[migoi]

It's a pretty well accepted maxim that use of a firearm to prevent the theft of property will put you on the fast track to a legal system entanglement (excepting certain locations). The general comments usually run along the lines of.. "your vcr isn't worth anyone's life".

As I was loading the van this morning to go to the range I got to thinking though...what if the property that's being stolen is your range bag with 3 or 5 handguns in it?

Would this change anyone's mind about whether or not use of lethal force would be justified in stopping a theft? The scenario I'm thinking goes something like this:

You've loaded your vehicle for the range, remember you left someing inside your house so you lock your vehicle, step inside and hear a window on your vehicle shatter. As you return outside you see your range bag (with the aforementioned 3 or 5 handguns) being pulled through the window by Thug 1 accompanied by Thug 2. They don't threaten you, they simply start walking away.

What do you do?

migoi

[thefitzvh]

you allowing your guns to fall into criminal hands will almost certainly lead to someone getting hurt or killed.

Draw weapon, shout. If they run, shoot. Pray for a sympathetic jury.


James

[9mmepiphany]

maybe you give chase and they suddenly turn and attack you...2 on 1

maybe they turn, reach into their coat/shirt/pants, and start to pull somthing out...

maybe they reach into your range bag and start coming out with somthing...

stranger things could happen...but you should be able to explain what was going through your mind before you start shooting...or at least wait for you lawyer to show up...

[HSMITH]

Your scenario is precisely why I never transport guns to and from the range without one close at hand. No one is going to take them, that is all I have been able to come up with.

[Yooper]

Who is responsible for the value judgment that your VCR isn't worth someone's life? The same argument which makes the property owner responsible for the value of the crook's life empowers him to stop the theft of firearms with force.

[Double Naught Spy]

If you vcr isn't worth somebody's life, then your guns are not either. Yes, guns are dangerous, but in regard to the original argument, both are simply material items.

I understand the logic that material items are not worth a person's life, so shooting a burglar or robber taking your vcr, pistols, car, or whatever seems a little extreme, especially if you are the burglar or robber being shot. After all, there are inherent risks in being a bad guy. It is a shame when bad guys fail to consider the potential negative rammifications of their acts before doing something stupid.

Life is valuable, but I don't see a lot of value into the lives of bad guys.

With that in mind, there is a reason I have insurance to cover such matters as stolen property, but I do live in Texas where we do have some great laws that do give us the option to use lethal force in some non-lethal situations. It is an option and does not have to be exercised, but I sure like the aspect that it is an option.

[WT]

As the case was described, I would not use deadly force to stop the 2 thieves. At my age, I wouldn't even give chase. I would call police and let them handle it. I would then take my insurance settlement and buy some new Colts.

[DragonFire]

This is sort of a no-win situation.

If you somehow cause an escalation of the situation you could still be held responsible for using deadly force.

If you claim you felt you were in danger, just by them having the range bag, then again it could come back to why you didn't have your guns secured enough.

If you let them walk off with your bag, not only do you have a financial loss, but you've also let BGs have weapons they probably will use to commit more crimes.


So, even if it is no-win, you have to do something. I think I would yell at them to stop, draw my firearm but not directly point it at them (my thinking is to not directly threaten them with it, but to make it more ready in case they are armed or threaten me with "superior numbers").

If they continue to just walk away, I would close the distance while continually yelling at them to drop the bag. I'd try to get into a situation where they'd either drop my stuff or have to confront me, but not one where I was the first one to display deadly force.

Unfortunately, if they just run away, I guess I'd have to let them go. I wouldn't like it, but I don't think I could justify shoot them. I may have liked to, but legally I don't think it would work.

[cerberus]

In the state I reside you still must be in fear for your own or family members lives to use deadly force to defend self or property. Just this states simple self defence fact.:cuss:

[SMLE]

a VCR isn't worth someone's life.By taking your property, thay are taking the time of your life spent to obtain that property. Theft of "property" is theft of life. And if any of my guns are involved, it'll be "kill 'em all, let G-d sort 'em out!" I will probably have a rough row to hoe, but I'll stand on my principles.

[carebear]

Yo homie. Is that my gun case? :D

[El Tejon]

What do I do? I call the police with a description.

[Mad Man]

The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property.


-Jeffrey Snyder
"A Nation of Cowards (http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html)"



Of course, I doubt that argument would stand up in court.

[thatguy]

Deadly force generally requires a clear and present danger, the immediate threat of death or injury to you or an innocent victim. Arguing that the guns MAY or MIGHT at some LATER time pose a threat won't cut it.

[Joe Demko]

My life is worth more than a VCR. It isn't that I'd lose any sleep over ending a criminal's life, it is that I am reluctant to put my own in jeopardy over an easily replaced consumer item.

[carebear]

You could cite Brady et. al. that as handguns they are inherently dangerous and useful only for killing people. Thus your actions were justified to save society by "keeping them off the streets". You know "for the children".

[Rickstir]

Why worry? You do have that nifty manufacturor built-in safety lock engaged, don't you?

[one-shot-one]

it is not the vcr or the $150 to replace it or the tv or the $300 to replace it. it is the principal of the thing, there is no excuess to me for stealing from anyone. maybe theft should not be punished by death but anyone bold enough to break into a home and steal is to dangerous to let go. next time they might not be satisfied with just taking property.

[Standing Wolf]

Inside my house, I've got cigarette butts in ash trays that are worth more than the life of any criminal who breaks in.

Outside my house, I'm reasonably sure I could scare off a wannabe criminal with loud noise.

Frankly, I see no reason to value a criminal's life higher than property worth more than about $10. They're worthless parasites. The fewer of them we have to contend with, the better.

[jefnvk]

What are the liabilities to you if someone uses your handgun in a crime? I would think that if you could be held liable, there should be no reason that you can't shoot.

[MM]

Well, you are positive they are armed, right...?
SatCong

[Gordon Fink]

If it weren’t for all the gun-control “laws,” this wouldn’t even be a problem.

~G. Fink

[Raph84]

I don't mean to get too philosophical here, but I remember one of the major political thinkers justification for the ownership of property was that you have invested your time and thus a portion of your life in making that property valuable.

So in effect they are murdering you (a little) with a tiny knife. For this reason I have no ethical dilema with a person using lethal force to defend property.

I don't think I would necisarilly suggest using it, I am not even sure I would be willing to use lethal force if anything but firearms were being stolen. In the scenario described though, I would more than likely use it. They are armed, and those arms are intended to be used for some nefarious purpose. When it comes down to it they are my guns and I would rather go to jail than find out my firearms were used to harm an innocent person.