Defending Property

[ArfinGreebly]

In many (most?) states, it's against the law to shoot someone "in defense of property."

People's personal beliefs in the rightness or wrongness of that position varies widely, the spectrum ranging from "no never" to "hell yes, with prejudice" and pretty much every shade of "well, sometimes" in between.

A lot of that sentiment comes from the idea that when someone steals from you, they are actually stealing a part of your life. I have a couple of posts of my own out there that give a (possibly over-simplified) view of the yes/no/sometimes thing.

However, I believe there may be a threshold where, if more than a certain amount or percentage of one's property is stolen, or possibly if specific items are stolen, one's actual ability to survive may be jeapordized.

So, today's question:
At what point does theft actually become assault?

How much does someone have to steal from you before it actually threatens your life?

I imagine some of this would be situational. For example, you're out in a blizzard which is survivable as long as you have your car. If someone steals your car, he directly places your life in jeapordy.

So, with that as a jumping off point, where do you draw the line? When does it cease to be "just property" and become your life that's at stake?

 

[mec]

texas has several property defense items that allow for deadly force. Most of them imply serious threat to life or that the defender would place himself in great risk by employing lesser force.
arson, theft in the night time, malicious mischief in the night time, robbery, aggravated robbery(actually a contact crime against the person), burglary .
" If there is no expectation that the property can be retrieved by lesser means (sic)."
the near universal advise from police and lawyers is to use deadly force only to protect persons from the same.

Prior to the criminal code revision of 1979, it was " within gunshot range of the property felonized." (but not anymore.)

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

There would be a lot less burglaries (from people re-thinking their career, to those who got unvoluntary early retirement) if it was legal to shoot in defense of property.
I've heard it argued that if it threatens your life or your livelihood (ability to make money) it's justified. Like your example with the car, or if you made your living with your tools and someone decides to break into the toolbox on your truck or steal your trailer. Also if you chose to keep your life savings in your house (aside from the fact that's a horrible idea) and somebody stole it I could see that being justified if I were on a jury.
There are too many people that are willing to just take the things other people spilled blood, sweat, and tears to acquire. And the law is there to protect the thief by forbidding any type of serious punishment and not requiring them to pay back the loss.
Horse theft used to be a hangin' offense...

 

[junyo]

At what point does theft actually become assault?

you've already answered the question as far as I'm concerned. When the absence of the item(s) being stolen would threaten my/my family's immediate wellbeing, or when the thief reacts violently to being obstructed from stealing such.

 

[K3]

If someone tries to steal your car while in a blizzard, he was shot trying to assault you.

 

[shaggycat]

I don't ever think someone stealing my property, with exception being a situation like the aforementioned car, is an assault on my life.

My life is very seperate from my "things." I do not associate the two at all. I am what I am regardless of my possessions, that does not make me "me."

That being said, I would feel perfectly justified shooting anyone who was stealing from me because such an act would be an assualt on my right to own property. That is a right I hold sacred and dear, and to allow a thief to steal from me without putting up a fight is essentially letting him win.

So I fall into the "heck yes, take the shot" category, but not because I feel that my property is a part of my life. You can't bring it with you when you after you kick the legendary can, no matter how much people may wish they could.

 

[El Tejon]

IME you have a stronger arugment when it is property that if the individual loses will result in immediate harm to the owner, e.g. some form of medications. This will let me get very far with a prosecutor or jury.

If you are shooting to save your car, stereo or beanie baby collection, you are hosed (a very technical legal term).

 

[Thefabulousfink]

Hmmmmm, an interesting take on this subject. Not to long ago there was a thread on if it was morally right to shoot some body over property and, like you pointed out, opinions were all over the map.

I believe that there is some justification to your car/blizzard situation. Another that has been brought up is defending a genorator in a Katrina style situation. In the Old West, stealing a horse was capital offense punishable by death. However, in most situations, losing your horse wouldn't put you in a dangerous situation. Instead, the horse was a valuable piece of property, usually the most expensive piece a person would own. Stealling a horse robbed a person of a large investment, and hindered their ability to work, but it was not life threatening. If a cowboy couldn't ride, he could still find work as meanial labor or even beg. However, this was still view as a great enough offense to warrant killing the offender.

