A Matter of Values

[coloradokevin]

I didn't read all of the other responses, and I consider this another topic that is too broad to answer in black/white terms. But, hypothetically speaking, here you go:

1) Only you can decide if/when the use of deadly force is appropriate. No two situations are alike.

2) My material possessions are important to me... I go to work every day so that I can have the things that I do. In some ways, yes, my stuff is more valuable than the burglar's life (to me).

But, that isn't to imply that I would shoot a burglar automatically. I deal with property crimes on a daily basis, and I would rather catch the bad guy as opposed to shooting him (a prisoner gives me someone to pay for damage to my door, etc). I would try to aprehend anyone who was caught in the process of a crime at my house (heck, it is what I do for a living). But, I won't be losing the fight, if it comes to that.

3) The line between using deadly force, or not, often depends on the situation that the bad guy places you in. I will not back down from defending my house and my family... The criminal will be brought to justice. If he chooses to make it into a deadly force situation, that is completely on him.

In other words, to expand the hypothetical (all else being equal): if I see someone simply breaking into my car in the driveway at night, I'll probably try to get him into custody, and hold him for the on-duty guys... But, if I wake up to a guy kicking in my bedroom door, and thereby placing my family in grave danger, it will likely end a lot more violently and decisively!

Plus, none of this even begins to address the fact that some people are more suited to getting physical with a criminal than others... I am a full-time police officer, and that kind of stuff is my daily business. I'm not worried about fighting with a crack-head in my driveway, because that is part of my "9-5 job". I've had arrest control training, I have the proper equipment (handcuffs, gun, etc), I'm experienced in arresting people during tense situations, and I'm willing to walk into that kind of situation.

On the other hand, if my wife went outside to try to stop a potential car thief, and the guy turned on her, she'd have little choice but to shoot. Still, I don't think it would necessarily be wrong for her to try to stop someone from stealing her property. A verbal challenge comes first, and the next move is in the criminal's hands! I wouldn't see my wife shooting someone in the back as they fled from the area, and I wouldn't expect her to get into a foot pursuit either. But, if the guy decided that he'd rather take her out of the picture, she's prepared to handle that type of situation with whatever force she feels is necessary.

 

[qwert65]

Tourist, I see your point but I still think your example is bad. In your scenario that is a traffic accident on public or open to the public private property. While I have little faith in juries I am pretty sure they can tell the difference between me hitting your car and you beating the crap outta me and me pulling into your driveway hitting your bike and me attempting to drive away(hit and run)

I think you should try(if within your power) to detain the person if they resit then thats their choice THEY are the ones who are escalating it If they do not want to go to jail they knew that was a possibility before they started.

I'm religous and I don't take killing lightly, however I think we can all admit it is sometimes necessary. I think we can also agree that ultimatley the only one responsible for you, your family and your possessions is you.

 

[blackcash88]

The ONLY thing that would keep me from killing someone stealing from me is the fear of repercussion, both criminal and civil.

That's it. I'd do it in a heartbeat if I could be 100% sure nothing would happen to me. Wouldn't lose a wink of sleep, either.

Yes, I've killed before, but that was a military thing. So spare me the "I don't know what it's like in real life" drama.

 

[357WheelGun]

(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?

Sorry, the analogy doesn't hold. There's a world of difference between intentional destruction or theft of property and accidental damage.

Your story suggests that someone who has unintentionally damaged another person's property and is in the process of making a good faith attempt to assess the damage, find the owner and make proper arrangements for fair compensation (otherwise he would have just driven off, not stopped and gotten out of his truck) is on the same level as a person who intentionally steals or destroys someone else's property with no intention of compensating the owner. Those situations are simply not even remotely similar.

A lot of times I think you have good points, but in this case I think you're well wide of the mark. Adjust your sights for windage and try again.

 

[blackcash88]

Don't waste your time arguing with The Tourist. He's an admitted bi-polar nut job who, as you said, can't differentiate between deliberate theft and a simple accident in which NOTHING was stolen. Can't reason with crap like that.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Putting a policeman on a pedestal is wrong ... 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.

