3KillerBs
Member
Is there any other kind?
Seriously.
A Matter of Values
- Thread starter Blacksmoke
- Start date
- Status
Is there any other kind?
Seriously.
Monkeybear
Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Messages
- 1,178
Not a single thing I own nor their sum comes close the value of a human life. That said; theft is not robbery. Things are stolen but people are robbed.
blackcash88
member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 885
Kill over property? Sure. Not only are they taking things I worked hard for, they are also stealing a piece of my life. I absolutely HATE my job, but the money is good and that is the ONLY reason I'm there. Trading bits of my time/life for dollars. Neal Boortz got it right a long time ago when he said that stolen property is not only just that, but all the time and effort it took to earn the money to get it. I read a sad story about a cop who worked a ton of overtime to buy his son an ATV only to have it stolen out of his garage the next week. I have NO heart for ANY POS like that. That's why it's good to have an un-registered "off the radar" gun with NO prints on it to throw down after the fact. 
I'm only kidding of course, y'all. 
Besides, if they actually come on to my land and enter my house to steal, they've already initiated the first pretty bold act of violence and I do not know what their other intentions are.
I'm only kidding of course, y'all. Besides, if they actually come on to my land and enter my house to steal, they've already initiated the first pretty bold act of violence and I do not know what their other intentions are.
XDKingslayer
member
Everything I own is worth more to me than 100 criminals let alone one.
If a human's life was equal to the pedestal that most of you seem to put it on, there wouldn't be the death penalty.
You're telling me that the sum of all your belongings is worth less to you than the life of the child rapist/murderer we just fried in Florida? How utterly sad.
blackcash88
member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 885
+1 to that!
Value and meaning are arbitrary. Human life is not inherently valuable.
I place more value on the lives of some than others. For example, I highly value the lives of family and close friends, as well as anybody else whose interests closely coincide with mine. I do not value the lives of random strangers as highly as I do the aforementioned parties, though I do value them more than enough to recognize and respect their own desire for well being. There are also people whose lives hold no value to me whatsoever - e.g. people who would act towards me with dangerously malicious intent.
Naturally, I also assign value to my material possessions. In general, the value of these items is far less than the lives I hold dear, though not necessarily less than the lives of every given person. Obviously, the lives of those which hold no value to me are certainly worth less than the items which do hold value (material or otherwise). So, yes - under very certain circumstances, I would end the life of another in "defense of property." It is my sincere wish that such circumstances never come to pass.
I place more value on the lives of some than others. For example, I highly value the lives of family and close friends, as well as anybody else whose interests closely coincide with mine. I do not value the lives of random strangers as highly as I do the aforementioned parties, though I do value them more than enough to recognize and respect their own desire for well being. There are also people whose lives hold no value to me whatsoever - e.g. people who would act towards me with dangerously malicious intent.
Naturally, I also assign value to my material possessions. In general, the value of these items is far less than the lives I hold dear, though not necessarily less than the lives of every given person. Obviously, the lives of those which hold no value to me are certainly worth less than the items which do hold value (material or otherwise). So, yes - under very certain circumstances, I would end the life of another in "defense of property." It is my sincere wish that such circumstances never come to pass.
The Tourist
member
jws527 said:
(I love the game of turn-about. I love it almost as much as "let's get all of the liars in one room.")
The reason you feel this way--and I'm not singling you personally out--is that a THR member views himself as the "good guy." However, they don't tattoo "saint" on your buttocks at birth, and I've seen enough bizarre townies to make me think that a huge portion of the population is simply confused by just what morality is.
Here's the scenario. You view yourself as "the good guy." You're backing up your car one night to leave a parallel parking spot, and you knock over a Harley-Davidson in your blind spot.
Not just any Harley, but the +$30,000 CVO scooter of the local MC's chief club enforcer.
You get out to view the damage and find two dozen rather angry men and at least 10,000 dollars in damages. You also hear the conversation.
"Can you believe this," Fearless Fang gesticulates, "First some cracker in old pick-em-up truck almost knocks me off the road, then a ricer cuts me off, and now this fudd bashes my scooter."
