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

[MassMark]

Thanks for making my point for me. Well done. You have done so far better than I ever could have.

You made your own point with your . Make a real point and contribute to the thread, or stop trolling....The discourse has been civil....

 

[hminsky]

I think the word 'justice' should be applied here.

If you're a farmer who is poor and depends on your tractor for your living, and someone is stealing it, I could see using a lot of force to retain it.

If it's some neighborhood kid who is stealing soda from the unlocked fridge in your garage and you shoot them, you should be in jail.

 

[qmmo]

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

For me, this says it all. I went with YES. I've also been a victim of theft - more than once (a burglary and had my car stolen). 'nuff said.

 

[Lucas McCain]

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...

Yeah, well thats why they call it Assachusetts. Most of the populace doesn't seem to agree (at least in the circles that I travel in). As far as the juries go, the way they structure the trial prevents a moral decision. We need more jury nullification in cases where victims rights take a back seat to the warped system of laws we have here in the commiewealth.

 

[EddieCoyle]

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."

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.

 

[John2]

Yes. Here in Massachusetts, criminals are coddled. Result is repetition. Use of deadly force stops the coddling and stops any repetition. We won't get it though because of all the Liberals and Lawyers who profit off trials, etc. Thats why we won't see tort reform in health care. There are too many gravy trains at the expense of justice.

 

[seanc]

Just as a side note/ question..
If while robbing your house the criminal hurts themself... Is the criminal able to sue the homeowner for damages, and are they likely to be awarded money?

 

[MassMark]

Yes. Here in Massachusetts, criminals are coddled. Result is repetition. Use of deadly force stops the coddling and stops any repetition. We won't get it though because of all the Liberals and Lawyers who profit off trials, etc. Thats why we won't see tort reform in health care. There are too many gravy trains at the expense of justice.

What's worse is the Liberals who don't know they are....Many gave up on liberty, responsibility and justice for a warm snuggly version, which bastardizes those who sacrificed for it...

 

[william_munny]

Just as a side note/ question..
If while robbing your house the criminal hurts themself... Is the criminal able to sue the homeowner for damages, and are they likely to be awarded money?

Wait... I think that's actually happened...
One more reason to shoot someone burglarizing your house. "I didn't want him to hurt himself on anything and sue me."

ETA: Joking, obviously. I'd shoot them for burglarizing me, not for potential lawsuits.

 

[PaulD]

I voted yes though I have a slightly "nuanced" opinion. If they're in your house and stealing your stuff, shoot them in the face (after you've shot them twice in the chest). If you're in your house and they're outside stealing something and not threatening otherwise, I'm not quite so sure.

Part of me says time = money and the things are worth money. Therefore, by stealing things they're stealing time which is fractional murder. On the other hand, I'm not sure someone should die for stealing a garden gnome.

 

[ASHDUMP]

I'm pretty sure the only thing a jury wants to know is if "you" were in danger while your car was broken into. I wouldn't want to test those odds here in MA.

 

[seanc]

Wait... I think that's actually happened...
One more reason to shoot someone burglarizing your house. "I didn't want him to hurt himself on anything and sue me."

ETA: Joking, obviously. I'd shoot them for burglarizing me, not for potential lawsuits.

Well, we know that in the case of a burgler being shot/ killed during a break in the family of the burlger will almost certainly sue the property owner for damages.

But, I am thinking in terms of while trying to carry too many of your hard earned possessions down the stairs, the burgler trips, falls and breaks their back or leg. Are they able to sue the home owner? But, more importantly, would they be awarded damages?

 

[MassMark]

I'm pretty sure the only thing a jury wants to know is if "you" were in danger while your car was broken into. I wouldn't want to test those odds here in MA.

It's not about "testing the odds here in Massachusetts". I think you'll find a consensus, that testing anything in this state is a losing proposition. What the real question is: "Should the law allow the use of deadly force to protect a person's property?" It's not about "being in danger" necessarily either - it's about a basic principle of defending your property against crime with deadly force - period.

 

[william_munny]

Well, we know that in the case of a burgler being shot/ killed during a break in the family of the burlger will almost certainly sue the property owner for damages.

