self/property defense

TexasRifleman

So I still don't know why it's a mixed feeling. It doesn't REQUIRE you to shoot

Click to expand...

Obviously, the castle doctrine does not require me to shoot, but it does allow me to shoot before I have determined the nature of the threat; again if I understand the doctrine law. My mixed feeling is around the sense of entitlement that may cause someone to shoot now and ask questions later.

I recall a case where a father killed his teenaged kid who just happened to be returning home late one night. Isn't one of the four rules, know your target?

I really don't have a problem with the Castle Doctrine and would not worry too much if Ohio passed such a law, but I am still entitled to mixed emotions about it.

no criminals life is worth even the cheapest piece of property that i have, they assign the value of their life when they choose to steal!

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.

If the peice of S*** doesn't want to die, he shouldn't be in my/your house stealing.

One has to consider the “use of force” and the “use of deadly force” in situations.
Just like in law enforcement, “use of force”, “use of deadly force” can go hand in hand.
A lot of factors.
Use of force, in getting ones property back, can lead into using deadly force.

Force options:

1. Dialogue
2. Escort technique (non-threatening)
3. Pain compliance (manipulation of body parts)
4. Mechanical Control (use of hands)
5. Impact weapons (other than firearms)
6. Firearm (last and highest level of force) in the “use of force continuum” (in law enforcement terms)

Which any use of the above, there are considerations:

Totality of the situation:

Owner/Thief Factors:

Age
Gender
Size
Fitness
Skill level
Multiple thieves
Location

Special considerations:

Proximity to weapons/firearms
Special knowledge
Imminent danger


Where 1 and 2 would be great, but what are the chances? To gain that control to the thief(s)? Or stop any threat by the thief(s)? Would depend on the “totality of the situation”?
3 and 4 would be the same, again, depending on the “totality of the situation”.
5 and 6 might the only resort one has.

If an owner was in a situation where he was able to use the “confrontational continuum” and 1 thru 2 did not work. I would not feel sorry for the thief, if owner used 5 and 6 as a last resort. Even if it came to using 5 a 6 as being used as “deadly force”.
Now this will also depend on ones state laws as well. This is the whole key to it all.

Some say that there isn't any property that's worth someones life... true enough perhaps.

So, the BG has to make one of the most important decisions of his life.... Is the property I'm considering stealing worth my life???

Let me remind everyone here, that not too long ago in this country it was not totally frowned upon by most citizens for a cattle or horse thief when caught, to be strung up on the nearest tree branch.
Not to declare it right or wrong, but there was a time when your property was your sole source of survival and to steal that property was almost a death sentence for the victims.
Today, we don't depend on many individual items for our sole source of survival, we have built a solid agricultural and livestock foundation and have the ability to transport it to almost any location in the continental U.S. in a few short days (or in the world for that matter).
Therefore, with the advent of insurance and the ability to readily replace most property at a moments notice, it's not so devestating when it gets stolen or destroyed.
However, some things can't be quickly replaced or which a value cannot be placed, in these cases, I believe that deadly force may be utilized if it's owner depended on it greatly for their survival or well-being.

It could be that some are missing part of the point here.

On the one hand, I'd like to think that nobody in here would take the life of a BG just for taking a personal belonging(s). I could be wrong but that's what I'd like to think.

On the other hand, I believe that there are a lot of members who, when faced with a BG that broke into ones' home (say in middle of the night) with theft on their mind, wouldn't extend said BG the same courtesy.

It depends a lot the circumstance under which the property was or was to be taken.

I've been watching this thread with interest, but have thusfar only commented once.

I've contemplated the various scenerios where any of this discussion would even occur and what it would look like.

It frankly isn't as cut-and-dry as many would suggest.

For an illustration, I will use the scenerio of someone breaking into a out-building on your property. I use an out-building because using your actual home as an example is more cut-and-dry.

There are 3 possible scenerios where this would occur:

1. The thief breaks in when you are not present. Your life was not in danger, and he got away with it.

2. You see the thief breaking in, you come up on him but he gets the drop on you with a firearm. You are SOL. He gets away with it and you live or die depending on his perogitive.

3. You see the theif breaking in, you come up on him and YOU get the drop on him with a firearm. This is the one I am particularly interested in.