"No kiddin,' FF," a shaggy biker responds, "This whole town thinks they can damage our stuff, anytime, anyplace..."
From the back of the group you hear the final opinion, "Yeah, let's send a message..."
Three days later when your bruised, toothless body awakens in ICU, a care-giver smiles and says, "Look at the bright side, Mr. Fudd, I just heard from Geico and they're going to reimburse you almost 50% for your burned out car..."
Now how do you feel about violence, human suffering and property?
Crunker1337
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,168
I don't know if we're really sending criminals the right message by telling them that we won't, for whatever reason, use force to defend property.
Still, would I do it? In most cases, no. However, I can easily think of some exceptions, for instance, if an heirloom or some very expensive asset was in danger, yeah, I might use force.
Still, would I do it? In most cases, no. However, I can easily think of some exceptions, for instance, if an heirloom or some very expensive asset was in danger, yeah, I might use force.
The Tourist
member
Crunker1337 said:
Hey, I think a Harley is an expensive asset. Perhaps I should blaze away until the slide locks back...
I'd leave that "hold them at gun point" to the pros. I think it's a lot easier said than done. I am not an LEO, but when I watch the "Cops" type videos on TV, they get they BGs in cuffs as fast as they can, and very, very hyper until they are in cuffs. I suspect there's a good reason for that.
Say you have someone on the ground, and you are pointing a gun at them. They stand up - without communicating any threat to you, or making any threatening gesture? Do you shoot him?
He takes a step towards you, not threatening you in any discernible way, and is calmly telling you that you are mistaken? "I won't hurt you or anyone. I am not threatening you. Calm down. This is a misunderstanding, I just want to talk."
You may think, "I've got this thing under control!" - and he's thinking "I always wanted a 1911, here's one for the taking."
You are sort of stuck - your gun is no longer concealed, so the BG goes you have one. But if you shoot a person who is not threatening you or anyone else - at least in NC, you may be in legal trouble, and you will almost certainly have made him a wealthy man.
Mike
blackcash88
member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 885
The Tourist said:
Oh, Jesus Christ Tourist. You're comparing apples to oranges with your Harley scenario.
Do you really think STEALING property is the same as an ACCIDENT where someone backs into and knocks over a motorcycle? Puh-leeze.
Maybe you're having one of your self-admitted bi-polar "incidents". If so, then you get a free pass...this time ONLY.
TallPine
Member
"Is property worth killing over?"
Okay, let's say that you think not.
So - do you call the cops to report the theft?
Let's suppose that the police have nothing better to do and that they are super sharp detectives and they find the guy who stole your stuff.
So they try to arrest him, but Mr. Joe Thief doesn't want to come along. One thing leads to another, and the cops kill Joe with 34 9mm rounds. All that Joe has done - besides resisting arrest - is steal some of your stuff.
Seems to me that you wouldn't even want to call the police in the first place, because of the chance that they might end up taking the life of Joe Thief over the theft of your property, right ?????
(the above discussion disregards any issues about consequences for using force yourself to protect your property)
Okay, let's say that you think not.
So - do you call the cops to report the theft?
Let's suppose that the police have nothing better to do and that they are super sharp detectives and they find the guy who stole your stuff.
So they try to arrest him, but Mr. Joe Thief doesn't want to come along. One thing leads to another, and the cops kill Joe with 34 9mm rounds. All that Joe has done - besides resisting arrest - is steal some of your stuff.
Seems to me that you wouldn't even want to call the police in the first place, because of the chance that they might end up taking the life of Joe Thief over the theft of your property, right ?????
(the above discussion disregards any issues about consequences for using force yourself to protect your property)
SoCalShooter
Member
Personally I would avoid it if it was just property, I would of course try to stop them but hopefully not have to shoot a person stealing the property, but if this same criminal was threatening the life of myself or family or friend or neighbor even a stranger, its still my duty as a citizen, American and gun owner to defend those who cannot or will not do it themselves.
I have been through various feelings on the topic of defending property.
When I was young, in my 20's, I was of the opinion that no one would steal my property and if they tried, I would shoot to defend my property.