Fast forward 100 years....
Imagine someone steals from you enough to cause your income to plummet far below the poverty line. I know that these days we have insurance, but suppose somebody broke into your home, stole all your valuables, and drove off in your car. Then they take the credit card #s and SS# that they stole and clean out your savings and ruin your credit rating. It may sound like alot, but if you are out of town and don't report anything for 5 days that is more than enough time. Now insurance will eventually pay up, but it will take a little while, and if there are any complications it could take months. At the same time you will have to repair the damage, pay your bills, and continue working. It could take a family years to recover from a theft of this magnitude.

Now is this modern thief any more or less deserving of hanging than the horse-thief of old? Also if a crime is punnishable by death, is it justifiable to use deadly force to prevent it?

 

[glummer]

shaggy

... but not because I feel that my property is a part of my life.

But consider that you used up part of your life to earn that property; and you cannot get time back again. You HAVE been robbed of part of your life.

 

[rmurfster]

If anyone breaks into my home, they loose their "right" to exist...

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

But consider that you used up part of your life to earn that property; and you cannot get time back again. You HAVE been robbed of part of your life.

So how much of my life do I have to be robbed of to be able to shoot someone? I mean, a $1000 TV is less than a week's work for me. Do I get to shoot someone for that? What if someone makes minimum wage and it takes them 6 months to save up that much money, do they get to shoot since it that person robbed more of their life? What about Bill Gates? a $1000 TV could be easily replaced in just a few hours of work, can he shoot them?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

. . . part of your life

Yes, glummer, but that isn't the question.

Stealing my wheelbarrow or lawn mower removes something that represents a certain amount of my time and effort, but it doesn't threaten me today.

The question was, at what point is it no longer "just property" and it actually threatens your life.

I won't pretend that having stuff stolen isn't traumatic. I have those same scars. But I moved on and rebuilt.

At what point is "theft" so devastating that you cant' move on and rebuild, cuz you may very well not live through the event?

 

[strat81]

Stealing medicine, portable oxygen, prosthetic limbs, or other essential medical devices might fall into this category.

As for the blizzard/car analogy mentioned earlier: if I was stuck in a blizzard and someone attempted to steal my coat, that could be justification.

 

[Outlaws]

At what point does theft actually become assault?

When it involves a $2000 PS3.

 

[MechAg94]

I think this is partly a reaction to the fact that we know that a petty thief will get next to no punishment even if he is caught 10 minutes later with your property. This is sad since I think this only encourages the crook to move up to bigger crimes.

If I were on a jury and a man was on trial for injurying a thief who had been stealing from him, I doubt I would be all that inclined to render a guilty verdict in most cases. I would hope the judge wouldn't restrict things to the point that I wouldn't know that.

Personally, I would like to be able to defend my property from an ongoing act of theft, but in reality I would have to stop and think before doing so.

 

[jnojr]

Just follow this simple equation.

You have a <TV, stereo, gold watch, whatever> worth a certain amount. Someone steals it from you. You're now out that amount. Or, you shoot them, in which case you're not out. Which end result is desireable?

"Oh, but the value of human life! How could you kill over a material object?" Easy! Follow the above equation! Screw this weepy "value of human life" nonsense... the thief is the one who equated his life with the value of your stuff, not you. If he died "over a few dollars", that was his choice!

If that was the measuring stick, theft would plummet to near zero. I doubt it would ever reach zero, as there's a certain replenishment rate to handle those who wind up assuming ambient temperature over their escapades, but the number would be far lower than it is today.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Value of Life

Remember, this is not about trying to balance the value of stuff against the value of life.

This is about stuff upon which your life depends.

The kind of "stuff" where someone's stealing it can shorten your life dramatically.

Given a different kind of moral/legal foundation, where theft is considered heinous enough to be a capital crime, arguments like "how many times do you shoot them for stealing the good china" could be an interesting discussion.

That's not where we are in this thread.

Can theft pose a direct threat to your life? If so, where's that line?

 

[Pro_Gun]

Well

stealing my car when me or mine are not in it is car theft and I'm insured. Hijacking me with me or my family in the car with a weapon is defendable with force.

