A Matter of Values

[Blacksmoke]

Is property worth killing over? This involves Mr. Horn of Texas but as a case history. There are many other examples of property crimes being settled with gunfire, death and despair. I have been personally involved in two of them. This post is intended to get at the personal choice we make and the values we hold in guiding our actions. Please note I am not judging anyone's actions nor is this an effort to promote one view over another. As responsible gun owners who may be faced with important choices of life and death we ought to have a firm notion of where we stand on this question. Especially since these kind of incidents are over in a flash. So, it is hope we can actually dicuss without rancor.

Back to Horn for a moment. The 911 Dispatch tapes reveal a Police Dispatcher firmly committed to life over property. The law of Texas clearly states that Force and Deadly Force can be used to protect property. Mr. Horn initially felt that was appropriate, although he seems to have changed his mind since.

So, where do you stand? Are there situations where property is worth less than someone's life? Do you live by a rule? How do you evaluate that situation? Better know now how you feel. When do you call the cops and wait versus intervening.

Examples: midnight, you are asleep. Dog starts barking, you go outside with a flashlight, there is someone in your garrage, you return to house for gun, the "perp" turns out to be a neighbors 15 year old son who has yet to learn boundaries. He was after your collection of vintage "Playboy" magazines stored in boxes. This is a real example.

Me. I have been burgled twice. I have lost a whole lot of property including my family ancestor's Model 1840 Heavy Saber carried during the War Between the States. My state's law (NM) does not sanction Deadly Force in defense of property. As you know, it is very easy to interpret an invasion and confrontation with a burglar as "life threatening". If I am burgled again it will be my third. At some point a citizen is entitled to protect his property even if there is no specific statute authorizing the use of force. We are not creatures of the law but of human nature, which the law is imposed upon to moderate. Still, at some point there is a natural right to protect what is yours from the depredations of others. Our Holy Bible and even The Qur'an contain numerous passages about this.

Still, even after repeated incidents I am not sure I can kill over a couple of power tools or a saddle. You can call me a P%&@y,but this action stays with you all your life.

Anyway thanks for reading. I look forward to the thoughts of others. Maybe I can learn something.

 

[ilbob]

I am ambivalent about using deadly force to protect property.

On the one hand, there is the theory that life is precious, and even the life of a criminal has value over mere property.

OTOH, there is the theory that by killing them they stop committing crimes and that makes us all a lot safer in the long run.

 

[skinewmexico]

They talked about that extensively at my CHL course. Instructors kept hammering on "sure, it's legal, but is it worth it? Is a piece of property worth a life?"

 

[Blacksmoke]

That about sums up how I feel. The problem is that we need to be clear in our minds before an incident occurs as there is little time to reflect when pointing a gun at somebody.

It is a very tough call.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I live in Colorado, where it's illegal to defend property with deadly force. I made a decision a long time ago to live within that boundary.

That said™, it seems to me defending property with deadly force ought to be legal. Criminals announce the worthlessness of their lives by the very act of preying upon us. That's their valuation, not ours. Let them live with the consequences thereof.

I didn't say I think that's ever going to happen: far too many people believe (other people's) property is of little or no value. Not purely coincidentally, they're the same people who want us to live in fear and turn to government for protection.

 

[Eric F]

I guess it depends on what we are really talking about here.

My bicycle is not worth killing over but my home brewing equipment would get you a hail of lead!

No not really but say taking somthing like my great grandfathers rifle or my wifes jewlery box or worse yet my personal papers like life ensurance socialsecurity cards ect. I guess what I am saying is non-replacable property.

 

[357WheelGun]

If we cannot defend our property with force, do we truly have ownership of said property? Or are we simply in temporary possession of our property until such time as a thief decides that he (or she) wants it instead?

My position is that if we're not allowed to defend our property, then it's not truly our property.

That said, my own choice would be to not shoot a thief, but in a legal sense, I should have the right to defend my property with whatever means I choose.

