So then in Joe's hypothetical question I guess I would be going to jail. Just because its being stolen through paper transactions rather than from the cashbox doesn't make it anything less than stealing in my book. I do thank you for the info though TR
Garland Business owner's son kills suspected copper thief
- Thread starter jaytex1969
- Start date
- Status
Joe Demko
Member
You're dancing around the issue by being legalistic. The heart of this debate lies in killing another person over the theft , or attempted theft, of property. You've already told us several times that it is legal in Texas to do so; that is not under dispute.
We've been told, as one reason that it's morally/ethically okay to shoot metal thieves, that they can bankrupt a business and leave you destitute. A crooked accountant can do exactly the same thing. Why is it morally/ethically okay to shoot the former but not the latter?
We've been told, as one reason that it's morally/ethically okay to shoot metal thieves, that they can bankrupt a business and leave you destitute. A crooked accountant can do exactly the same thing. Why is it morally/ethically okay to shoot the former but not the latter?
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Physical property crime is a violation of ones "personal boundaries" since they take place for the most part in one's home, office, car, etc.
Accountants doing illegal fund transfers are criminal but not in such a manner that they place your "personal space" or "castle" in jeopardy.
Any property crime can convert to violence during the course of the act but this example of the accountant moving funds from his office in the middle of the night can not since all the parties are not physically present at the same place at the same time.
It's this potential for violence, in one's own personal space that differentiates the 2.
There is no "immediacy" in electronic theft for example, and immediacy is nearly always present in any legal or moral argument for protecting property with force.
Cosmoline
Member
Fraud and embezzlement is most certainly a criminal matter. It frequently carries a much more serious range of prison time than mere petty theft due to the amounts of money involved. So if you can shoot a thief why can't you shoot the embezzler?
Ha. Tell that to folks who have lost home, business and everything else due to such theft. A rotten accountant can do vastly more damage than a copper thief. So can you go kill him after the fact? Like I said, this is a very, very dangerous road.
brerrabbit
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 401
Cosmoline
Nice try with the race card. Doesnt fly. I would believe that the business owner would have shot whether or not the thief was lily white or brown like me.
I have already posted a request for those that believe property is not worth defending with lethal force to show their arguments. Instead of logical arguments about the core issue of this thread, All I have seen are diatribes based on a feeling of moral superiority.
I will defend property with lethal force. no qualms, no excusing my actions based on the possibility that the crime will turn violent. Simply my property will not be stolen if I can possibly stop it.
I am willing to give kids a second chance based on age and ignorance based on their age. I will try to wound vice kill over property. LEO will be called. Orders to stop will be issued. But in the end I will put a bullet in a person before I let anyone unlawfully take what is mine.
This is a morally honest stance on the core issue of this thread.
As far as the law goes, I am covered. Threats of what may happen tend to be overshadowed by what has happened in the past. My state constitution gives me a right to protect property by force of arms. I have never seen the family of a deceased thief win in court over this in my state, so that is not an issue.
That leaves the core issue. Why is it not morally proper to defend property with lethal force?
Nice try with the race card. Doesnt fly. I would believe that the business owner would have shot whether or not the thief was lily white or brown like me.
I have already posted a request for those that believe property is not worth defending with lethal force to show their arguments. Instead of logical arguments about the core issue of this thread, All I have seen are diatribes based on a feeling of moral superiority.
I will defend property with lethal force. no qualms, no excusing my actions based on the possibility that the crime will turn violent. Simply my property will not be stolen if I can possibly stop it.
I am willing to give kids a second chance based on age and ignorance based on their age. I will try to wound vice kill over property. LEO will be called. Orders to stop will be issued. But in the end I will put a bullet in a person before I let anyone unlawfully take what is mine.
This is a morally honest stance on the core issue of this thread.
As far as the law goes, I am covered. Threats of what may happen tend to be overshadowed by what has happened in the past. My state constitution gives me a right to protect property by force of arms. I have never seen the family of a deceased thief win in court over this in my state, so that is not an issue.
That leaves the core issue. Why is it not morally proper to defend property with lethal force?
Cosmoline
Member
That's fine, but how then can you justify shooting the fleeing thief or killing an intruder who has come to steal but poses no threat to the safety of the defender? For example an unarmed neighbor coming to take back what he feels is his property, even if he's mistaken. A brother come to take some item of Dad's he feels should have gone to him after the funeral? These things happen all the time, and they put PROPERTY at risk. So are we to slaughter for property?
Would the supporters have been so eager to yell their approval if the thieves had been a neighbor's white pre-teens? I very much doubt it.
The question is, what about AFTER he has taken it and is no longer presenting even a theoretical danger to you? The question then is simply about getting your property back and punishing the thief. Would you take up the rifle and shoot him in the back? Or would you leave it to the community to judge and punish. That is the great line. The line between protecting your homestead and punishing people you believe have taken your things.