In this case, you inform the thief of a number of things as 911 is coming:

A. Put your hands on your head and keep them visible.
B. If you make any sudden moves, I will assume you are going for a gun. You will place me in a position to shoot you and I will.
C. If you make a move for your vehicle (if one is present) I will assume you are going for a firearm inside the vehicle. You will place me in a position to shoot you and I will.
D. The police are coming and we will calmly wait for them to arrive.


In scenerio 3, any action other than staying put and keeping his hands visible WILL BE and SHOULD BE considered a threat to you. You act accordingly.


When people talk about defending property, I seriously don't think they are talking about sneeking up on the thief and shooting them in the back. There will be some sort of dialogue contact and an attempt to detain that person. In detaining a person caught in the act, ANY action other than waiting patiently could be a threat to you, and you act accordingly.

The only other possiblity is that you see them doing so, but either only call 911 or do not attempt to stop the thief. This attitude is one reason why criminals are so bold and brazen today.

For as many that accuse those of us who are willing to defend our our property as being immoral, I will counter that those that will not defend their property have allowed criminals to gain confidence and embolden them to commit crimes.


You can do it your way, and I'll do it mine... No one is MAKING you defend your property. No one would MAKE you confront a thief. No one would MAKE you pull a trigger. It is your choice and I support your right to make that choice.

But equally so, I should be allowed to defend my property if I choose to. I am fortunate that my state legislatively supports this position. Its a good idea not to break in anywhere here.


--John

When people talk about defending property, I seriously don't think they are talking about sneeking up on the thief and shooting them in the back. There will be some sort of dialogue contact and an attempt to detain that person. In detaining a person caught in the act, ANY action other than waiting patiently could be a threat to you, and you act accordingly.

Click to expand...

That's a real tough one. I'm not in Law Enforcement. I'm not prepared to deal with the "arrest" of someone that I've caught in the act inside my home.

Trying to have a conversation with someone about what they should do, not knowing if his buddy is about to come around behind me doesn't sound too smart.

The problem you have here is one of threat. If this person calmly walks towards the door, without making a threatening move towards you, will you just let them leave? You'd be crazy to try to physically restrain them, but you just said you wouldn't shoot them in the back.

So... you've surprised someone, you have let them know you are there, told them not to move or you'll shoot.

They head slowy towards the door with their hands up.

What you gonna do now?

While I don't think that most property is worth shooting someone for, don't we fight wars, and millions die for freedoms which include the right to own property?

I recognize that the law does not normally permit deadly force to protect property, and I will obey the law, we are talking about what we think about the subject. If someone is trying to steal my battery and lawn mower, there is nothing I can do about it if they are larger and more in number. I just have to call the police and watch them steal it.

If I see someone breaking into my new car, and they start it, I am not permitted to use deadly force. Again, do I not have the right to own property and defend it? I think I should have the right to use deadly force.
But since the law says no that is the way it will be. I wonder if car jackings are worth using deadly force when there is no obvious threat of violence?

Jerry

The problem you have here is one of threat. If this person calmly walks towards the door, without making a threatening move towards you, will you just let them leave? You'd be crazy to try to physically restrain them, but you just said you wouldn't shoot them in the back.

Click to expand...

Granted, Its a tough one. It's also one that I would say is a very unlikely situation.

Let me throw this possiblity out using your scenerio:

he calmly walks to the door without making any threatening moves towards me. How do I know that the instant the line of sight is broken, this person uses this opportunity to draw a firearm and attempt to shoot me. Afterall, chances are I've got a good description of him for the police. In my job, I have to watch 8-10 hours of news every business day. The chances are FAR more likely that a criminal would take action or take the opportunity I put as a possiblity than do nothing but calmly leave.

Theoretical arguements only have value in a lab experiment. In life, there are FAR too many varibles. And as I pointed out, the threat level is dependent on these varibles, your analysis of that threat level, and the potential of YOU being the one shot.

I submit that ANY situation where someone is on YOUR property and STEALING your possessions should be considered a threat and ANY action beyond remaining still with hands visible MUST be considered a threat. The person has already shown a disregard for the law, why should I believe he respects my life or the laws protecting it?

In the scenerio that you mentioned about the person moving towards the door, I would inform that person very sternly to remain in place and that any move to break line of sight would be considered going for cover to shoot me, and therefore a threat to me.

