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
kevin9 said:
...
On principle I would favor allowing deadly force over not, along the lines of the Texas model versus MA.
Click to expand...

And on this, I believe we are in agreement. I would have disagreed when I first opened this thread but my opinions have certainly been changed through the course of it, thanks in a large part to the presentation of other scenarios and facts (ie. the actual TX laws) that I had not considered/full thought about.


dreamer said:
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
Click to expand...

And on this point I don't think ANYONE would disagree with. Even a hardcore anti would, if armed, very likely defend themselves if confronted with the possibility of death or severe bodily injury. Just as Senator Soles (D-NC) showed us just a couple of months ago.
 
zeppelinfromled said:
After another thread in this section, I because curious what the opinions here. It's been discussed pretty significantly over here.

Do you think that the law should allow the use of deadly force to protect a person's property? That is, if someone is breaking into your car, but currently poses no threat to your life, should you be allowed to shoot him?
Click to expand...

You mean the law doesn't say you can[shocked]....Opps my bad[smile]
 
My feeling on deadly force to protect property is probably not, but I haven't considered detailed scenarios.

A somewhat related idea I am interested in is having criminals be fully responsible for economic damage to their victims, including (reasonably humane) indenture to pay off the full amount (backruptcy not allowed). Then there would be much less incentive to kill to protect property, because you know the sucker would be working his/her ass off to pay you back. The same principle might apply to paying back uninsured healthcare costs. See the military science fiction classic "Freehold" by Michael Williamson for a fun fictional investigation of this idea (and lots of other extreme libertarianism).
 
CMF said:
My feeling on deadly force to protect property is probably not, but I haven't considered detailed scenarios.

A somewhat related idea I am interested in is having criminals be fully responsible for economic damage to their victims, including (reasonably humane) indenture to pay off the full amount (backruptcy not allowed). Then there would be much less incentive to kill to protect property, because you know the sucker would be working his/her ass off to pay you back. The same principle might apply to paying back uninsured healthcare costs. See the military science fiction classic "Freehold" by Michael Williamson for a fun fictional investigation of this idea (and lots of other extreme libertarianism).
Click to expand...

That relies on a couple things. First, the person has to be caught. Second, the person has to be convicted. Also, if a thief steals my Ferrari and totals it, I doubt that he or she will ever be able to work it off (I don't actually own a Ferrari). A lot of people have insurance on their property, so theoretically that should mean that there's no incentive for those people to use deadly force (different than "killing") to protect property. But based on this discussion, there clearly is incentive for many people. And if something valuable was damaged, I guarantee that insurance will get you the check faster than having a thief work it off at what is probably pretty close to minimum wage.
 
Lucas McCain said:
As much as I hate people who steal, do you really want to kill someone over some cheap Chineese crap you bought at Walmart? Not me.
Click to expand...

Ok, but what if it's not some cheap Chinese crap you bought at walmart? What if it's your great grandfather's pocket watch, or your wifes engagement ring or something with sentimental value that far, far exceeds any price tag you or an insurance company could put on it. There's things in my house that I'd have a tough time letting go without violence.
 
jhblaze1 said:
Ok, but what if it's not some cheap Chinese crap you bought at walmart? What if it's your great grandfather's pocket watch, or your wifes engagement ring or something with sentimental value that far, far exceeds any price tag you or an insurance company could put on it. There's things in my house that I'd have a tough time letting go without violence.
Click to expand...

I second that. Shortly after I moved out of my mom's house, someone broke in and stole all of my little sister's CDs, my bro's PS2 and all of his games, and my mom's jewelery box. In the jewelery box was some earings, rings, and necklaces that were given to her by my late paternal grandmother. I disliked thieves before the break-in, but after that moment, I was filled with so much venom regarding the subject that I could have bitten somebody and killed them.
 
zeppelinfromled said:
That relies on a couple things. First, the person has to be caught. Second, the person has to be convicted.
Click to expand...
It also relies on the scumbag criminal to actually give a crap and follow through with paying it.

How many "deadbeat" dads are out there not paying their court ordered child support? Even if they have been ordered to have their wages garnished by their employer, there are ways around it and they exploit them.

And that situation is a guy supporting his own child, why would any POS thief give a crap about paying back the guy he lifted a safe from?

zeppelinfromled said:
A lot of people have insurance on their property, so theoretically that should mean that there's no incentive for those people to use deadly force
Click to expand...
Why should I have to pay for insurance?
Other than for the protection of worthless filth that are a drain on our society, why should I pony up a monthly fee to protect myself from their actions?