The policeman I have known in my life are much better trained to deal with violent criminals than I am. I am relatively sure that if you gave me a set of cuffs and a criminal leaning up against the wall spread eagled, I would not have a clue as to the safest way to cuff him. There's probably a better than 50% chance that I would be the one ending up in handcuffs.

I have watched off duty officers working security at a bar I was managing take a man hold a man for backup. I have seen a middle aged LEO take a much younger angrier (slightly intoxicated) man to the ground without even thinking about it. I sure don't know how to do that. The officer had thrown one of the man's friends out of the bar, and the man had come in the back door and tried to take the officer from the back. The officer had the guy down on the floor before I could see anything.

Then the officer held the guy by one wrist in some very painful hold while I dialed 911. Whatever the hold was, the perp was in a lot of pain.

His lawyer called me later asking to depose me for a suit against the PD. Good luck with that one. I explained the detail with which I could testify to the behavior of the perp and his friends earlier in the evening, that I had a very clear view of the unprovoked attack on the officer, and the that officer had used the minimal force necessary to restrain the perp. With a little digging around, I could probably dig up the name of the woman that the perp had assaulted (grabbed her butt) earlier in the evening. Oddly enough, the lawyer decided at that point that he did not in fact want to depose me.

The point? The LEO didn't even have to think about what he was doing. From the second the perp jerked open the back door, the officer knew exactly what to do and did it - as he had many times before. It wasn't like some secret ninja move, the police just knew exactly what to do - no hesitation.

I sure don't have that level of training/expertise. Maybe you do, but I clearly don't .

Then ask how often he puts holes in paper and has discussions like this, chances are not as many as the average High Roader.

Somehow I am not exactly sure that putting holes in paper at 25 yards - as much as I enjoy doing that (I just wish the holes were closer together) - is the training needed to maintain control of a potentially violent criminal at close quarters. Oddly enough, I think that putting holes in a piece of paper at 25 yards is good training for - putting holes in a piece of paper at 25 yards.

Mike

 

[3KillerBs]

Sorry 3KB,
Badly expressed. I was thinking in terms of a "mugging turned violent" as in robbery with implied threat becoming a robbery with actual violence.
Very sloppy wording.

As I said, I'm guilty of black and white thinking on this, but if I'm not being put in danger then its not a robbery -- its just panhandling. I don't see a useful reason to distinguish between an implied threat and a open threat.

 

[3KillerBs]

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.

One of the foundational principles of moral reasoning is to differentiate between intentional and unintentional acts.

Accidentally damaging something may be reprehensible if the accident was due to carelessness/negligence.

Theft is a completely different matter. No one accidentally, carelessly, or negligently breaks into someone's house and starts picking up their valuable electronics.

Throwing apples into a discussion about oranges isn't useful.

 

[EYESOFTEXAS]

It’s a tough question.

Of course, the touchstone of all crime is theft, including murder. However, it's hard to walk through the exercise of making value determinations. Example. My life is worth killing to protect, but not my pickup truck. Or my wrist watch.

All seem to agree that it's worth killing if what someone is trying to steal is your life (or the lives of those for whom you are their earthly protector -- kids, etc.).

And at first glance it’s clean and easy for some to draw a hard line between protection of life and protection of chattel. Try to steal my life = worth killing for. Try to steal my pickup truck = not worth killing for.

But a pickup truck may be more than a pickup truck. I can think of many instances where something as mundane as a pickup truck or a work computer or a [fill in the blank] can almost wholly comprise the touchstone of someone’s livelihood.

Maybe you live 20 minutes outside San Saba, Texas and you work two jobs and you barely make minimum wage and you have four mouths to feed and you depend wholly on your ‘82 Datsun to get you into town to work, buy groceries, etc. Someone comes along and steals your truck. You could’ve stopped them, but didn’t. Called the Sherriff instead. Next day they caught the bad guys, but never recovered your truck. You live in the sticks and have little saved for a rainy day and now it’s raining and you can't get to work and you may lose your jobs and suddenly the welfare of your family is at the mercy of the State and the good will of others.