Rather than berate people who would defend their home and property, why not place the blame ON THE CRIMINAL? It seems we are adverse to do that in our current world. If someone breaks into my property and is stealing from me, the burden of responsibility falls upon HIM. I will, of course, inform that person that anything other than doing as instructed will be considered a threat. The choice of doing something stupid and the consequences of such are HIS responsibility.

There is precident for this action seen every day. LEO's routinely insist on having complete control of a situation and consider any action other than compliance as a threat. Letting guard down as caused several LEO deaths that they didn't see coming. Why would I be held to a higher standard than a trained LEO?

For the record, I am not some Keyboard commando like I've seen referred to in this thread a couple times. A lot of people try to imagine what they will do, and often do very differently than what they type. While I am not in LE, I HAVE been in a couple situations where what I type had to face the acid-test of reality. The most recent was my home being broken into on December 6, 2006.

There was a very significant chance that the criminal was still in the house when I got there. As it turned out, he wasn't. The responding LEO and I arrived at the home at the same time and my wife was waiting in her car. Because there was a chance the criminal was in the home, it had to be checked. Because I had my Vector AK-47 underfolder with me, the LEO asked me to help him sweep the house.

When we went in, The LOE yelled for anyone that was inside to come to the front room with his hands on his head. He yelled to inform the potential criminal that not being in that front room with hands on head would be considered a threat situation and we would act accordingly. I was given a few quick instructions regarding moving room to room and what I should do if faced with a threat.

To make a long story longer...

The LEO with a Glock 17 and me with a AK swept the house room by room covering each other as needed. The criminal was not there.

While this seems anti-climatic, it was a valuable experience for me. I was placed in a position where I would have to act based upon a threat level. I was put in a position where theoretical arguments are meaningless, and where you had better be ready to act.

After going room to room through my own house not knowing if I would be walking into a gun pointing at me, I passed being a keyboard commando.


John

I'm digressing for a moment

Back when I was twelve years old (mid '60s) I was given the task of taking care of the pets of friends who lived a quarter of a mile away and out of sight of my house while the family was gone on vacation. They had a cat and a dog and all I had to do was see to their needs a couple of times a day. I was given a key to the house to facilitate the job. Next to the door for which I had a key was a small cellar window that was to be left open for the cat to come and go as it pleased.

While I normally went about the business by myself, this one day my eight year old sister joined me. When I went to the door to unlock it I noticed that the cellar window was closed, not tight and latched, but not as it should have been either. That's strange I thought and pointed it out to my sister. I immediately went downstairs and pushed the window back open and did the cat's bowls. Back upstairs I got the dog's water and food and took it out to him (fenced in area and house). Back into the house I took a quick look around and found in the living room a candy dish on a coffee table that looked as though the level was down a bit. Humm, looking at the hardwood flooring just in front of the couch it too looked a bit "wrong". Bending down and lifting the skirted bottom of the couch I found that someone had "hand swept" some sand and pieces of grass under it real quick like. What the??? OK, now I was really in investigative mode (stupid little...) so what do I do? I grab a Daisy pump BB gun that was in the kitchen and decided to have more of a look around (did I mention stupid little...?). In defense of my defenseless position I knew something was up but I thought that it "had been going on" as in the past tense. Well, I went into the first bedroom on the left and had a look around... nothing. For the heck of it I had my sister sneak to the closet door (covered w/BB gun ), whip it open, and jump back... nothing. Across the hall to the bathroom on the right... nothing. I had her whip the shower curtain aside... nothing. So far, so good. Down the hall to the second bedroom on the left.... nothing. But, whoa, the bed looks a little bit wrinkled, that doesn't look right at all... My sister went to the closet to do her duty.... nothing. OK, nerves a bit rattled now over the bed but not giving up (I already mentioned stupid little...). One bedroom left. The master bedroom, end of hall on the right.... nothing. My sister knows her job, to the closet... BOBBY! THERE'S A MAN IN THE CLOSET!!! Say what? I can't see anything. RIGHT THERE!!! I'll be... that long tailed shirt has legs and feet under it!!! Well, shirt starts to move, feet started to move toward us, and voice starts firmly saying "YOU KIDS GET OUT OF HERE!!!!!!" Didn't have to tell us twice! You talk about feet on fire! We were out of that house in a flash, onto our bikes and home in a few seconds flat screaming as we pulled into the yard.
The state police were also only about a quarter of a mile away and were to the house in minutes. I told them all of the clues I had found that said someone had been (I thought it was "had been") in the house and they cleared the house themselves and then investigated but to no avail.