But, I am thinking in terms of while trying to carry too many of your hard earned possessions down the stairs, the burgler trips, falls and breaks their back or leg. Are they able to sue the home owner? But, more importantly, would they be awarded damages?

You're absolutely right, if you ever have to defend yourself or shoot somebody while they're in the act of burglarizing your house (in which case, you can probably claim defense because you don't know the extent of how far the thief is willing to go, or if he's armed, and I'd say you have reason to fear for your life), you will most certainly face at least a civil suit from the BG's family.

As far as your question goes, I do think that it has happened. I'm having trouble finding a source at the moment, but if I come across one, I will update this post.

 

[zeppelinfromled]

Well, we know that in the case of a burgler being shot/ killed during a break in the family of the burlger will almost certainly sue the property owner for damages.

But, I am thinking in terms of while trying to carry too many of your hard earned possessions down the stairs, the burgler trips, falls and breaks their back or leg. Are they able to sue the home owner? But, more importantly, would they be awarded damages?

I heard about a lawsuit (haven't verified it) where a guy broke into a house while the owners were out of town, got locked in the garage, and had to survive on dog food for several days. So he sued them, and apparently he won.

 

[ochmude]

You're absolutely right, if you ever have to defend yourself or shoot somebody while they're in the act of burglarizing your house (in which case, you can probably claim defense because you don't know the extent of how far the thief is willing to go, or if he's armed, and I'd say you have reason to fear for your life), you will most certainly face at least a civil suit from the BG's family.

As far as your question goes, I do think that it has happened. I'm having trouble finding a source at the moment, but if I come across one, I will update this post.

You can try googling "Bodine v. Enterprise High School", but I'm not sure if it's actually true or just very long running urban legend.

 

[Kalahari]

Future Brady Bunch CEO.

Selective reading at its finest.

 

[seanc]

You're absolutely right, if you ever have to defend yourself or shoot somebody while they're in the act of burglarizing your house (in which case, you can probably claim defense because you don't know the extent of how far the thief is willing to go, or if he's armed, and I'd say you have reason to fear for your life), you will most certainly face at least a civil suit from the BG's family.

As far as your question goes, I do think that it has happened. I'm having trouble finding a source at the moment, but if I come across one, I will update this post.

Regardless... As an add on to the right to defense of self and property to that should be enshrined the principal that the defender, homeowner should be absolved of all responsibility criminal and civil should the BG be injured or killed during the commission or as a result of the crime.

It should not be the case that a homeowner loses all his property through litigation to the person or family that was hurt/ killed tying to steal it in the first place.

It seems like double jeopardy as it stands now.

 

[scooter]

Every person has a threshold of what value to place on personal property. Some property comes easier to someone and extreamly difficult to another to obtain. If there are people out there that wish to find that line on which others will react they deserve what they get. My threshold is probably low so that someone shouldn't want to find mine.

 

[william_munny]

Regardless... As an add on to the right to defense of self and property to that should be enshrined the principal that the defender, homeowner should be absolved of all responsibility criminal and civil should the BG be injured or killed during the commission or as a result of the crime.

It should not be the case that a homeowner loses all his property through litigation to the person or family that was hurt/ killed tying to steal it in the first place.

It seems like double jeopardy as it stands now.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. I seem to remember something else about a bill or something of the sort that would prevent criminals for seeking compensation for damages for anything that happened to them while in the act of committing a felony (something else that I am currently source-less on). I really hope that's real, and that it's passed.

 

[Smiles1014]

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.

...like the laws of Texas.

OK, so I voted NO on the poll. I opened the thread, read the question, and my first thoughts were of some of those already mentioned. Now after reading the entire thread I must say, I was too quick to answer the poll. Especially after someone posted the TX laws which I agree with and should be echoed in other states. My mistake was to confuse the morality and legality of the situations. I am all for deterrents such as the capital punishment, nuclear weapons, and tough criminal sentencing...and giving someone the option of stopping a crime in progress against themselves.

If I could answer again, it would be YES, but not an outright blanket yes. Again, closely aligned with the Texas law...

 

[economist]

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.

 

[zeppelinfromled]

To think that law is all that stands between our society and dead little dandelion thieves is pathetic.