Similarly, a bottle of water in New Orleans circa 2005 was clearly more than a bottle of water. But then this was obvious given the circumstances. At least more obvious than a pickup truck.

Certainly there are instances where the theft of chattel will have less of a connection to a person’s well being or livelihood. At a minimum a person’s property may simply be something to which s/he attaches sentimental value or worked his/her entire life to achieve or gather. Folks can agree to disagree about whether it’s justified to kill and/or have the moral conviction to protect it.

The rub is, as a friend of mine once put it, if it’s not worth protecting, you must then accept that your sentiments and your losses and your livelihood are not more valuable than the “right” of some criminal to take them and ruin them because they are not as valuable as HIS life.

I think that last sentence frames up the debate. Some folks agree with it, some folks don’t.

As the original poster said -- it's a matter of your values.

 

[Ske1etor]

I am quite divided on this situation. If I am in my own home or my vehicle and someone enters without permission, I see that as a threat to my personal safety. If they are breaking into someone elses home, I see that as a threat to that homeowners (or whomever may be present in that home.) I don't necessarily think it is morally wrong to kill someone for theft but I don't think I would shoot in the case of a simple burglary, especially if it didn't take place in my home (and in Mr. Horn's case, the homeowners were known to be out of the house.) On the other hand, there is a point at which law abiding citizens need to stand up and say no. It is not ok for you to break into a home a steal from good people.

I hear it all the time. It isn't worth anyones life, just let them have what they want. At some point you have to stand up. To allow things like what those two men did to happen would mean allowing them to do it to someone else down the road. If they are brazen enough to break into someones home in broad daylight, they are brazen enough to kill if they happened to find someone in that home. Now, maybe those two men weren't capable of killing for some small trinkets but maybe they were. Every criminal is capable of killing, to think otherwise is hazardous to your health.

Like I said, I am quite divided on it...

 

[Kentucky Kernel]

I've thought a lot about this type of conflict, and as has been said many times, it is a very tough call. If a criminal is in my home just to steal my TV, I'd not want to take his life....BUT, THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL BEFORE-HAND that simple robbery is the motive. Therefore, since I plan to protect my family, I must assume that a bad guy who is in my home intends to do them harm, therefore I shall shoot.

 

[The Tourist]

One of the foundational principles of moral reasoning is to differentiate between intentional and unintentional acts.

In short, that's the crux of my game of turn-about. We think that the intentions of the offender are the deciding factor in our actions--whether they are moral or not.

One guy holds you up for robbery--to get money to feed his family. Another guy holds you up for robbery--to feed his drug habit. At the moment the weapon comes out, and you have nano-seconds to speed rock the guy into the hereafter, what governs that decision?

Now, damaging a guy's motorcycle will not stop one moment of your pain just because you see yourself as an innocent good guy with strong moral values. Your opinion means squat. Just as it is you perceiving the actions of a robber, so too is it the biker's view of your actions.

And don't think your actions are sancrosanct. Your views, values, opinions and moral compass mean absolutely nothing when perceived by your accuser.

There is a good movie entitled "Midnight Express" where an American tourist is arrested in a foreign country for drugs. Oh, the lead character had American values, but it meant nothing in a foreign court or in a foreign jail.

And in reality, just exactly how much sympathy do you really think you're going to get from a beat cop when he peels your sorry butt off the tarmac for acting stupid around a bike club? Trust me, there's a smug attitude that exists sometimes around citizens who feel they have a moral superiority when it comes to this foolishness.

If you shoot a homeless guy under fuzzy circumstances it is you who will go to jail. If you get your butt kicked at a biker bar for smarting off, you will also be arrested--probably the only one. You will be charged with three counts of wanton stupidity. And you'll be safer in the handcuffs.

Edit: I feel this perception of your goals is very important. In almost four decades of motorcycling, I have never, ever, ever seen a biker arrested for smacking a townie.