Oh well, that was sooo many years ago but I'll never forget it and it left a note in my mind. The only difference between then and now is I place more faith in what I carry now as opposed to the BB gun back then. I still wouldn't start blasting at a person in the same circumstance but at least I'd have more options open to me especially if the intruder acted in a violent manor.

The use of force to defend property must be moral or laws against thievery are immoral. You must be arrested in order to be punished for theft. What will the police officers do if a perp doesn't politely step into the handcuffs? Say mean things about his mother? The (proper) use of force is an assumed part of the process, otherwise the police would have to stand around humming to themselves while the thieves cart your stuff off. They will use an appropriate amount of force to arrest him.

I believe that I, too, can morally use force to protect my property. Deadly force, on the other hand, would not be correct unless, in the course of using appropriate force, a criminal becomes a threat. Contrast the police shooting a thief on sight and, during the attempt to arrest the thief, shooting him when he pulls a gun. In a similar vein, compare shooting someone taking your lawnmower and shooting someone who becomes a threat as you attempt to ward him off.

The last example in each set is self-defense. Deadly force is not used to protect property but rather to protect life and limb while using force to protect property.

They head slowy towards the door with their hands up.

What you gonna do now?

Click to expand...

If he doesn't go for a weapon, let him run away and call the cops. You don't get to kill people simply for being in your house. You can keep a bead on him and make sure he doesn't draw something, but you can't kill him unless he does. If it's dark and you simply don't know, some states allow you to presume, to a certain extent, that someone breaking into your house when you're in it is presenting an imminent threat of deadly force. But that presumption ends when you see him with his hands up, trying to run away.

YOU DO NOT GET TO SHOOT FLEEING SUSPECTS!

The point is this: if your bias toward the sanctity of life is so strong that you can't recognize actual evil when confronted by it, that failure can kill you.

Click to expand...

WRONG! You are not there to kill "evil" people or to execute some sixgun justice. For the love of Pete, if that's what you think you have NO BUSINESS with a firearm. Can you decide who's evil? Is it a magic power? I sure as heck wouldn't want to have to take that to a jury.

You are NOT there to judge the content of the person's character!! Your question is simple--does this person present me or my family with a threat of imminent and unlawful deadly force. If you catch someone trying to take your TV and he runs away, you don't get to shoot him in the back because you want to "destroy evil."

I do get the sense, as have some others, that a fair number of folks here have no real clue what it means to take a human life. Even when the shooting is good and lawful, it's still just about the most horrible thing you can imagine. And if you can stand over some 16 year old who's in a gran mal because you just removed a chunk of his brain and spit in his eye because he was trying to take your VCR, you're the sociopath. As humans, we all have the power and the inherent will to kill. But every religious and ethical source will tell you that that power must be used sparingly

If it's dark and you simply don't know, some states allow you to presume, to a certain extent, that someone breaking into your house when you're in it is presenting an imminent threat of deadly force. But that presumption ends when you see him with his hands up, trying to run away.

Click to expand...

In most statutes I have heard, PERCEPTION of THREAT is a highly relevant component. If someone is in my house uninvited, they SHOULD be percieved as a threat in most cases. If they do anything to break the line of sight after being warned that doing so would be percieved as a threat, they WILL be considered a threat.

You are asking a LOT of people when you expect them to know exactly what is in a criminal's mind. Is he feigning a retreat from the home so he can draw a firearm safely? Is he really just going to leave?

I don't know. I do know that the criminal has CREATED the THREAT by choosing to break into your home. I know that if you have instructed the person to remain in place until police arrive and anything beyond that must be treated as a threat-- and the person CHOOSES to act otherwise-- I MUST believe that this person:

1. Knows what he was instructed to do.
2. Knows that any attempts to move his hands out of sight is a threat
3. Knows that any attempts to break line of sight is a threat
4. Is willing to be considered a threat
5. Has a reasonable "plan" to back up noncompliance that may well included killing me.


