A Matter of Values

Status
Not open for further replies.
What if the property I am defending are 50 year old baby pictures of my grandparents? Or my parents' baby pictures?, Or my grandparents' letters that my parents saved from long time ago?, Or my baby pictures?, Or my prized hunting guns?, or my prized Swarovsky optics?

To hell with ANYONE who even thinks about damaging or taking them!
 
It's A Fairly Easy Call For Me

I would never shoot a person over property. If that person was unarmed I would attempt to hold them at gun point and call 911. If they ran away from me, I'd let them go. I have enough insurance to replace my house, cars and everything in them more than once as far as property goes. :rolleyes:

On the other had, if the un-armed person ran toward me or one of my family members (including my pets as I consider them family members) I'd shoot until the person stopped, dropped or ran away. The life of a family member can not be replaced. :what:

If the person is armed (no matter the weapon, gun, knife, bat, etc...) I would not think twice about shooting them until they stopped, dropped or ran away. :scrutiny:

To me it boils down to whether I fear for the life of me and mine or not. If the crook awakens that fear in me I will shoot. If the crook does not awaken that fear then I will let them go while shouting some choice words to the effect of what will happen if they ever return. :cuss:

Molon Labe,
Joe
:(
 
If that person was unarmed I would attempt to hold them at gun point and call 911
Click to expand...

I seriously hope you are never put in the position of guessing if someone is armed or not. I have a nice knife scar on my arm from guessing wrongly and I can assure you I'll never guess like THAT again!
 
what My concern with this is If a person is willing to break into steal what is to say that the person isn't going to see something like a sleeping child to come back for. I think My conscious would allow me to shoot anyone within proximity of the intruder to my family or my livestock. My livestock feeds my family so I consider an attack on them to be an attack on my family.
I think the sense I have developed over the years would affect how I deal with an individual. Some people you can sense their intentions just by their body language. Once again It would depend if I knew them. Knowing the intruder may or not be a blessing, for them,depending on the person. When the situation happens I'll post it here for comparions to what I have posted and what I did.
 
Everything I own took a portion of my life to acquire. Some of those things can't be replaced, at any cost. Thanks to the passage of the castle doctrine in KY, they aren't going anywhere without a fight.
 
Unless it's something grave, like arson, I will not use a firearm in defense of property.

However, sometimes bestial thugs will shoot their victims right after acquiring their wallets or money at gunpoint. In such a case, it ceases to be a consideration of property, but a situation of survival.

If you hold someone at gunpoint who is stealing your car, for example, you're probably doing it to ensure your safety while confronting him.

-Sans Authoritas
 
We all hear about the repeat offender that commits numerous crimes only to be set free again by a judge. The bad guys need to understand there are consequences for criminal behavior. If our courts do not have sufficient teeth, then people will act on their own.
 
The problem, as I see it, is that if thieves can walk away even when confronted by a neighbor bearing arms, then there is no risk or consequences for their thievery. While I would not like to live with having killed someone to protect my property, it may be necessary that I do so to stand up for decency and civilization. I think that having a thief just turn his back and walk away if confronted in the act is just plain unacceptable to me and should be to society.

If I confront a thief in an otherwise non-threatening situation, so he or I survive long enough so that apprehension becomes the issue, then I will apprehend him but if he refuses to be apprehended, I will use all necessary force to sustain that apprehension.
 
I cannot say how many of you read all the posts. I did and, no, that does not make me "virtuous". The posts are impressive. People have been thinking about this a lot and I, for one, am impressed with the group here.
 
3Killer B's

My question is, ...

If the person demanding your wallet is NOT presenting a threat of violence along with it then why are you surrendering your wallet?

If you routinely give up your property to anyone who asks for it please PM me so that we can arrange for you to transfer a substantial amount of your money to my PayPal account.
Click to expand...

I should have clarified. Mugger with weapon says "Gimme your wallet!"
Click to expand...

If he's got a weapon pointed at you and your wife then its automatically a situation where shooting would protect you from "death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault" so its not just defense of property.
 
Anecdote: Someone once asked T.E. Lawrence why he would no longer speak to or socialize with a certain person who had once been a friend.

"He borrowed a book of mine and refused to return it", he said.

"Surely Lawrence, you don't think that a book is worth losing a friend over, do you?"

"No. But he did, didn't he?"

It seems to me that, in many cases, we're directing this sort of question to the wrong parties.
 
Is my stuff worth more than the life of some jerk that is coming to steal it? Hell yeah is its. and my stuff aint worth much...

The life of a criminal is not worth a lot.
 
Out of curiosity, esp since I'm from NJ does TX law permit you to shoot to wound in defense of property? While I'm against the whole shoot to wound principle. I only ask because apparently they were shot in the back. I was wondering if in this paticular situation when crooks are fleeing and you want to stop them if he had shot low would this have helped or hurt him?
 
If he's got a weapon pointed at you and your wife then its automatically a situation where shooting would protect you from "death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault" so its not just defense of property.
Click to expand...

Yup. Apparently we've come around the cycle again and it's time once again for the conversation on "Simple Theft" vs "Robbery by Force". <grin>.
Click to expand...

I may be guilty of thinking too black and white, but if a person attempting to obtain your property is NOT presenting a threat of violence he's a panhandler, not a robber and you can just say "No," and walk away.