Breaking in my house while no one is home and stealing, scary yes, but I'm insured there also. Now if I'm home and point the 1911 at him yelling "hit the dirt scumbag" and he keeps coming in, there again deadly force is justified once he steps through the door in PA.

Point is to shoot someone and not go to jail yourself your life must be in mortal danger in the eyes of "most" law in my opinion.

Just defending yourself will probably cost 20-40 grand when the guys mommy who will sue for wrongful death sues you. Besides, my car is not worth stealing anyhow. Property can be replaced, thats why I pay high insurance rates, right?

 

[BullfrogKen]

I was wondering when the thread would get to the point of someone advocating a thief deserves death.

jnojr said: You have a <TV, stereo, gold watch, whatever> worth a certain amount. Someone steals it from you. You're now out that amount. Or, you shoot them, in which case you're not out. Which end result is desireable?

Not out a thing. . . . Hmmm . . . Sure you don't want to re-evaluate that position?

 

[BullfrogKen]

ArfinGreebly said: However, I believe there may be a threshold where, if more than a certain amount or percentage of one's property is stolen, or possibly if specific items are stolen, one's actual ability to survive may be jeapordized.

So, today's question:
At what point does theft actually become assault?

Well, I guess maybe if my medication were stolen, and I couldn't get out of my house for a few days due to a blizzard, and the phones didn't work so I couldn't get an ambulance to deliver me some until I got a refill.


I'd have to work pretty hard at coming up with a realistic, and likely, scenario where I feel I could justify using force to defend personal property. There isn't much I own I'd feel compelled to risk my life to prevent its theft. Perhaps an irreplaceable keepsake might move me. I guess pets could possibly be considered as property. . . . I'd fight to protect my dogs from violence or from being forceably taken.

 

[Outlaws]

Just defending yourself will probably cost 20-40 grand when the guys mommy who will sue for wrongful death sues you.

True, but I have it figured out to some degree already...just incase. See, I will sue them before they can sue me. The body wouldn't have time to get cold before I would be on the phone with a lawyer for the criminal defense part, but I will then be placing a second call to another lawyer to file suit against whoever is related to the perp so they don't get the stupid idea their family member was a "victim" or that I owe them a new father/son/brother/husband/cashcow. They owe me a new carpet and drapes.

 

[M2 Carbine]

I have a little different slant on it.

I don't intend raising a white flag and having a meeting with the thief to take inventory of what he's stealing or ask for ID to see if he's too young to shoot or inquire if he's had a bad childhood that's driven him to a life of crime.

I don't care about the value of the property. The thief has already valued the property as being worth his life.

In short, if he's stealing from me and I don't shoot him and I might not, it's definitely his lucky day.



As far as this the original question,
"How much does someone have to steal from you before it actually threatens your life?"

I don't know that in many cases I'd know what the thief has.
If they are stealing a gun, it definately threatens my life.
If, in a couple minutes, when I go outside in the dark, if I saw someone coming out of one of my out buildings, I would feel that my life is threatened and they would be VERY close to being shot. They might get the chance to talk, it just depends on what I see.

 

[shaggycat]

Glummer

But consider that you used up part of your life to earn that property; and you cannot get time back again. You HAVE been robbed of part of your life.

Again, that is not the way I see it. I view life more in the way that perhaps you view a soul. No one can take any part of my life from me, even if they lock me in a cell stark naked. They can take my possessions and even my health but they cannot take my life.

My life is my decision and I have such life because of my faith in a creator. I don't value things enough to feel comfortable with the idea of calling any worldly item a part of my life. Stuff just isn't a big deal to me.

Saying that, I am very idealistic and one of those ideals to which I hold strongly to is the right to own and protect property. Allowing someone to violate such a right is to consent to that intrusion, something I am unwilling to do. If I do nothing to stop them, I have let them win. That is not an acceptable outcome.

That is my view on it.

 

[Outlaws]

Again, that is not the way I see it. I view life more in the way that perhaps you view a soul. No one can take any part of my life from me, even if they lock me in a cell stark naked. They can take my possessions and even my health but they cannot take my life.

So then I take it you are not in the "give me liberty or give me death" camp? Would you take a communist regime over fighting for freedom? At least you are still alive right?

 

[one-shot-one]

can't wait till the mods from strat&tact lock this!