 

[bowl443]

Joe Horn isn't in the clear yet. From what I understand, he faces civil court and the grand jury can still look at the case.

Me, I wouldn't let me neighbors stuff get me into legal trouble for years. Not worth it.... Life needs to be in danger before I pull the trigger.. just me.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

If I came across someone on my property that had armed himself with a Civil War Saber, I think I would be justified in defending my life with lethal force.

Just because at the moment he is taking property does not mean that you know his intentions and you are not required to find out. In this state, you can legally assume, that if he has entered your house without your permission, that his intentions are not benevolent and you may use lethal force. It isn't protection of property per se.

 

[dogmush]

It is a very tough call.

It truely is. My answer is, maybe. I thought long and hard on this when I started carrying and aquiring nice stuff. If I get up in the middle of the night to someone stealing my car, I'm not going to shoot at them. And I'm not going to shoot at someone unidentified in my house. Neither of those decisions had much to do with my valueing their life, and much more to do with not caring to deal with the aftermath of shooting in those situations. If I'm in my car when you try to steal it, your life is forfit. Too much chance of that going badly. Also, after the blinding light hits you in my house if you do ANYTHING other then exactly what I say your life is forfit. I've given you as much chance as you're getting.

As far as my values on what my stuff is worth vs. someones life, that doesn't come in to it. By my estimation a criminal, be it a burgler, rapist, carjacker, whatever, made a concious choice to live outside the rules of society. They've decided they're predators and choose to live by the rules of the Jungle. Fine. If they happen to run into a bigger predator, or a lucky piece of prey, that is a function of their choice, and a risk of their profession. If they don't want to run that risk, there's a nice society set up they can live within, use it.

To me, it's not immoral to shoot someone commiting a crime on you. It may or may not be worth it to me, but the shoot/no shoot is based on the possable outcomes effect on me and my family. The criminal has removed themselves from my moral consdieration by choosing to prey on me.

 

[qwert65]

I've had my house robbed when I wasn't home it's very aggravating the fact that some one comes into your house and takes your stuff because they wanted it. I find that despicable.
I used to hang out with a rough crowd including theives(not major ones basically one step above shoplifters) and they feel no remorse. IMHO someone that self centered deserves no mercy.

Now I am not without compassion for someone who's down and out needs to steal to survive and in all honesty if I caught someone burglarizing my house I'd probably let them go(if they ran) or apprehend them. but I think that you should have the right to shoot them if you so desire as it's someone who is threatening you.

I would shoot if for example someone was driving off in my car or were running away carrying my tv ie to retain my property

For those that say it's a victimless crime or at least one not worth peoples lives. Peoples lives can be ruined by theft especially older couples living on a budget in lower class neighborhoods

 

[hso]

Blacksmoke,

We've had these discussions before on THR and you'll get the predicable range of opinions from kill to protect property to shoot only in defense of life not property. Some of the opinions were clearly and eloquently expressed and some were crudely expressed (some folks changed their opinion during the course of the threads). You'll see the whole range of opinions expressed in this thread.

Remember that we're talking about taking a life.

 

[xsquidgator]

I think most of us wouldn't set out to take someone's life over property. However, at the time of the crime (like you encounter an intruder in the dark, unexpectedly, what then?) you may not know they're only after your property.

I think most of the people on this forum have thought this over seriously, and we all have our own individual place as to where we draw the line in a situation and would say we're "in fear of life". I'm determined to protect myself and my family if I'm in fear of my or my wife's life. Especially in our own home, in our state (FL) we not the intruder tend to get the benefit of the doubt as to "were you in fear of your life"?

I think that point is important, because it is not reasonable to expect a person surprised in his or her home by an intruder to know an intruder's intentions. If a burgular is concerned about being mistaken for a home invader killer, then as far as I (and I believe the law in my state) am concerned too bad, don't go breaking into people's houses then. Of course that doesn't extend to extremes, such as hunting down a cat burgular who's trying to get away, and doing away with him. Doesn't extend to those couple of tragic cases where someone heard a bump on the porch and lit it up, to discover it was a lost teenager. But there's a lot of gray area between that, and actually encountering someone who is in your house to do you harm. As long as the situation could be seen as in that gray area, I think the homeowner should get benefit of the doubt.

