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

[terraformer]

I didn't know you couldn't carry on in the discussion if you voted. I guess I should shut up now.

I didn't say that. I have a thing about internet polls. They don't say much so I don't tend to go out of my way to answer them. Most of this back and forth was about how the poll didn't capture the nuances of the topic. Those nuances are more interesting to me. To each his own.

 

[Kalahari]

This is a very interesting thread. The answer to the question tells us more about the person answering than anything else. That, and the terrific horde of 8 year-old dandelion thieves must be stopped.

Show me a man willing to gun down a child picking dandelions in his yard and I'll show you evil that no law can stop. To think that law is all that stands between our society and dead little dandelion thieves is pathetic. That many here find examples like this useful illustrates the power of collectivism. Once the mind becomes accustomed to government and society dictating decency, then all decency need be dictated. It seems these folks think better to err on controlling people too much, and protecting others more fervently, than to trust or endure the free individual.

Thankfully, most of the people here understand that all good things need not be specified by law, and that it is better to govern lightly and favor the individual than to coerce and prod to the point that law becomes a morass. There is no set of rules that can capture every event where one might defend property with deadly force. Inevitably any attempt will lead to confusion, doubt, and arbitrary legal outcome dealt by bureaucrats and juries. And precisely because law is administered by people it is best to govern lightly, to govern clearly, and to leave the vague and the imprecise to the people. And if one outcome is that thieves live in fear, then all the better.

You've completely missed the point.

 

[economist]

You've completely missed the point.

How is that? So you have some example of where using deadly force to defend property is a bad thing and conclude that the law should not generally allow use of deadly force to defend property. For this to make any sense, the example (child, dandelion, deadly force) must be an event sensitive to legal restriction. Unless this is the case the example is pointless.

Of course there are instances where use of deadly force to defend property may be undesirable. But what you and others have failed to do is to establish that a solution to this problem can be found by curtailing legal use of deadly force, and that doing so does not create more problems than benefits.

 

[CRSIII]

This thread has evolved beyond my comprehension.
I don't shoot someone for stealing my hubcaps.
I might shoot someone for stealing livestock I feed my family with, in the event that the Piggly Wiggly goes teats up!

 

[Biggsy]

Even if the law permits it, you don't have to utilize it. Think ice storm times lots, power out for an extended indefinite period with road blockages. If my cheap Chinese crap from Walmart is a generator the thief may be putting my life at risk. Options are options, you don't have to use them for there to be a value.

+1

Good example. That sums it up nicely

 

[Kalahari]

How is that? So you have some example of where using deadly force to defend property is a bad thing and conclude that the law should not generally allow use of deadly force to defend property.

I'm not going to continue this debate if you continue to misrepresent my position. Re-read my posts. I've repeated myself several times. I 100% agree that the use of deadly force should be an available option. But that doesn't mean you can simply kill anyone who trespasses or steals, as Texas law describes. There are conditions. The dandilion example was brought up to describe a circumstance where deadly force would be wildly inappropriate and, in my opinion, beyond the rights of the homeowner. That says absolutely nothing about the use of deadly force on an intruder at 3 AM. Believe it or not, there's a difference, and deadly force is applicable in one scenario and downright inhumane in the other.

 

[Jose]

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.

You have no right to place a value on my posessions.

The only good burglar or thief is a dead one.

You also clearly have no concept of how property and casualty insurance actually works.

 

[Jose]

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.

What gives you the right to tell me how valuable my property is? What gives you the right to say to me that my property is worth less than some scumbag?

Are you a thief? Is that why you are so adamant against the use of deadly force against thieves?

Why do you want to protect thieves?

 

[cekim]

You also clearly have no concept of how property and casualty insurance actually works.

I'm guessing they haven't actually had to go through that process...

Getting back even a fraction is a lot of hard work...

My PIL might have recovered 20-30% of the actual value of goods stolen despite good records, appraisals, etc...

Particularly if you have possessions that are not easily replaced with modern equivalents, if you get cleaned out - your F'd...

 

[Jose]

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 should have the absolute right to stop anyone and everyone from entering my property.

If f***ing fruitcakes would teach their kids that helping themselves to other people's posessions and property is WRONG, this would would be miles better.

Yes, even taking an apple off a tree that does not belong to you without permission is morally WRONG.

 

[Jamie]

I'd just take my generator back while the guy is stealing a new truck to replace the one I ruined while he was loading my generator on it.

Jim, I think you just redefined the word "ruined".