When I was older, in my 30's and 40's, I felt like my property was not worth killing over and if I could get my family and me away from the thief, we'd just head out he back.
Now I am in my 50's. I don't think I would want to kill to protect my property but I will shoot to keep from being a victim. It is not about the property, it's about the assault and about personal invasion.
As gun owners and supporters of liberty and freedom, I am surprised that more don't see what I think is the most important reason for using all necessary force to defend ones property. It is about whether we live in fear or whether we live as free men.
I, for one, choose not to surrender or to run or to hide.
When I was young, in my 20's, I was of the opinion that no one would steal my property and if they tried, I would shoot to defend my property.
When I was older, in my 30's and 40's, I felt like my property was not worth killing over and if I could get my family and me away from the thief, we'd just head out he back.
Now I am in my 50's. I don't think I would want to kill to protect my property but I will shoot to keep from being a victim. It is not about the property, it's about the assault and about personal invasion.
As gun owners and supporters of liberty and freedom, I am surprised that more don't see what I think is the most important reason for using all necessary force to defend ones property. It is about whether we live in fear or whether we live as free men.
I, for one, choose not to surrender or to run or to hide.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
I saw a film clip once where rioters were looting a store. It looked like New Orleans during Katrina but it may have been the LA riots. A thug came out of a stote carrying a TV set. A cop pointed a shotgun at the thief and ordered him to put it down. The thief just glaired at the cop and said "What you gone do, shoot me? they will put yo ass under the jail." Then he turned his back and strolled off with the stolen property knowing that the cop would not shoot him.
Is this what you liberals want?
I would be perfectly happy to live in a country where thives were shot, if it meant people would QUIT STEALING.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
"The amount of crime and violence a society suffers is in direct preportion to how much they will tolerate."
_Ezra Smack
Is this what you liberals want?
I would be perfectly happy to live in a country where thives were shot, if it meant people would QUIT STEALING.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
"The amount of crime and violence a society suffers is in direct preportion to how much they will tolerate."
_Ezra Smack
catfish101
Member
It would depend on what was being stolen. Yes, I value some of my property more then some thief's life.
One problem is that you can't just ring their bell with good piece of hickory and hope they learn a lesson and leave you alone because after the lawsuit you will have to sell those items to pay for a lawyer and court costs and their medical bills.
One problem is that you can't just ring their bell with good piece of hickory and hope they learn a lesson and leave you alone because after the lawsuit you will have to sell those items to pay for a lawyer and court costs and their medical bills.
The Tourist
member
qwert65 said:
That was the point of my post. We tend to look upon our actions as "justified." However, for much of the world--as in many of the blue states--we will not be viewed as working from the proper adult perspective.
You felt that tipping over a bike was simply "an accident." The problem is that your perspective doesn't matter to the offended party. You damaged his property, you're liable, you're guilty.
That's the benefit of using "turn-about" in a debate. We often jump to what we assume is the proper point of view--that is, until we find that we ourselves will have to live with that decision, as well.
If you decide that killing over property is a logical outcome of societal interaction, then you have opened the Pandora's box, which includes your behavior. You will not always be the white knight holding the gun and dispensing justice.
BTW, be careful parallel parking.
I don't know about you, but I worked a full week to get the money for my Xbox360 and the other stuff for online play. Even though I may not shoot them, a gun and potentially threatening concussive trauma to the face will be involved to protect my property and ensure prosecution for the crime.
but...I really would not be too fond of killing someone over just property. Yes, that person is a low-life for being a thief. But, I don't feel it to be my power to judge them from an outside perspective. However, if it comes down to him/her and me or someone I care about, then that changes alot.
but...I really would not be too fond of killing someone over just property. Yes, that person is a low-life for being a thief. But, I don't feel it to be my power to judge them from an outside perspective. However, if it comes down to him/her and me or someone I care about, then that changes alot.
jrfoxx
Member
would I shoot just to defend property? no. The costs of defending myself in court, even if the shoot was legal where I am, is likely to be WAY higher than what ALL my "stuff" is worth combined, so that would be knida dumb for me.YMMV though.The exceptions would be irreplaceable items; things where the value is sentimental, not monetary. Then, depending, I may shoot, as there is not guarentee I will get the item back otherwise.currently, though, I dont really have anything that important, off the top of my head.I do think that one should be able to shoot to protect thier property, so it's up to each person to decide if it's worth it to them in possible court cost, sleepless nights, etc, if that applies to your situation.If I KNEW that I would not even get charged,thus not extreme costs to me, then yes, I'd shoot, as it's the thief who chose to risk his life over property, not me.
