Defending your property?

[Werewolf]

Z-Infidel stated that:

It's almost a cliche now, but criminals' rights in this country have gotten to the point where they are ridiculous. I also would not kill someone over a $60 DVD player if I knew that was all the person was after.

Ever had your home broken into? Based on your statement above I'd guess not because I truly used to believe the same thing. But my home has been broken into 3 times in the last 10 years (during daylight and no one was home either of the times) and each time my wife, my children and I felt violated. One of my wife's friends who had been raped said that the feelings she experienced then were only a bit more intense than those she felt when her home was broken into.

I live in Oklahoma - here's what the Oklahoma statutes say about intruders.

§21-1289.25.

PHYSICAL OR DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER

A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of
Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own
homes.

B. Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of
physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, against
another person who has made an unlawful entry into that dwelling, and
when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person might
use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant of
the dwelling.

C. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including but not
limited to deadly force, pursuant to the provisions of subsection B of
this section, shall have an affirmative defense in any criminal
prosecution for an offense arising from the reasonable use of such
force and shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or
death resulting from the reasonable use of such force.

Night time breakins into occupied homes are rare here - though they do happen.

If I'm ever home when my house is broken into by some scum bag guess how I'm going to react?

I suggest that after your home has been broken into 3 or more times you may feel the same way Infidel.

And don't bother telling me I should move - I live in a nice neighborhood (hell if you were a crook what kind of home would you break into - a nice one or a pit?)

 

[Joe Demko]

As I posted in a similar thread some time back, the idea of killing someone because property=lifespan spent working doesn't really hold up. You have a right to be "made whole" i.e. havve whatever was taken from you returned. If you kill somebody for taking your property, you are taking all of his life. All you are entitled to is the fraction of it that would repay your loss. This all presupposes that you are killing strictly in defense of your property.

 

[Z_Infidel]

Werewolf, I think you missed my point -- which means I probably did a lousy job explaining it.

Did you read the rest of my post? I too would feel violated if someone broke into my home. My only point in that one sentence was to say I do not value a DVD player over the life of another human. If I must be so specific, then I will put it this way: If anyone invades my home, they are violating my rights and putting themselves at risk of death or injury. I will not act to harm that person merely to save myself from being without a DVD player tomorrow, but rather to stop the invasion of my home and protect my family -- in otherwords to terminate the threat. Unfortunately, the state law where I live says I will be the one going to jail unless I can prove that my life or the life of another was in imminent danger and I/we had no means of retreating from the premises. Yes, Ohio law actually holds that the homeowner has a liability to leave the home if invaded rather than stay to defend it. In my opinion this is totally wrong.

Hopefully I have made myself more clear this time.

 

[Werewolf]

Regarding the value of life vs property.

Guys it's not the victim who places the value of a DVD player or a TV on a robber's life.

It is the robber who has made the decision that his or her life is worth the value of a TV or DVD player.

That may seem like a small point but it really isn't. If someone breaks into a home with the intent to steal a TV knowing full well that there is a possibility that his or her life may be lost in the attempt then the miscreant is the one who valued his or her life at $100 not the home owner. The home owner should not feel guilty in the event that a criminal loses his or her life in the performance of his job. The criminal accepted the risk - sometimes they lose.

 

[Matthew Courtney]

I can not recall who said it, but it bears repeating:

"Men are not hung for stealing horses, men are hung so that horses won't be stolen."

We should be able to shoot thieves not to punish them, but to discourage folks from stealing.

 

[Chuck Dye]

For the original poster:

"I was armed. The deceased came at me as if to take my handgun. In fear that he would succeed in disarming me and shoot me with my own gun, I shot him."

The necessity to defend the gun seems to get too little consideration in these and other self defense discussions.

For those citing various state penal codes:

Please note the words "reasonable" and "necessary." In the aftermath, you are first going to have to argue the reasonable necessity of your acts with the responding officers, then with the District Attorney’s office. If those arguments do not succeed, you may then have to convince a jury. What seemed reasonable and necessary in the event may not stand those tests.

For Matthew Courtney:

The horse thief may have been hung, but that is an anatomical detail not needed on a family forum. If he died strung up in a noose, he was hanged.

 

[mattd]

If you shoot the wrong person for something like a dvd player, your family maybe in more damage if they the family or friends decide to get revenge.