threat and well, you know......
 
Lucas McCain said:
16 years ago when I lived in Newton, I came home to find my front door ajar and a gentleman inside my livingroom holding my stereo amplifier. Fortunately, I was armed with my 9 MM with 15 in the clip. The subject in question noticed me standing there when I cranked one into the pipe. I assisted him in dialing 911 and requesting that the police save his ass.

The point is that my house was invaded, my property was in jeopardy and still I did not use deadly force. If the burglar had failed to comply with my wishes, or turned on me in any way, I would have interpreted that action as a threat and well, you know......
Click to expand...

You CCW with an empty chamber? Interesting....
 
MassMark said:
You CCW with an empty chamber? Interesting....
Click to expand...

Yes, back then I did but now I carry one in the pipe, safety off. I guess I have evolved.

derek said:
Grabbed your book on Mass General Laws to look up your next course of action?

Quickly inquiring minds want to know. [smile]
Click to expand...

No, actually, I made him lie down on the floor face down, I put my foot on the back of his neck, I picked up the phone and dialed 911 and dropped the phone on the floor next to his head and told him to tell the cops that he got caught burglarizing (my address) and to get over there ASAP because he had a gun pointed at him. I only lived a block away from the police back then and they showed up ranger quick.

Thinking back about it and what I know now, I should have never done most of that. I got too close to him, never checked him for weapons and played the "you talk to the cops" game with him but I was young and foolish back then. Nowadays, I would probably call 911 from my driveway and let the cops handle it.
 
drgrant said:
I'd place a fair wager that most of them have never had anything stolen from them before of significant value. If they had, they'd probably be on the
fence at a minimum. Once someone gets "raped" of their possessions, things change upstairs a little bit.

-Mike
Click to expand...
OTOH, some of us have the uncanny ability to separate personal experience and anger from logically stepping through a presented situation. (This also gets some pretty entertaining reactions during a drug legality conversation or the penalty discussions of a criminal case to which you're the aggrieved party. [laugh])

My position was the same before I ever had anything stolen from me (my dog, a dozen valuable antique car wheels, the wheels off of my car while I was in Canada, in retaliation for reporting the theft of the first dozen wheels).

ETA: Probably badly opening a can of worms here, so mods please feel free to remove this and/or move to another thread if it's too off-topic...but how do people feel about the right to prevent the taking of property with lethal force when the property is non-physical? For example, think intellectual property, patented design ideas, data, etc. which will not directly result in depriving the owner of their work or property. It's a legit question, and I'm decidedly undecided on it.
 
Last edited:
Lucas McCain said:
Thinking back about it and what I know now, I should have never done most of that. I got too close to him, never checked him for weapons and played the "you talk to the cops" game with him but I was young and foolish back then. Nowadays, I would probably call 911 from my driveway and let the cops handle it.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the media would have already convicted you of "assault with a deadly weapon" just for "brandishing"... You monster![laugh]
 
Pilgrim said:
I"m surprised that we have as many liberals here as it seems we do...or at least liberal thinking conservatives, if there is such a thing.[smile]
Click to expand...

That's part of why I don't like the labels -- they don't always fit. I find myself agreeing with both "sides" at one time or another depending on the issue. That's one of the benefits of being able to think for one's self - one doesn't need to stick solely to a particular label and can instead form their own educated opinions on various matters.

Voltaire said:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Click to expand...
 
ochmude said:
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?
Click to expand...

Granted I'm in NH and not MA, and I did live off of my generator for a full week during the ice storm last December and was the only thing providing my family with heat. The generator was chained up anytime it was outside, and I'm pretty sure I'd notice the lights suddenly going off. My son was only a year old then. If the scenario you describe happened to me the thief would have a choice to make, as would I. He could leave without the generator, but if he insisted on taking it I would stop him, I don't care what the law says about it. That would be a direct threat to me and my family, and if it is between my family or a thief, I will choose my family every time I don't need a law to give me permission to do what's right. I will deal with the consequences later.

For the record I think it SHOULD be legal to protect property with deadly force, but I don't believe it is ALWAYS the right thing to do, therefore I declined to vote.
 