I don't think that anyone here actually thinks that. Whoever brought it up, I assume, was using hyperbole to find a situation where deadly force is not justified to protect property (and thus, in the mind of the poster, such deadly force should not be legal).

Other people have argued that finding an example where deadly force is not justified doesn't mean that it should be illegal, because there are examples where it is justified (which necessitates, in the mind of those posters, that such deadly force be legal).

No need to be calling people pathetic.

 

[MaJeeper]

My answer is *absolutely*. I could kill a no good, drug addicted thief easier than I could shoot a deer. (Nothing against hunting. I'm all for it. I Just don't do it because I don't eat the meat)

Anyway, quick question. When I applied for my class A two years ago , the sgt. wanted me to put down "Protection of Life and Property" as my reason for wanting a CCW permit. Back in the late 80's when I first applied, they wanted "all lawful purposes". Now, if Ma doesnt allow deadly force in protection of property, what's the point of using that as a reason? I've wondered that since I applied. Now. An animal is considered property, correct? Because if someone was going to harm my dog...they're going to be looking down the ugly end of a .45. I consider my dog a member of the family, as I don't have children.

 

[terraformer]

My answer is *absolutely*. I could kill a no good, drug addicted thief easier than I could shoot a deer. (Nothing against hunting. I'm all for it. I Just don't do it because I don't eat the meat)

Anyway, quick question. When I applied for my class A two years ago , the sgt. wanted me to put down "Protection of Life and Property" as my reason for wanting a CCW permit. Back in the late 80's when I first applied, they wanted "all lawful purposes". Now, if Ma doesnt allow deadly force in protection of property, what's the point of using that as a reason? I've wondered that since I applied. Now. An animal is considered property, correct? Because if someone was going to harm my dog...they're going to be looking down the ugly end of a .45. I consider my dog a member of the family, as I don't have children.

In MA, animals are property. In MA, you can not protect them. In MA, you can however protect your self if their attacker turns on you.

 

[usnma]

absolutely

 

[terraformer]

...like the laws of Texas.

OK, so I voted NO on the poll. I opened the thread, read the question, and my first thoughts were of some of those already mentioned. Now after reading the entire thread I must say, I was too quick to answer the poll. Especially after someone posted the TX laws which I agree with and should be echoed in other states. My mistake was to confuse the morality and legality of the situations. I am all for deterrents such as the capital punishment, nuclear weapons, and tough criminal sentencing...and giving someone the option of stopping a crime in progress against themselves.

If I could answer again, it would be YES, but not an outright blanket yes. Again, closely aligned with the Texas law...

Hence why I posted TX's laws on the subject. Many people talk about it like it is a free for all down there but it is not. There is a very sane and very deliberate distinction that is made between property that is replaceable and that which is not. There is the less than sane splitting of the solar day between daytime and night time but that is for another thread, although I suspect it's origins are in pre industrial times (ie; before the light bulb). Anyhow, it makes clear that property that is not replaceable, ie; that which is valuable, and property that is replaceable are to be treated differently. So if a burglar takes one of a kind jewelry or your kids baby teeth you have other options than if they stole your dandelions.

It also distinguishes between property that may be easily recovered v. that which may not be. Someone who is going to burn down your shed may warrant deadly force whilst someone who is known to you who aspires to steal something out of that shed may not trip that requirement. The latter is more easily recovered by a call to the police.

Also, who is doing the stealing/damage/etc gets covered by these two clauses. Kids you know TPing your home clearly are not going to engage in the level of damage that a psychotic ex with a Molotov cocktail in their hand.

Lastly, at no time is force of SOME KIND not allowed under the TX statute. This seems important because if one uses force to stop or hinder a crime on person or property (keep in mind the third party requirements here), you can't be accused of escalating the situation the way that MA laws seem to allow for. ie; In MA if you try and grab or detain a burglar in the act, unless you are absolutely sure they are committing a felony, it appears you can not use any force to stop them. In TX this does not appear to be a problem.

Anyhow, I am not a lawyer but this appears to be a reasonable interpretation of the TX statutes.

 

[Admin]

What side of the poll did you vote on?

 

[terraformer]

What side of the poll did you vote on?

Me? I didn't. The conversation was more interesting than some binary poll. If I was to vote it would be yes.

 

[Admin]

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