Because if you can shoot him in the back, why not track down the thief and shoot him at his home or work? Would he be righteous in defending against you, who have now become the armed intruder?
KiltedClaymore
Member
this thread is destined for closing anytime now.......3....2...1.......
Joe Demko
Member
You're telling me about the legal system again; that is exactly the differentiation the law makes. Go back and re-read this thread, though, and see how many posts go on at length about the value of the goods stolen and how much harm the loss of that value would cause.
We don't seem to have a consensus, even in this thread, whether ethically/morally it is about the potential for violence or the loss of property.
Let me put it this way, if the law permitted you to shoot an accountant you caught cooking the books, would you?
We don't seem to have a consensus, even in this thread, whether ethically/morally it is about the potential for violence or the loss of property.
Let me put it this way, if the law permitted you to shoot an accountant you caught cooking the books, would you?
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Both of those things have the potential to NOT be crimes.
Again, we are talking about clear criminal acts against property in one's immediate surroundings.
Someone on the roof of your building stealing copper from the air conditioner, to keep the example here, are clearly not going to turn out to be an "accident" or a "misunderstanding".
Of course judgement should play a role in this, no one is saying otherwise, but your examples do not address a real, immediate, clear criminal act in the presence of the property owner.
THAT is what we are talking about here, not killing some guy that stole your bicycle 20 years ago.
No, because that is not an immediate, personal space type of crime. It's simply not the same thing this thread is talking about.
If it were the case where somehow if I caught this accountant and it would result in an IMMEDIATE return of my property, and I believed that there was NO OTHER WAY to get said property back then yes, perhaps force would be appropriate. It's that immediacy, and the lack of alternatives that brings this into play. A stranger that I don't know, stealing my tools, is hampering my ability to make a living potentially and I might have no alternatives to getting my tools back. To me that's where the line comes in. If faced with no other means of keeping what is mine, I believe there is a moral allowance for the use of force in am immediate circumstance, and that's what the law says as well.
And I'm not sure why you keep wanting to separate the legal from the moral side of this. Most laws come into existence because of some morality behind them so they are forever connected in some way.
Wow... it lasted 7.5 pages before the race card and incinuations of racism was tossed out.
Go sell that crap to those that are buying it.
100% of My personal experiences with theft or attempts at theft have been with caucasians-- just like me. And THOSE are the images that I have drawn upon when formulating my perspectives.
-- John
Go sell that crap to those that are buying it.
100% of My personal experiences with theft or attempts at theft have been with caucasians-- just like me. And THOSE are the images that I have drawn upon when formulating my perspectives.
-- John
Joe Demko
Member
What is legal isn't always right and what is right isn't always legal.
Cosmoline
Member
So do many things. That's one of the problems with being your own judge and jury.
What about a guy who's riding off on my bicycle? Can I shoot him in the back and get my bike? In fact last week I SAW my bicycle being ridden by a nogoodnik. I yelled at him but he fled. Turns out my bicycle was safely at home, and he was riding another Hoss that had similar but slightly different stickers on it and the same color aftermarket rear rim. Humans cannot see all ends. A victim in the heat of the moment is the LEAST able to judge the situation. Is it a copper thief, or is it a repair man? You start launching bullets to find out and you may kill the wrong person. And if you do hit the true copper thief, does he deserve death? Is this the proper punishment? Do YOU have a right to decide punishment from the safety of your rooftop?
brerrabbit
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 401
Nice try Cosmoline.
Again you have failed to provide a moral stance that property is worth more than the life of a thief.
Instead you have provided what if scenarios that do not involve a thief, but lack of recognition of a family member or a situation that should involve smacking a kids rear end.
What is the core issue of this thread? If you do not understand it or cannot argue it, this is your issue,not mine.
Again you have failed to provide a moral stance that property is worth more than the life of a thief.
Instead you have provided what if scenarios that do not involve a thief, but lack of recognition of a family member or a situation that should involve smacking a kids rear end.
What is the core issue of this thread? If you do not understand it or cannot argue it, this is your issue,not mine.
3KillerBs
Member
@Cosmoline,
Since you're the most vocal and intense against the defense of property could you please respond to my concern that not being big enough and strong enough to defend my property with non-lethal force makes me a second-class citizen with my property rights being on a lower level than the property rights of a large, strong person?
Additionally, please address what I said about how close your views come to saying that those who can take things from someone who is incapable of resisting the theft have the right to do so if they want to.
Finally, a new thought that came to me this morning, ...
How does requiring people to rely solely on insurance to replace their losses because they are not permitted to defend against loss differ from a situation where the local mob is demanding protection money?
And, again, does that not make second-class citizens of those who are too poor to pay the monthly premium to insure their stuff for replacement value since they can neither defend their property against theft nor afford the insurance and thus have to meekly endure having larger, stronger people walk away with the fruits of their labor?