If you can't walk away then there must be a reason to fear "death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault".
 
One of the more reasoned threads on the topic.

I think one aspect of law causes more difficulties than it solves - the fact that less than lethal use of a firearm, off your own real-estate, is often illegal.

It is often said that the mere threat of a firearm defuses many violent crimes. In our state that could be called brandishing and, if the evidence went against you, such as the statements of the mugger's friends, you could be in deep trouble - you would certainly lose your permit.

In effect our state laws, if they are followed as written, cause an immediate escalation from helplessly watching a crime take place to engaging in gunfire. Grand juries have been lenient on this point but it is unfortunate that law does not allow a graduated response to a crime. Strangely, it appears I would be allowed to beat the living daylights out of a thief with a 2x4 but if I threatened him with a firearm I would be in trouble.

What is needed is a differentiation between brandishing with intent to commit a crime or induce fear and presentation of a firearm to stabilize a situation. My comments, of course, recognize that in an extreme situation you should only draw if you intend to shoot.
 
There's a lot of missing context in the question, and when it comes to self-defense shooting, context is everything.

what if you are short, or injured, and the thief and built like a lineman and looks like he may be interested in going after YOU next?

After all, if you're not willing to defend your property, maybe you're not willing to defend your loved ones, or yourself.

Sounds crazy? criminal logic may not be sane.

no, if you confront someone armed, be ready to use the weapon, regardless of context. You either commit to the confrontation and the chance of full escalation, or don't.

Half measures get people killed.

that's my mostly ignorant keyboard commando .02 Somehow i suspect people who have been there and done that will agree.
 
Half measures get people killed.
Click to expand...

Point taken but arguable. Do police officers consider that they have to shoot someone everytime they draw a firearm? Officers are permitted to draw a firearm if they think a situation may escalate - precisely to give them an advantage if that escalation occurs. Difficult to apply to the "civilian" situation but a fact never-the-less.

I see my most likely confrontation to be a mugging turned violent. Regardless of the wise advise about being aware of your surroundings I expect that I will be in deep trouble before I realize what is going on, after all, the muggers have probably had a lot of practice. I hesitate to draw and fire so I get my head kicked in. I draw and fire too soon so I am on a murder charge. Where is the law that says I can anticipate I am in trouble and use a firearm to cover myself as I make my escape?

I would rather defend that action than a murder charge. Something to consider.

The extension of this subject to the OP is - what is your state law about holding thieves at gunpoint until the police arrive? I am assuming the event is not on your property ie a mugging in Mall carpark. Is the idea of holding someone at gunpoint valid - your only options would be to back-down or shoot if they decided to walk away?
 
I think I should be able to defend my property.

Sure, the Mona Lisa thing is a great example, but how about my example...

You and your family come home and find an arson getting ready to burn down your house. He's about to destroy everything you've worked yor whole life to accumulate. He's about to destroy all of your keepsakes, your memories and your belongings.

You shouldn't be able to shoot him?

Texas is doing it right. Other states should follow.
 
The issue is whether one of the great works is worth the life of a dipstick?
Click to expand...

The great work cannot be replaced, but there are certainly more dipsticks in the pool. ;)
 
Is property worth killing over?
Click to expand...
Personally, no. I won't look down on the person that says yes though either. For some people their cars/trucks and tools are their livelihood and means for providing themselves and their family with food and shelter. They aren't always insured or easily replaced. They shouldn't be obligated to endure hardship because someone felt entitled to their belongings.
 
My first thought is: Not really, but sometimes it makes a convenient excuse.

Then I start thinking about the complexities of the thing: The mona lisa? Never liked that painting, seems like a run-of-the-mill portrait to me. If I owned it, I'd get rid of it.

But what about the pig on cold mountain? There's a scene in the movie cold mountain, (don't know if you saw that one, it's about the civil war), where some soldiers are going to take a hog that is the only food a woman and her child have for the winter-- they're as good as dead without it. In that sort of case, surely it is worth ridding the world of a few miscreants.
 
My $0.02...

$0.01 : What I have is largely the result of trading a portion of my life for those things. I work (for pay) to acquire things, not out of sheer joy of the work (though that helps). Take something from me, and the time I spent to acquire it is lost forever. While not justification for a terminal response to theft, it does clarify the gravity of the crime, and may excuse, if not justify, the response.

$0.01 : The thief knowingly risks his own life in the taking, and all too often threatens the owner's in the process. Seems he thinks it's worth a life, or at least risk thereto. The initiator is the one who escalated the situation, and continues escalation until he succeeds, expires, or the owner heads toward room temperature.

$0.00 (freebie) : The state seems to think so, as when charges are filed against the thief, the state is willing to escalate to terminal consequences to mete out the punishment.

...funny, for everyone involved in the situation, it seems I'm the one least interested in taking the situation that far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Man shoots illegals burglarizing Home
Replies
5
Views
519
Justin
Justin
T
  • Locked
Interesting Story: Man shoots 2 men burglarizing a neighbor
Replies
1
Views
511
Jeff White
J
E
  • Locked
Texas man cleared of shooting suspected burglars
2
Replies
44
Views
1K
ashtxsniper
A
G
  • Locked
What are the laws on the use of deadly force to protect property (of others)in Texas?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Winchester 73
W
D
  • Locked
Is property important enough to shoot for?
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
209
Views
8K
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
Back
Top