However, at that same bar in that same area (Schenk's Corners, Madison, Wisconsin) I did see a biker arrested and hauled away for carrying an open beer out of the bar for less than thirty seconds to retrieve something from his bike.

If you think your values protect you like a suit of armor, remember that there is an entire world out there that believes a few ounces of lager is more important than your carelessness.

 

[Madison_ultralight]

Anything that I have that I think is worth killing over is well secured. That just leaves me and my family that I need to defend with deadly force. If I catch a guy prying open my safe, he is in my house and is a threat to my family. If someone is breaking into my car and is no threat to me I don't think that I could shoot him (Lo-Jack's got my back) unless he calls my bluff and comes this way. However a few whizzing past his head might make him rethink his career path. Stealing apples off my tree just might get him a rock upside the skull.

 

[3KillerBs]

In short, that's the crux of my game of turn-about. We think that the intentions of the offender are the deciding factor in our actions--whether they are moral or not. ...

And this has what to do with the morality or lack thereof of shooting someone who is stealing your stuff?

Theft is not accidental. That's black and white. There's no such thing as, "Oops, I was just walking down the street carrying a knife in my hand and as I passed these people they suddenly handed me all their valuables for no reason whatsoever."

All that fuzzy, circular, it-all-depends-on-whose-point-of-view business is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.

To use your bikers in the discussion, I would have a considerable degree of sympathy for a biker who shot someone who, having caught the biker off his bike for some reason, jumped on that expensive motorcycle and drove off. Bikers have exactly the same right to maintain the possession of their stuff as anyone else. Its not legal here in NC to shoot someone who does that sort of grab and run robbery, but I'm not sure that law is morally correct.

And a biker with a CHL who pulled his gun and shot a guy who made a credible threat with a weapon -- perhaps brandishing a crowbar and saying, "Give me your bike or I'll bash your head in," -- would not be convicted by any jury I was sitting on.

 

[Madison_ultralight]

Theft is not accidental. That's black and white. There's no such thing as, "Oops, I was just walking down the street carrying a knife in my hand and as I passed these people they suddenly handed me all their valuables for no reason whatsoever."

They made an episode of King-Of-The-Hill like that, where Hank accidentally mugged some guy.

 

[357WheelGun]

One guy holds you up for robbery--to get money to feed his family. Another guy holds you up for robbery--to feed his drug habit. At the moment the weapon comes out, and you have nano-seconds to speed rock the guy into the hereafter, what governs that decision?

They are both intentionally robbing me. There's no decision to make. Either one gets the same response.

You're still failing to note the difference between intentionally choosing to break the law (for any reason whatsoever) and a situation similar to a neighborhood kid accidentally breaking a window while playing baseball.

Now, damaging a guy's motorcycle will not stop one moment of your pain just because you see yourself as an innocent good guy with strong moral values. Your opinion means squat. Just as it is you perceiving the actions of a robber, so too is it the biker's view of your actions.

To an extent. There's a a requirement of reasonableness. Not all points of view are valid, regardless of what the modern love of relativism tries to tell us. Any grown adult can be reasonably expected to know the difference between a person who accidentally backs into a bike in a parking lot and a person who intentionally runs that bike over. If the biker in your example chooses an irrational view, that's _his_ fault, not yours as the driver.

I understand where you're going with this. You're trying to point out that we cannot always know for certain what someone's intentions are and that it's possible to evaluate incorrectly (as the biker in your example is evaluating incorrectly). However, there are situations where it's sufficiently clear.

A man, larger than you, comes up and growls, "your money, or your life". Could he just be a stranger with a weird sense of humor? Sure. Is that a reasonable assumption? No.

A guy backs into your customized motorcycle and winces. He timidly gets out of his car to look at the damage, holding his insurance card in his hand. Is it possible that he's a crazed road-rager bent on destroying motorcycles? Technically yes. But no reasonable person makes that assumption.

I see your point, but it just doesn't jive except in a very few, very isolated, very ambiguous situations that are, statistically, outliers in the overall bell-curve of crime.

 

[dalepres]

Does no one else see this question as being a choice between living in fear and surrenduring to bullies versus living in safety and freedom?