M1911 said:
Wow! With an invitation like that, I'm sure they will all just rush to add their comments. [rolleyes]
Click to expand...

An invitation like what? This: [thinking] means 'thinking', as in: "I wonder what those 29, (now 30), people think when they cast a vote which agrees with restricting my rights to defend my property?"...How was that at all seem aggressive to you, or are you fresh out of de-oversensitive pills again? [rolleyes]
 
Well, this gets into hypotheticals that we should all avoid, but it seems to me that the whole premise of "using deadly force to protect property" is flawed in that it skips an intermediate step in the confrontation...

The missing step is "can you defend the theft of your property with 'force'?" That is, can you physically confront/obstruct the thief? Whether that leads to the use of "deadly force" is another issue...
 
cekim said:
Well, this gets into hypotheticals that we should all avoid, but it seems to me that the whole premise of "using deadly force to protect property" is flawed in that it skips an intermediate step in the confrontation...

The missing step is "can you defend the theft of your property with 'force'?" That is, can you physically confront/obstruct the thief? Whether that leads to the use of "deadly force" is another issue...
Click to expand...

When I wrote the question, my intent was a situation of "look that guy's stealing my stuff, bang." Not "look that guy's stealing my stuff. Hey you, stop. Wait, don't pull that knife out and threaten my life with it. Bang."
 
MassMark said:
An invitation like what? This: [thinking] means 'thinking', as in: "I wonder what those 29, (now 30), people think when they cast a vote which agrees with restricting my rights to defend my property?"...How was that at all seem aggressive to you, or are you fresh out of de-oversensitive pills again? [rolleyes]
Click to expand...

Leave Martha alone!!!
 
zeppelinfromled said:
When I wrote the question, my intent was a situation of "look that guy's stealing my stuff, bang." Not "look that guy's stealing my stuff. Hey you, stop. Wait, don't pull that knife out and threaten my life with it. Bang."
Click to expand...
Yeah, given only two options is the problem...

There's a third...

Should you be able to confront, even if that leads to the use of deadly force in response?

I suspect there are 3 distinct schools of opinion:
1. Shoot 'em up
2. Confront, shoot if they threat
3. No shooting, peace love and brotherhood man - retreat, retreat, retreat!
 
cekim said:
Well, this gets into hypotheticals that we should all avoid, but it seems to me that the whole premise of "using deadly force to protect property" is flawed in that it skips an intermediate step in the confrontation...

The missing step is "can you defend the theft of your property with 'force'?" That is, can you physically confront/obstruct the thief? Whether that leads to the use of "deadly force" is another issue...
Click to expand...

I would say without a doubt that the answer is YES, you can use force to defend your property. (otherwise you are from Berkeley or Cambridge right?) The issue is proportional response, you cant use deadly force if someone picks a dandelion off of your lawn but turning the hose on them might be appropriate. If someone steals your car, you cant shoot at the back but you sure as hell can shoot at the front [wink]

A persons response to a situation should be appropriate to that situation. The only difference here is how well an armed individual can meet an increasingly threatening situation with appropriate force up to and including the use of deadly force.
 
Lucas McCain said:
I would say without a doubt that the answer is YES, you can use force to defend your property.
Click to expand...
Therein lies the problem as MA prosecutors and juries don't seem to agree...

They want you to "retreat"...

Inside your home, they have come around, begrudgingly, but once you get out the front door, it would seem that we are expected to let them go...
 

Similar threads

Want to know who has a monopoly of force in America?
2 3 4
Replies
111
Views
2K
fencer
fencer
Here's a list of states suing the BATFE/FEDS in opposition to the new ruling of who's a dealer and who's not.
Replies
5
Views
300
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Additional new caselaw affirms: the police and the courts believe cops are allowed to kill people
2 3
Replies
84
Views
1K
milktree
milktree
Interesting Article on the "Notching" of Firearms to Keep Track of "Kills"
Replies
8
Views
381
clampett
clampett
Samuel Whittemore - The inventor of FAFO
Replies
7
Views
387
gerrycaruso
gerrycaruso
Back
Top Bottom