I already have bullets. I'm pretty sure they were cheaper than insurance would be.
Not to mention, if I was allowed to use them to protect my property that insurance would probably be cheaper because there would be less threat of theft. If the laws were not in favor of the filth, the insurance companies could offer a firearm owner discount.

As it stands now, I tell the guy stealing my TV to "stop or I'll shoot!"
He can say "I'm unarmed, you're not allowed to"
To, which I would have to reply "you're right mister criminal enjoy your new television"
And I would have no recourse other than to go in the house and make phone calls.

Does that really sound reasonable????
WTF did I spend all this money on guns and ammo for?
Maybe I should have asked mister criminal if he wanted those too?
Criminals don't seem to have a problem using them where ever and when ever they see fit.
 
If someone is stealing a generator during an emergency, like the ice storm last year, and in my case, where that genny provided electricity for heat, and my mothers breathing equipment, they would get one chance, and only one chance to rethink it.

I have a firm belief that everyone here is not wanting to end another humans life, but if provoked, the option should not be taken off the table.

I also, am of the opinion, that, a person who can make the reasonable decision to willfully break and enter into another persons home, uninvited or even warned by signage posted on ones property stating no trespassing, keep out or whatever, takes the liability of his own actions. If you are not invited or welcome, you have no buisiness, being on that persons property, with out just cause or reason. I think that a verbal warning to said intruder should be given if the oppritunity is their. If the guy refuses to comply with your order to immediately leave and makes no attempt to do so, then yes, he has made his intentions perfectly clear, and deserves what ever means are needed to stop this situation.

If you catch someone breaking into your car, I think you should be able to use enough force to stop the person from continuing, here again, verbal warning, then what ever force needed to stop the crime. But, I also think, a person who has caught this person, have the right to detain said criminal. Part of the problem is, the citizens arrest rules are not as strong as they could be. A person who catches a criminal, still has no right to detain, or give chase like the police do. I think, that if you catch the person in the act, you should be able to detain said person, then hand him over to the police and file charges. If someone is commiting a felony then you should have enough power to stop it with in reason.
 
Last edited:
Well, Bob, I just looked up the definition of "junk" and here is one:

"dispose of something useless or old"

What definition were you thinking of???

:))
 
I said yes, because there are things that are part of my property that I consider to be essential for the protection of my life.

These things include my firearms, which definietly fall into in the "Molon Labe" category.

For the rest, it will be taken on a case-by-case basis.
 
n1zfg said:
I said yes, because there are things that are part of my property that I consider to be essential for the protection of my life.

These things include my firearms, which definietly fall into in the "Molon Labe" category.

For the rest, it will be taken on a case-by-case basis.
Click to expand...

Excellent. We need guns to make sure nobody steals our valuable guns. Somewhere a gun grabber's head just exploded and an angel got its wings.
 
derek said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what i was trying to say with the "horse thief scenario"... They knew the potential for disaster when they jumped the fence - no bones about it. As soon as they ventured onto the ranchers property to steal his horses, they threw their lives on the craps table....Choose to live a decent life and chances are, you'll grow old. Choose to live the life of a scumbag and chances are, you'll get your ass handed to you...The problem is, thieves have not these odds anymore. We've become soft and cuddly, while they grow more brazen and unconcerned with basic, decent principles of life, liberty and property.
 
zeppelinfromled said:
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.
Click to expand...

+1
 
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.

ochmude said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
ochmude said:
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.
Click to expand...

You should be able to use force to retain your property. If that turns deadly, it would be because the thief escalated it to that level.
 
ochmude said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
hminsky said:
You should be able to use force to retain your property. If that turns deadly, it would be because the thief escalated it to that level.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is where TX law is smart. It does not prohibit non-deadly force to prevent theft or destruction and therefor any escalation that occurs as a result of that force is now no longer a responsibility of the property owner. Whereas in MA, if you grab a guy to get him to stop him and he pulls a knife and you whack him over the head with a bat, you are potentially the bad guy. And if folks don't think this is where we are headed in MA, look to the UK where this approach is in full force.
 

Similar threads

Want to know who has a monopoly of force in America?
2 3 4
Replies
99
Views
2K
240Geezer
2
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
0
Views
1
Uzi2
U
Additional new caselaw affirms: the police and the courts believe cops are allowed to kill people
2 3
Replies
82
Views
1K
weekendracer
weekendracer
Interesting Article on the "Notching" of Firearms to Keep Track of "Kills"
Replies
8
Views
379
clampett
clampett
Samuel Whittemore - The inventor of FAFO
Replies
7
Views
373
gerrycaruso
gerrycaruso
Back
Top Bottom