The fact is we just don't know. Not knowing does NOTHING to diminish the threat this person represents. The criminal has created this situation by choosing his actions in breaking into the home. The criminal would be choosing to be considered a threat by failing to comply with instructions. Where is his personal ownership of this situation? Where is his responsibility to see this thing through safely for all involved?

You cannot escape the fact that FAR too many possibilities exist to accurately predict someone's intentions. You cannot escape the fact the percieved threat is relevant. You cannot escape the fact that deception has been used to gain advantage numerous times in history and continues today. You cannot escape the fact that you are asking to all of us to be mind-readers. The benefit of the doubt may well insure you are the one shot.

I do get the sense, as have some others, that a fair number of folks here have no real clue what it means to take a human life.

Click to expand...

Thankfully, I haven't. And I wish that no one would have to know that. I've been in situations where it was a very real possibility and I didn't enjoy those either. I have written on here of my experience in High School where I had to prevent the rape of my sister on our front lawn. I do know what a threat level is. As I have suggested in this thread, I informed the two men that any moves other than laying face down with thier arms spread would be a threat. They complied and the police took them away once they got there 25 minutes later.

Whether someone has had to shoot is irrelevant. It is an emotional appeal that ignores the threat level. Everyone who has had to fire on a threat has one thing in common: There WAS a first time-- even if it was an only time.

Sure it would bother me. I would hope it bothered everyone. But using an emotional appeal of how horrible it is to have to do so only tells half the story. How is this one? Your child never grows up knowing his or her father because he read the intentions of a criminal wrong and that child got to witness her father getting HIS brains splattered all over the walls.

And if you can stand over some 16 year old who's in a gran mal because you just removed a chunk of his brain and spit in his eye because he was trying to take your VCR, you're the sociopath.

Click to expand...

No offense, but using the imagery of a 16 year old kid is a cop-out. It is another emotional attempt to paint the criminal as helpless and innocent person. It is another attempt to garner sympathy for one who IS doing harm, and IS a criminal. More than likely, that person stealing your VCR is a meth-addict who may do anything regardless of your life or his. Using images of kids is something I'd expect from the Brady Campaign.


John

You are asking a LOT of people when you expect them to know exactly what is in a criminal's mind. Is he feigning a retreat from the home so he can draw a firearm safely? Is he really just going to leave?

Click to expand...

The law doesn't demand you read minds, but a would-be thief with his hands up, beating a hasty retreat, is NOT a good shot. All the theoretical nonsense about how he's going to get to cover and start shooting does not add up to imminent deadly threat. Now if he's got a FIREARM and is running, that may be different matter.

But in no event does his threat to your property give you justification to shoot him. The fact that he's trespassing, and the nature of the trespass, is a factor to be weighed. But you don't get to shoot him for violating property rights. The central test is what threat he poses to your life or the lives of your family, and how imminent the threat is. Protection of property is not the issue. Nor should it be. Those who think otherwise are simply wrong, and may pay a terrible price for that ignorance.

No offense, but using the imagery of a 16 year old kid is a cop-out. It is another emotional attempt to paint the criminal as helpless and innocent person.

Click to expand...

Not at all, but it should highlight the fact that shooting someone is a VERY SERIOUS MATTER. And it's not something you get to do to protect your stockpile of beans or TV set. You do not get to shoot someone to protect your junk. That's the way it is. And that's the way it should be.

My friend John had to drop a 19 year old near here a few years ago. Not too much fun, and not something you want hanging on your soul if you can help it. If you can tell yourself it was him or you, that's one thing. But if you killed him to protect your hubcaps, you'll have a lot to answer for in this world and the next.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=1821

Using a firearm in self defense has NOTHING to do with rendering judgment on a criminal. It has NOTHING to do with sorting out good from evil. It has NOTHING to do with asserting your dominance. It's about protecting your person and your family. Whether the man in your house is a career criminal or an upstanding citizen makes no difference. The question is what threat he presents to you. You don't get to kill someone merely because they "chose to be a criminal." You are not judge, jury and executioner.