 

[#shooter]

It is based on the worth of the property relative to the owner.
I would advise just to abide by your local laws at least and at most your conscience.

 

[JWarren]

It is a very tough call.

Regardless of what everyone's position on this is, this is a VERY true statement.

I believe it is important not only to use good judgement at the time, but it is equally important that one has considered their own belief system and ethics within the confines of their legal jurisdiction PRIOR to ever being placed into this situation.

So many people are so busy just getting through the day that they don't take time to consider the ethics that they live under. Its a worthwhile activity.


I am in a state that allows for the defense of property, and it falls within my Ethical framework. I've considered the issue from various points of view and am comfortable with the beliefs that I hold.

I'll not fault another for having a different ethical viewpoint, however.




-- John

 

[UhKlem]

It's illegal and distasteful to kill over 'mere' property, but that is really a shame and a degradation of western culture and values. For acting man, property is life. Placing the life of a criminal above an honest man's property devalues property rights which is the foundation of western civilization, capitalism, and self governance. Man would have never gone from bands of hunter-gatherers to agriculture without the ability to claim ownership of that developed and life giving property.

In the present modern context, placing the life of a criminal over an honest man's property delays meaningful and effective feedback that leads to a loss of control. For any feedback system dead time in the feedback loop leads to a loss of stability and control (basic control theory). The dial 911 and wait mentality leaves criminals emboldened and gives them a window of opportunity to succeed. The lack of swiftness of consequence and punishment (celerity in the parlance of penal studies) removes a barrier or cost in the criminal cost-benefit calculation. Paying later is always preferable to paying now. Armed victims threaten to make the criminal pay now, but only if it is known to be a real threat to them. Criminals routinely relate they fear armed victims(pain now) more than they fear prison (pain later).

Removing the knowledge that one has a problem from the moral authority to act leads to both a criminal and an ineffective police state. For the armed victim there is no ambiguity as to who is right and wrong, so self and property defense is more accurate, timely and effective than security ordered up as deliver-to-your-door commodity, or worse an extracted tribute of window dressing that supports little more than a collective con. The very ultimate model of the security state is the prison. How safe would you feel in prison? Freedom is messy, and to too many, scary.

That which you subsidize, you get more of. Criminals cost are subsidized by laws that make crime cheaper and easier by lowering the costs (consequences) of encountering effective countering force at the moment the criminal makes the actual decision to act. We need to get back to the modern day equivalent of being able to shoot-to-kill horse thieves. Fpr acting man, property is life. Without that we become little more than wards of the state.

 

[JWarren]

UhKlem wrote:

It's illegal and distasteful to kill over 'mere' property

Where did you get that? Defending property is legal in many states. Tasteful is a subjective term.


-- John

 

[Picard]

I'm not sure of the whole story, but I think Joe Horn told them to stop with his gun drawn. Then, I believe, these guys advanced at him to try and attack him, causing him to shoot.

If this were the case, I do not think that he was in the wrong to do so. The crooks obviously saw the situation and chose (wrongfully) to advance upon a man who could easily kill them.

I am sorry that things turned out the way that they did, with two lives lost, but choosing to advance upon a situation where you know your life would be in grave risk is no different than suicide, in which the immoral act lies upon the crooks rather than the defender who was forced to shoot.

 

[jerkface11]

Shouldn't the question be "Is property worth dying over" You shouldn't be asking if I'm willing to shoot someone for stealing my Xbox360 you should be asking if someone is willing to get shot to get it.

 

[ZeSpectre]

I confess that I have spent a good deal of time pondering this question.

On one side of the debate is the argument that it is "just stuff" and you can "just get more". On the other side is the very real argument that you obtain that "stuff" by trading some of your time (your life) that you will never get back so there is a very real cost against your life for the property you own.