 

[AndrewGWU]

I am split on the issue.

On one hand I feel like it is philosophically wrong to take a human life for a property crime. I try to live by the moto: There is more to a person than their worst mistake/action. On those grounds I would not use deadly force to defend property.

However, on the other hand I believe a part of me would react to save what I have put my time and energy to having. A part of me sees that if I am not willing to defend my property then is it really mine?

In the end it comes down to the moment. If I felt like me or my family was in danger, there would be no hesitation. If someone is kicking my window in at 3am and climbing through his life will be in serious jeopardy. I do not know if they are breaking into my house to just steal a TV or to hurt me. I know not whether they are armed. However, these are not questions I would consider before applying deadly force.

However, If I catch someone in my building stealing a couple wrenches and a cordless drill I would call the cops and proceed from there. The use of force depends on the situation, but yes, sometimes it is necessary to use deadly force for property crimes.

 

[bobbarker]

I feel like if someone is in my house, garage, etc., stealing my things, then there is a decent chance they have a backup plan to being caught, which may or may not be a weapon. I would treat every intruder as an armed intruder, and like it was said before, "Once the blinding light hits you, your life is forfeit if you do anything other than exactly what I say."

 

[SalTx]

All blame should lay with the criminals/thieves. The victim/property owner should not be expected to make moral/value judgments during moments of crises. If someone cares about the instrinsic "value" of human life, then they should regularly feed and house the homeless or similar good work and let others keep what they work hard for.

 

[The Tourist]

And this has what to do with the morality or lack thereof of shooting someone who is stealing your stuff?

It's incredibly simple. No matter what the circumstances, you are the one that is always in control of the actions you take.

How many times have you heard/seen a guy with a hang-over with his car smashed into someone's porch and his reason is, "I was drunk, I didn't know what I was doing..."

Or some toothless bully smack his wife around and bark at her, "Look at what you've made me do!"

I don't care if the mugger before you is Bin Laden himself, you must make sure that your actions emit from a moral center.

Personsally, I think any idiot that slams into an expensive motorcycle has exhibited the sort of cavalier attitude we despise here.

 

[3KillerBs]

Originally Posted by 3KillerBs
And this has what to do with the morality or lack thereof of shooting someone who is stealing your stuff?

It's incredibly simple. No matter what the circumstances, you are the one that is always in control of the actions you take.

How many times have you heard/seen a guy with a hang-over with his car smashed into someone's porch and his reason is, "I was drunk, I didn't know what I was doing..."

Or some toothless bully smack his wife around and bark at her, "Look at what you've made me do!"

I don't care if the mugger before you is Bin Laden himself, you must make sure that your actions emit from a moral center.

Personsally, I think any idiot that slams into an expensive motorcycle has exhibited the sort of cavalier attitude we despise here.

First, I agree with you that people do not lose their moral responsibility for their actions because they are drunk. And a person who is not paying attention when parking so that they damage another person's property is at fault and should make restitution.

But still, what has any of this to do with the situation in question? Causing accidental damage to property, no matter how gross the negligence, is not theft.

Either someone is stealing something or he is not stealing something. In the course of that theft he is either presenting a threat -- explicit or implied -- or he is not presenting a threat.

If someone is not stealing something the morality of using lethal force in the defense of property is irrelevant.

If someone is stealing something it may be, broadly-speaking, a grab and run where the thief either does not encounter the property owner or encounters him momentarily and buy surprise in such a way that the property owner has no opportunity to prevent him from grabbing the property and beginning to flee with it.

Or it may be a mugging by violence where the threat, "Give me your stuff or I will hurt/kill you," is made either explicitly or by implication.

Since in the latter case of a mugging by violence one is not defending property but, rather, defending oneself and one's companions against the threat of "death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault," the question is about the former situation alone.

If there is neither a grab and run nor a mugging by violence its not a robbery at all; its a panhandling event. If you don't want to contribute according to the beggar's request you say "No," and walk away.