But, even if they appear to just be burglers looking to only take property, if I catch them trying to enter someones house, car, or business that I'm very sure is occupied at the time, then it's possible, as I dont know what they may do to someone inside once they are in there.They may look like they just want to steal and leave, but if someone inside startles or confronts them, they may try to harm that person.
In that case, I wouldnt just open up on them, but would draw and order them to stop. If the run away, great. If they stop and I hold them until the cops can get there, that works too. If they do something that presents a threat to me, they get shot. If they continue to try to go inside, they get a warning to stop or be shot.If they still try to get inside, I shoot, as I can only assume someone so determined to get into an occupied place that they ignore the warnings of a man with a gun who they know has spotted them, I think that shows they are up to more than just robbery, and are now a legitimate threat to those inside.
I'll admit that last one is a kinda tough call, but my choice is to do nothing, and risk that they harm someone inside, when I could have prevented it, or shoot, and know I did what I could to protect someone from a likely threat, but face possible severe consequences in court if they turn out to be "unarmed little angels, who were turning there lives around, and were just misguided, and were only there to steal". The problem is, I cant know for sure what they are planning to do, or what they will do, once inside, so I choose to err on the side of the safety of the non-criminal, as they are innocent, whereas the criminal has chosen to put himself at risk.
ETA:in the case of me catching someone in MY home, or trying to enter MY home, they immediately get a gun pointed at them no matter what. whether I shoot or not is up to them now.If they run, even if they do it in my car, or carrying a big bag of my money, I will not shoot (doesnt mean I wont threaten to, to try to get them to stop so I can get them arrested and/or get my stuff back). If they do anything but surrender, or run away, they are a threat ot my, and/or my families safety, and they get shot until they stop posing a threat.The reason the answer is different fo my home compared to others is because I KNOW if my home is currently occupied or not, and what weapons may be where that the BG could use, but with someone elses, I dont know all that, so it changes things a little.
In any scenario, the 1 thing I would NOT do, is just ignore it and do noithing.
But, even if they appear to just be burglers looking to only take property, if I catch them trying to enter someones house, car, or business that I'm very sure is occupied at the time, then it's possible, as I dont know what they may do to someone inside once they are in there.They may look like they just want to steal and leave, but if someone inside startles or confronts them, they may try to harm that person.
In that case, I wouldnt just open up on them, but would draw and order them to stop. If the run away, great. If they stop and I hold them until the cops can get there, that works too. If they do something that presents a threat to me, they get shot. If they continue to try to go inside, they get a warning to stop or be shot.If they still try to get inside, I shoot, as I can only assume someone so determined to get into an occupied place that they ignore the warnings of a man with a gun who they know has spotted them, I think that shows they are up to more than just robbery, and are now a legitimate threat to those inside.
I'll admit that last one is a kinda tough call, but my choice is to do nothing, and risk that they harm someone inside, when I could have prevented it, or shoot, and know I did what I could to protect someone from a likely threat, but face possible severe consequences in court if they turn out to be "unarmed little angels, who were turning there lives around, and were just misguided, and were only there to steal". The problem is, I cant know for sure what they are planning to do, or what they will do, once inside, so I choose to err on the side of the safety of the non-criminal, as they are innocent, whereas the criminal has chosen to put himself at risk.