 

[jkelly]

This thread has evolved beyond my comprehension.

Angry internet toughies I think.

Respectfully,
jkelly

 

[zeppelinfromled]

What gives you the right to tell me how valuable my property is? What gives you the right to say to me that my property is worth less than some scumbag?

Are you a thief? Is that why you are so adamant against the use of deadly force against thieves?

Why do you want to protect thieves?

I think that he (and others who agree with him) have explained themselves pretty clearly. They think that a life is worth more than a piece of property (your property and mine included). Perhaps your property is worth more to you than it is to him, or the life of a thief is worth less to you than to him (almost definitely both). You don't have to agree with him, but that's his opinion, and he's entitled to it.

Almost every law is contested by someone who says "you don't have the right to tell me what to do." That fact, on its own, doesn't make the law wrong.

I should have the absolute right to stop anyone and everyone from entering my property.

If f***ing fruitcakes would teach their kids that helping themselves to other people's posessions and property is WRONG, this would would be miles better.

Yes, even taking an apple off a tree that does not belong to you without permission is morally WRONG.

"Fruitcakes?" Really? (I think it's more the gangbangers' kids that we're likely to have a problem with anyway).

 

[DustinK]

What gives you the right to tell me how valuable my property is? What gives you the right to say to me that my property is worth less than some scumbag?

Are you a thief? Is that why you are so adamant against the use of deadly force against thieves?

Why do you want to protect thieves?

I'm not telling anyone how valuable their property is whatsoever. I'm stating my position. That's how a debate works. You don't have to agree with me, nor do I have to agree with you.

Also, ad hominem arguments don't help you prove anything. If you want to try and argue against anything I've said please try to do so with relevant discussion. To go against my better judgment and actually answer your questions: No, I am not a thief. Also, if you'll actually go back and read my posts in this very thread (including the one you selectively quoted from) you will see that I am not "adamantly against the use of deadly force against thieves" but rather against it in most, but certainly not all situations.

Again, I'm sorry if my disagreeing with your opinions upsets you but I'd like to attempt to exercise my right to free speech without being attacked -- verbally or otherwise.

 

[Dmn0166]

As much as I take pride in everything I own because I know I worked hard and earned it. I'm not sure I can justify an individuals potential death over it.

I guess it depends the day I'm having

 

[kevin9]

I'm not going to continue this debate if you continue to misrepresent my position. Re-read my posts. I've repeated myself several times. I 100% agree that the use of deadly force should be an available option.

but only in certain situations, not in every case. That's what you're saying below:

But that doesn't mean you can simply kill anyone who trespasses or steals, as Texas law describes. There are conditions. The dandilion example was brought up to describe a circumstance where deadly force would be wildly inappropriate and, in my opinion, beyond the rights of the homeowner. That says absolutely nothing about the use of deadly force on an intruder at 3 AM. Believe it or not, there's a difference, and deadly force is applicable in one scenario and downright inhumane in the other.

When you use terms such as "beyond the rights of the homeowner" and "inhumane" it very clearly indicates that you believe that there should be hard legal limits on when deadly force can be used to protect property (which AIUI Texas actually does have), and that's what some people are disagreeing with.

 

[DustinK]

but only in certain situations, not in every case. That's what you're saying below:
When you use terms such as "beyond the rights of the homeowner" and "inhumane" it very clearly indicates that you believe that there should be hard legal limits on when deadly force can be used to protect property (which AIUI Texas actually does have), and that's what some people are disagreeing with.

So, what you're saying is that you feel there should be no restrictions on the use of deadly force so that someone would be LEGALLY able to kill "Little Miss Dandelion Thief" or the kid that stole the valve stem caps off my car? I understand that you, and others, want the right to be able to legally protect your property but giving an unrestricted LEGAL way to do so is just asking for trouble. Regardless of the fact that a vast majority would never do so, it opens a legal defense for the few crazy people who would.

 

[MaineCWPtraining]

You may employ deadly force in Maine in your dwelling unit.

3. A person in possession or control of a dwelling place or a person who is licensed or privileged to be therein is justified in using deadly force upon another person:
A. Under the circumstances enumerated in section 108; or [1975, c. 740, §26 (NEW).]
B. When the person reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of a criminal trespass by such other person, who the person reasonably believes:
(1) Has entered or is attempting to enter the dwelling place or has surreptitiously remained within the dwelling place without a license or privilege to do so; and
(2) Is committing or is likely to commit some other crime within the dwelling place. [2007, c. 173, §20 (AMD).]