It is also not always accurate to simply say "you can just replace it".

If someone stole all of my computer equipment some folks would say "hey you can buy another computer" and that is true, however that equipment contains many years and thousands of hours of irreplaceable photographic work including a mass of family history work that simply can not be redone.

An opposing consideration is the cost (in personal anguish, legal fees, and social backlash) against anyone who kills regardless of the justification. Certainly some property is NOT worth going through all of that over.

Then again we have to consider the ramifications of "enabling" criminals which is what we do when we ask questions like...

Is property worth killing over?

I truly hate that question because it puts the onus on the VICTIM when the problem ownership really does need to fall squarely on the criminals.
I am sure that I would prefer a way to make the criminals pause and consider the question "is this property is worth being killed over?" After all if they weren't committing the crime they wouldn't be in jeopardy in the first place would they?



So here we are, wondering what is worth defending? When can/should we defend it? How far should we go to defend?

I don't know and I'm not sure if I'll ever have a satisfying answer to that question.

EDIT: apparently jerkface and I were typing at the same time.

 

[Grandpa Shooter]

Property over life?

I am one of the people who has participated in such discussions. It is indeed a slippery slope when it comes to the value of life vs personal property rights.

I am of the opinion that a would be criminal who attempts to remove property from my person (wallet, car or truck, etc) is threatening my life in the process. Someone who is attempting to remove items from my land or residence in my absence is not a threat to me, and therefore would not justify the use of lethal force.

Living with having taken a life is not a pleasant prospect. I know firsthand about that.

 

[lacoochee]

While I would likely not kill over property, I have always thought it was largely a situational problem.

As things are right this moment in my life, there is nothing vital that I cannot replace in so far as property without minor inconvenience (family and pets not included of course ). This is largely due to a flush bank account and a not insignificant amount of insurance.

What may be minor for me may well not be minor for some of my neighbors, the loss of a truck, tools, may well mean that they will be unable to provide for their children and wives. So they may make a different choice...

In the aftermath of a hurricane, a generator, food stores, fresh water, take on a new vitality to the sustenance of my family and may well be worth defending with deadly force. Looters beware...

If the economy gets as bad as I think it might and the value of that bank account falls away and the insurance is dropped for more vital concerns. I suspect I will re-evaluate my position as to my property and suspect that will be true for the rest of you.

There was a reason, cattle rustling and horse thievery were often punished with death in the recent past of this country.

 

[Shung]

In my mind, the property is not the real issue.

Some (lefties mainly) place human life above everything else, and this seems to be the problem for me.

Some people, by their behaviour, in the present or in the past, loose all their rights in my mind, including the one that I should MYSELF take even a small risk, in sparing their life..

and letting them on your property might be a risk.. depending who you have to deal with..

I don't know about Horn case, so I won't comment any further.

btw. In switzerland, entering your home (property) illegaly by night can be considered as an agression, and therefore authorise use of force/deadly force.

 

[Mr_Rogers]

You won't get a consistent answer to your question.

Would I shoot at some stealing my car - no because it's not worth the life to me and it is certainly not worth the legal hassle.

All else being legal, would I condemn a financially struggling man who shot someone stealing his pick-up truck? Possibly not if he had just spent his last couple of hundred dollars on buying that beaten up old pick-up that allowed him to get a job to feed his family after a year out of work.

Of necessity our values should be flexible. That's why we have a jury of 12 to decide the issue.

 

[GEM]

On some forum - here, GT or TFL - I forget - I started a thread about whether one would shoot to save the Mona Lisa. It was based on a real incident when the painting was in the USA on tour. It had two Marine guards. Some doofus art snob stepped across the velvet ropes to check if the painting was OK - as she didn't trust whatever. One of the Marines butt stroked her and/or came close to bayoneting her.

The issue is whether one of the great works is worth the life of a dipstick?

Well, is it?