ETA:in the case of me catching someone in MY home, or trying to enter MY home, they immediately get a gun pointed at them no matter what. whether I shoot or not is up to them now.If they run, even if they do it in my car, or carrying a big bag of my money, I will not shoot (doesnt mean I wont threaten to, to try to get them to stop so I can get them arrested and/or get my stuff back). If they do anything but surrender, or run away, they are a threat ot my, and/or my families safety, and they get shot until they stop posing a threat.The reason the answer is different fo my home compared to others is because I KNOW if my home is currently occupied or not, and what weapons may be where that the BG could use, but with someone elses, I dont know all that, so it changes things a little.
In any scenario, the 1 thing I would NOT do, is just ignore it and do noithing.
I don't think it is worth shooting someone to stop him over property. It is only worth shooting someone to stop him/her from killing you, or inflicting grave bodily harm to you. I understand the sentiment of many Texans, that they are fed up with criminals and illegal aliens; however, if you shoot someone and kill him, you have to live with that the rest of your life.
I understand that the two dirtbag "Apocolypto types" were illegals from Columbia, and one had been arrested on drug charges before, but again, unless there is a direct and immediate threat to one's life, or grave bodily harm, then I disagree with shooting first. I think there are better options, such as commanding the burglars to the ground, or following the burglars and reporting their position to police.
I don't like the fact that George Bush has decided that we need a "guest criminal program" in the United States, but I also think it is extreme to shoot someone over property only. If the sons of b*tch*s are threatening me with death and/or grave bodily harm, then I say "shoot to stop them". If they are only attempting to get away with property, and not threatening me, then I have to let them go. That's how I read the law in my state.
That said, I don't know the particulars of this case, other than what the government-media complex has reported, so I don't claim to have a thorough knowledge of all the particulars, by any means.
I understand that the two dirtbag "Apocolypto types" were illegals from Columbia, and one had been arrested on drug charges before, but again, unless there is a direct and immediate threat to one's life, or grave bodily harm, then I disagree with shooting first. I think there are better options, such as commanding the burglars to the ground, or following the burglars and reporting their position to police.
I don't like the fact that George Bush has decided that we need a "guest criminal program" in the United States, but I also think it is extreme to shoot someone over property only. If the sons of b*tch*s are threatening me with death and/or grave bodily harm, then I say "shoot to stop them". If they are only attempting to get away with property, and not threatening me, then I have to let them go. That's how I read the law in my state.
That said, I don't know the particulars of this case, other than what the government-media complex has reported, so I don't claim to have a thorough knowledge of all the particulars, by any means.
property is lively hood.
i spend a day. thats life.
i spend a day working. thats livelyhood
that day of work buys me, a DVD player
its a direct link. if we cant stop those who wish to take the products of our success, how can we justify stopingthose who wish to take out means of success (life)
none of my objects are worth me or my loved ones dying over. if they held a gun on me and asked for my wallet, its thiers. but in my house, im king. and risk of being shot is an occupational hazard for criminals
[/rant]
i spend a day. thats life.
i spend a day working. thats livelyhood
that day of work buys me, a DVD player
its a direct link. if we cant stop those who wish to take the products of our success, how can we justify stopingthose who wish to take out means of success (life)
none of my objects are worth me or my loved ones dying over. if they held a gun on me and asked for my wallet, its thiers. but in my house, im king. and risk of being shot is an occupational hazard for criminals
[/rant]
M203Sniper
member
Yes they have between 2- 25 friends on the way. They "dialed" 911 (direct). You are doing the same (I hope).
Putting a policeman on a pedestal is wrong; he is an armed citizen just like you, if you think he is somehow a better person, better trained or less likely to go to jail for a shooting maybe you should contact you're local Police Departments recruiter and schedule a ride along. Then ask how often he puts holes in paper and has discussions like this, chances are not as many as the average High Roader.
GlowinPontiac
Member
If the perp simply walked onto my property and grabbed some lawn tools or patio furniture then i would say dealdy force is not the right course. if the perp cut the lock on my shed or cut open a gated fence to take something then it should be an option.
I would think that somebody who would go to the extent of cutting locks and breaking and entering is much more dangerous than somebody who simply saw an opprotunity to snag something left outside.
I would think that somebody who would go to the extent of cutting locks and breaking and entering is much more dangerous than somebody who simply saw an opprotunity to snag something left outside.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