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec104.html

 

[dagwag77]

You have no right to place a value on my posessions.

The only good burglar or thief is a dead one.

You also clearly have no concept of how property and casualty insurance actually works.

You have no right to place a value on someone else's life.

I'm not telling anyone how valuable their property is whatsoever. I'm stating my position. That's how a debate works. You don't have to agree with me, nor do I have to agree with you.

Also, ad hominem arguments don't help you prove anything. If you want to try and argue against anything I've said please try to do so with relevant discussion. To go against my better judgment and actually answer your questions: No, I am not a thief. Also, if you'll actually go back and read my posts in this very thread (including the one you selectively quoted from) you will see that I am not "adamantly against the use of deadly force against thieves" but rather against it in most, but certainly not all situations.

Again, I'm sorry if my disagreeing with your opinions upsets you but I'd like to attempt to exercise my right to free speech without being attacked -- verbally or otherwise.

As much as I take pride in everything I own because I know I worked hard and earned it. I'm not sure I can justify an individuals potential death over it.

I guess it depends the day I'm having

+1 to the above.

 

[cekim]

You have no right to place a value on someone else's life.

I may or may not agree to the penny with Jose's valuation of his "stuff", but the valuation of the perp's life was set by the perp himself when he decided to risk his life to steal...

Let's not forgot the root of the problem here... Bad guy decided the rules didn't apply to him...

 

[Gonzo]

You have no right to place a value on someone else's life.

Actually, it's the theif who decides that his own life is worth the item he's stealing. It's a gamble that some people will call him on.

 

[cekim]

Actually, it's the theif who decides that his own life is worth the item he's stealing. It's a gamble that some people will call him on.

echo, echo...

What he said...

 

[clinotus]

Actually, it's the theif who decides that his own life is worth the item he's stealing. It's a gamble that some people will call him on.

All the pretty words and long quotes and numbers all seem to skip this simple sentence with is the truth of the matter.

 

[Admin]

Actually, it's the theif who decides that his own life is worth the item he's stealing. It's a gamble that some people will call him on.

That's what gets me about these we aren't deciding to end peoples lives. If you don't want to die, don't come to my house looking to steal something, it's pretty simple.

 

[Lynne]

Would I shoot? It depends on the situation - however, I think the more important question is does the bad guy know I won't?

One thing I will tell you - if someone breaks in while I am home, they've got brass ones and most likely won't care that someone is home. That usually means they're probably willing to do bodily harm.

So - someone breaks in to steal my stuff and I'm home? There's one definate in that - they WILL be introduced to one of my little friends - whether or not they taste what my little friend has to offer will be up to them.

 

[zeppelinfromled]

You have no right to place a value on someone else's life.

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.

 

[kevin9]

So, what you're saying is that you feel there should be no restrictions on the use of deadly force so that someone would be LEGALLY able to kill "Little Miss Dandelion Thief" or the kid that stole the valve stem caps off my car? I understand that you, and others, want the right to be able to legally protect your property but giving an unrestricted LEGAL way to do so is just asking for trouble. Regardless of the fact that a vast majority would never do so, it opens a legal defense for the few crazy people who would.

I was merely attempting to clarify Kalahari's position, which appears to be similar to yours, not making a judgment about that position.

Personally I think it should generally be legal to use deadly force to protect one's property and possessions. Even if I could I wouldn't do so in every case. Others might or would do draw the line in a different place.

The question in my mind is whether, and where, to draw that line legally, and I don't have an answer to that yet. On principle I would favor allowing deadly force over not, along the lines of the Texas model versus MA.

 

[ASHDUMP]

I don't think there is an argument about you shooting someone when they break into your home. Any sane person with a firearm would shoot a thief if they were in your home unexpected.

I voted NO because of the vagueness of the question in the poll.

 

[ochmude]

I don't think there is an argument about you shooting someone when they break into your home. Any sane person with a firearm would shoot a thief if they were in your home unexpected.

I voted NO because of the vagueness of the question in the poll.

I sorta feel like a broken record with the point I'm trying to make, so I'll try a different approach. Since laws aren't designed to permit activity but rather to restrict it, consider this question.

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

 

[dreamer]

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 don't quite view carrying/owning a gun that way. If someone decides that my life is going to be irrevocably changed*, I now have the option of deciding that their life, not mine, will change if they decide to continue down their intended path. If they are willing to go all-in on that bet, I'm not going to fold just because their life may have X value.

* Rape, murder, maiming, torture, the type of things which are generally considered defensible by deadly force