So the only question remaining is whether its moral to use deadly force against someone who, having grabbed your stuff, is attempting to flee.

On the one hand there is the contention that the inherent value of property is less than the inherent value of human life. This position has a lot of merit. In the case of property damaged by accident or negligence it is overwhelmingly strong.

But in the case of theft it weakens for several reason:

#1 -- By laying hands on another person's property the thief has deliberately chosen to place himself outside the bounds of the behavioral norms and expectations that form the social contract.

#2 -- By allowing the large and strong to defend their property through the use of "reasonable force" -- grappling and holding, beating short of lethal force, and the like -- society declares that property is indeed worth defending. However, it places an uneven burden on the members of society by denying the small and weak the right to defend their property through the use of the only means the small and weak possess -- the lethal force of a firearm.

This comes very close to devaluing the humanity of the small and weak to second-class citizenship by declaring that those who are larger and stronger have a right to take their property from them.

#3 -- Forbidding honest citizens from defending their property and requiring them to permit anyone who can act behind their backs or with sufficient speed that they do not confront the property owner directly to steal unopposed damages the social order by privileging those who have deliberately chosen not to be bound by the social contract of living in a civilized society.

I waver in my opinion from time to time. I believe that there is nothing so precious as an innocent human life. But I do not believe that the life of one who chooses to be a predator or parasite upon society is of equal value to the life of an honest citizen.

I believe that it may indeed be moral to shoot a fleeing thief -- if that act will allow you to retrieve your property rather than merely as an act of vengeance. However, in the state where I live it is not a legal act.

 

[The Tourist]

But still, what has any of this to do with the situation in question?

The OP centers his position of self-defense. I argue that the playing field is much bigger. If there's a moral side to the manner in which we apply deadly force, then a moral man hands back to a cashier improper change.

In fact, I doubt that a man who keeps a few dollars returned in error is not the guy to make decisions with a moral center, at all.

As to the concept of "motorcycle damage," I used that scenario to show that "we" are not always the ones who set a standard. Oh, you might view accidental bike damage as a petty error. You're not the one who sets the standard, and "standard" might come as a surprise to you.

Look at the results here. Many stated that their criteria might result in a man's death. An equal number it seems would stand there getting beaten and being seriously befuddled.

When you're playing in someone else's ballpark, you play by their rules. A moral man always begins any action from a moral center. Would you like your safety decided by a man who carries a firearm, but steals fruit from a grocer's display?

 

[rainbowbob]

My wife and I are walking through my neighborhood and are mugged by someone. "Give me your wallet!" I'd comply. "Give me your cell phone." With irritation I comply. "Give me your wife's diamong ring!" This ring has been worn by 4 generations of undivorced women in her family. I don't think I could let that go. The law is on my side, but what would I do?

bennadatto:
I understand where you're coming from, but I think your post is an example of something that is often overlooked when considering whether or not you should "give it up."

My brother told me he doesn't need a firearm because if someone demanded his wallet - he'd simply give it to them.

However, when a person has crossed that line, they have announced their disregard for your life and for their own. There is no way of knowing to what length they might go to get away with your stuff - including possibly killing you.

Personally, I wouldn't make the distinction between my wallet and my wife's heirloom wedding ring. If I believed I could succesfully abort their nefarious mission without putting my wife or myself at even greater risk - I would do so without hesitation (at least I hope I would).

That would apply in any direct confrontation, whether on the street or in the home. However, shooting a thief in the back who is fleeing with your possession(s) presents a different dilema altogether, in that your life is not in immediate danger. Although I have no particular moral difficulty with the idea in general - I can't say if I would actually fire in that situation. Probably not.

 

[dalepres]

Well, any way you look at it, it is a tough question. I am a big Steve Miller Band fan. One of Steve's songs I would like to live by is called, "Never Kill Another Man."

I suppose when it comes right down to it, I have been a victim before and I think I would probably end up being a victim again before I would kill another person that was not an immediate threat to me or my family. It is just a shame that the Justice system will not deal more harshly with such criminals so that fear of prison could step in for the missing fear of property owner.