Since you're the most vocal and intense against the defense of property could you please respond to my concern that not being big enough and strong enough to defend my property with non-lethal force makes me a second-class citizen with my property rights being on a lower level than the property rights of a large, strong person?
Additionally, please address what I said about how close your views come to saying that those who can take things from someone who is incapable of resisting the theft have the right to do so if they want to.
Finally, a new thought that came to me this morning, ...
How does requiring people to rely solely on insurance to replace their losses because they are not permitted to defend against loss differ from a situation where the local mob is demanding protection money?
And, again, does that not make second-class citizens of those who are too poor to pay the monthly premium to insure their stuff for replacement value since they can neither defend their property against theft nor afford the insurance and thus have to meekly endure having larger, stronger people walk away with the fruits of their labor?
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
But on one's own property the benefit of the doubt is given to the person that has the legal right to be there. You couldn't possibly want it any other way.
2 brothers going into dad's house to fight over stuff is simply not the same thing, since it's likely neither has a legal right to be there MORE than the other.
rbernie
Contributing Member
How do I know this to be true? How does one intuit that the intruder poses ZERO risk if only they get to leave with the property that they've stolen?
The fact that they have intruded upon private property and done so with the intent to rob that property of anothers' possessions does not lend itself well to the argument that the intruder poses no risk to the safety of the property owner. It also completely bypasses the arguments presented that the loss of property CAN pose a threat to the safety or well-being of the property owner.
Does the law allow it?
Cosmoline
Member
So you'd go ahead and kill your brother or the neighbor because you cannot tell with 100% certainty that they've only come to take an item of property.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Well the problem with those arguing against the use of force to protect property is that they want to make it such that the choice to use force is FIRST on the list of alternatives rather than LAST.
Of course it's not the FIRST choice of action, and getting your money back from an accountant caught embezzling has MANY legal routes of pursuit before you would get to force, but that is being ignored for the sake of making the argument sound more "barbaric".
And you're doing it again. Do I KNOW it's my brother or neighbor? Do I believe that there is NO alternative method that would allow me to recover what is rightfully mine? Has this person ALREADY committed a crime to get to that point? Breaking and entering, trespassing, etc? You keep leaving those things out but those are the critical points in this.
Cosmoline
Member
Here's another question--can I be shot by a rentacop for walking out of Carrs Quality Center with unpaid merchandise? I am a physically huge and powerful person, and I'm always well armed. And in that case it really appears I'm stealing stuff even if in fact my mind has just wandered off as it tends to. Can he shoot me in the back because to confront me would put his life in some theoretical peril?
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
No because the property in question here could clearly be recovered by another method.
But there are certainly cases where armed security guards may avail themselves of force to protect property, again where there is NO ALTERNATIVE.
Again, I believe the Texas statute explains the moral piece of this as much as the legal:
Those 2 things are required to be present for the legal protections, and I believe the moral ones as well. The case you present does not meet these.
brerrabbit
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 401
Again nice try at avoidance of the core issue.
A rent a cops job is to confront. Did he provide warnings before shooting? Did he provide alternatives to being shot beforehand?
The issue is not threat, nor danger, but whether property is worth defending with lethal force.
Try to get onboard with the core issue of the thread instead of 'what if' scenarios.
A rent a cops job is to confront. Did he provide warnings before shooting? Did he provide alternatives to being shot beforehand?
The issue is not threat, nor danger, but whether property is worth defending with lethal force.
Try to get onboard with the core issue of the thread instead of 'what if' scenarios.
Cosmoline,
So far you are just tossing out scenerios until you get the one you want or the response you want.
As I-- and others on this thread have stated-- circumstances dictate much. But this "What if" game is pointless.
Forget about Accountants, Brothers, and Security Guards. All that serves is to detract from the core question.
-- John
So far you are just tossing out scenerios until you get the one you want or the response you want.
As I-- and others on this thread have stated-- circumstances dictate much. But this "What if" game is pointless.
Forget about Accountants, Brothers, and Security Guards. All that serves is to detract from the core question.
-- John
Cosmoline
Member
But Texas law doesn't have this "no alternative" requirement. There's an "OR" instead of an "AND":
So taking my hypo, if the security guard had in fact observed me dressed in shabby clothes, walking oddly, talking to myself and had confirmed that the item in my cart was likely a cased rifle. Then doesn't B come into play? From his reasonable point of view I cannot be confronted safely, so then he can just shoot me.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
If you think putting your life in danger is a reasonable alternative to shooting a bad guy then you clearly win this argument.
Most of us however think that's just silly.
In the case of your security guard he cannot KNOW that force would expose him to SUBSTANTIAL risk of death or serious bodily injury so there is little protection offered there.
As for your "AND", it's in there I just didn't quote it. In addition to the above, the following must exist BEFORE the use of deadly force can take place, and clearly your security guard cannot meet these criteria:
- Status