In Ohio ...... you are NOT allowed to shoot someone stealing property ...PERIOD. If someone is stealing your car ...that is property, and you are not allowed to shoot them. If they are trying to take your car, and you are in it, that is a whole different story. But if it is anything that can be construed as property, and you shoot someone taking it, It is guaranteed under Ohio Law that you'll go to prison forever ..........
Ohio Rusty

But in no event does his threat to your property give you justification to shoot him.

Click to expand...

Cosmoline - are you arguing a moral stance, or the laws as they exist in Alaska?

Certainly, the laws in some juristictions allow shooting in defense of property. The morality of that is a different issue.

Right, laws are one aspect, morals are another. Since when do we really want the legislation of morals. If the law allows for use of lethal force in protection of property, the option is open to you and your morals to decide how to act. If you think it is immoral, that is fine and you don't act. That is your business. Just because somebody does not share your morals, but who may be acting within the law isn't a very good criterion for your decision that they have no business with a firearm, Cosmo. Heck anyone with a different moral view than you would not have any business with any weapon capable of lethal force. Now that is just silly.

As noted, there are jurisdictions where you most definitely do have the legal justification to shoot people for just stealing property. There may be some parameters associated with the event that determine legality, but not necessarily threat of violence by the thief.

How about this for a scenario. More newsworthy, for the media.
Three 80 year young woman (one is a look-out for the other two) on Hoverounds, stealing that lawnmower and plasma T.V. Can call them the “Golden Girls Gone Wild” thieves. Their blondes.
Hard to catch em’ making their getaway. They would be able to run one down, if they got in their way.

Ron James said:

If you shoot only in defence of property, and not the threat of harm or violence to yourself or others not only are you no better than those that would steal your property, you will be sharing a cell with them. That may be wrong, but that's the way the boat floats. I've worked all my life for what I have, but nothing I own is worth taking another's life and having to live with it. And before someone says wussy, I have killed in the service of my country, and served 26 years to uphold our constitution. I didn't serve for someone to misuse any part of it. Thats the way my boat floats. The most uncommon thing is common sense.

Click to expand...

Not to be disrespectful, but unless you were involved in WWII or WWI, when you killed in "defense" of the USA, you were killing to prevent the loss of property of another. I personally don't say that's a bad thing, but why do you justify killing some North Korean or Vietnamise or Iraqi who's trying to steal land yet condemn a homeowner trying to protect what's his?

All those wars were were fights over territory. We came in and tried to stop one small nation from taking over another small nation. You can say they shot at you too, which will be likely true, but we stuck ourselves over there.

Again, I'm not saying our being "over there" was a bad thing, but I object to your portrayal of defending our country as something more than it was, which was defending our countrie's overseas property.

Mek42 said:

Personally, I think that property loss due to theft should be fully reimbursed by the state / government when the state / government says that one cannot effectively protect their property from being stolen. Given this total reimbursement, I have no problem whatsoever with lethal force not being permitted to protect property. However, the current system of "You can't do anything about theft." and "Sucks to be you, it isn't our job to fix it for you." is downright reprehensible.

Click to expand...

So you want taxes to go up to replace lost items by individuals? Because that's the place all the government money comes from.

PASS

Respectfully to the mods regarding bloodlust. I have none and would never shoot anyone for the joy of it or to prove a point.

I live on a farm 10 miles from the nearest town of 400 people. This town is 30 miles from the county seat where the sheriff's office is. If I make a call to them it will be about 45 minutes minimum before I have a deputy here.

I have a lot of equipment. Very little of it can be secured due to size. Much of it is very high dollar and could easily be sold no questions asked to any other farmer with the money to pay a thief.

Livestock must be free to graze much of the year. Each one of the cattle is worth about a grand apiece at the sale barn. Again a bit less to another farmer willing to buy them from a thief, but still worth quite a bit to the thief.

Yes, I would shoot to protect my property. It would be done after many warnings. I would have attempted to stop them with lesser means, but yes I would shoot when it came down to it.

But after I catch some idiot parked on my land with my cattle in his trailor while he is loading up more. He is not leaving. He is especially not leaving with the cattle.

He has the choice of either being surrendering at that point or being shot. I will try to aim low and just maim him if it comes to that, but I will do all in my power to prevent him from leaving.

The sheriff will be called in any case. Considering the expected response time. It is expected by the law that I would defend my property so.

I am not the one who decided a man's life was worth a bit of property. The thief already decided what his life was worth when he decided to steal it.