Is property important enough to shoot for?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So taking his life is restitution for loss of a car?
Click to expand...

No it is my preventing him from taking a portion of my life violating my life liberty and pursuit of property and his suffering the consequences for HIS actions.

If this can be done without killing him, all well and good. If not, then it is his fault
 
No it is my preventing him from taking a portion of my life violating my life liberty and pursuit of property and his suffering the consequences for HIS actions.
Click to expand...

Hold on, when did we get to preventing anything? I used the term "restitution" because you did. Restitution means that you are being made good the value of what was taken from you. Make up your mind what you are talking about.
 
My answer is...it depends. If a man is stealing the '49 Harley I built from the ground up with little money and much sweat and a bit of blood, the Harley I courted my wife on, yes. I will stand in front of it and he will stop or be shot for threatening to run me over.
If a man is threatening my dog, he threatens me.

It's subjective and relative.
Some things aren't important to me and some are. It's up to the thief to figure out which is which and he better hope he guesses right.

Biker
 
Hold on, when did we get to preventing anything? I used the term "restitution" because you did. Restitution means that you are being made good the value of what was taken from you. Make up your mind what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Both.

In terms of justice, he should pay restitution by way of jail time or paying for the loss of property AND serve jail time as punishment for committing the crime itself (as to how much jail time depends on if he has paid restitution for property. Or better yet, he should be sold as a slave so to speak and his labor ought to be sold for use in community service and I should be paid his wages for his work. The old concept of chain gangs)

In terms of prevention, you have the right to shoot for the reasons already stated.
 
In terms of justice, he should pay restitution either by way of jail time or paying for the loss of property.

In terms of prevention, you have the right to shoot for the reasons already stated.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think you do. Either item X has a cash value of Y for purposes of restitution or it does not. If a car is worth, let's say, $3500, then you are reasonably entitled to $3500 restitution for that car plus something (maybe) in terms of compensation for your pain and suffering. That is what civil law is all about.
If I demolished your car through egregious reckless driving while sucking on a crackpipe and a forty, would it be okay for you to stick a gun in my car's window and bust a cap in my ass? You would be deprived of the car just as much as if it had been stolen from you.
 
14 years ago I got divorced and lost everything I had except my car and some clothes.
After child support I had a grand total of $502 per month to live on and lived in a $50 a week room that I shared with an uninvited rogue squirrel.

One night that POS car was stolen from my driveway
Half of those clothes I mentioned earlier were in the car.

I wasn't informed that the car was recovered until three days after, not being able to pay the impound fees, I lost the car.
Not having a car to get to work I lost my job, not having a job to earn the rent I lost my room.
I lived in the bushes behind my new job for three months, sneaking over the fence to take hose showers at night, in December.

If I could go back to that night I would hide in the car and empty a .45 into the guy
I would be hard pressed not to do it now if I found him
 
There is a BIG difference between shooting someone IN your home, and popping a tresspasser for looking lovingly at your BBQ grill.

And irregardless of 'how it should be' or 'how it was' there are laws.

Saying 'the law ain't right' is a crappy defense. If ignorance of the law is no excuse, civil disobedience of the law doesn't mean you'll suffer a lesser penalty in breaking it.


Back to the topic at hand... they used to hang horse thieves. Not because the horse was valued, but the inference was in stealing the horse you left its owner to die out in the wilderness somewhere. therefore some's life was in jeopardy.
 
If I demolished your car through egregious reckless driving while sucking on a crackpipe and a forty, would it be okay for you to stick a gun in my car's window and bust a cap in my ass? You would be deprived of the car just as much as if it had been stolen from you.
Click to expand...

Why would I do that? The car is demolished and stopped, he is banged up. Let him go to jail.

Prevention is stopping him from taking the car in the first place.

I'm losing track of where you are going with this
 
Where am I going? Where are you going? Is this about the value of property/time or is this about preventing crimes? Explain to me why it is okay to take a man's life to prevent loss (theft) of a $3500 car but it isn't okay to take a man's life over the actual loss (drunk driving) of the same vehicle? I am still left believing that you are mainly advocating killing a thief because it makes you mad that thieves steal.
 
Saying 'the law ain't right' is a crappy defense.
Click to expand...

As far as modern judges and DAs are concerned yes. BUT Not necessarily...but that's another topic for another thread. Here is a hint though: The concept of jury nullification.
 
I am still left believing that you are mainly advocating killing a thief because it makes you mad that thieves steal.
Click to expand...

Okay, that is where you are wrong.

I am not advocating killing thieves because I am mad at them. I am advocating killing thieves to prevent them from violating my property hence taking a portion of my life.
That has nothing to do with restitution. After the fact is when you start talking about restitution and punishment.
 
Restitution is if the crime succeeds and you lose

Prevention is preventing the crime from succeeding.

Both play a part in this thread. But preventing the crime has nothing to do with restitution. If I have prevented the crime, then there is no need for restitution. If the crime succeeds and the thug is captured, then killing him is not be needed because the crime has already took place and succeeded. That is the time for discussing restitution
 
The Hope Diamond -- Yes.

A '94 Ford Taurus -- No.

Everything is relative. Situational awareness is the key.
 
Yeah, no kidding. Now which are we discusssing and which are you advocating here? You also haven't answered this question:
Explain to me why it is okay to take a man's life to prevent loss (theft) of a $3500 car but it isn't okay to take a man's life over the actual loss (drunk driving) of the same vehicle?
Click to expand...
 
Explain to me why it is okay to take a man's life to prevent loss (theft) of a $3500 car
Click to expand...

because that is an immediate attempt against a portion of your life that you have the means to stop which otherwise will likely not be recovered.

And on the side, fear of being killed deters criminals from being so bold.

but it isn't okay to take a man's life over the actual loss (drunk driving) of the same vehicle?
Click to expand...

because that is after the fact. killing him doesn't prevent the act because the act has already been committed. That is the time for talking about restitution.

that is my position on both of these issues. Both can be discussed here. But primarily the question originally was is it okay to shoot to protect property (prevention)
 
because that is an immediate attempt against a portion of your life that you have the means to stop which otherwise will likely not be recovered.
Click to expand...

I have the means to stop many things, Doug. Does my having the means indicate a necessity of using them? It's Halloween and, last night, I chased some kids off who were soaping the windows of my (new, less than 1500 miles) car. It took me some time to clean the soap off the window, Doug. I could have killed them. I had the means. It would have prevented them from further misdeeds. Should I have shot them, Doug?
 
Maybe not, but when I tell him/her to stop and when he/she attacks me - then it's definitely ok.
 
There have been some good points made here. I liked the comment about the breaking of social contract.... but I also know deep down that you can't replace a life and you can replace most property. I'm talking just a common, weaponless thief caught in the act (and not a 14 year old nabbing a candy bar, either :p ).... not an armed robbery, which has already been established as a horse of a very different color.


So what would I do, if I caught said weaponless thief in my home with deadly force on me like that? After thinking about it awhile - I probably wouldn't shoot him.... but I might make him give me his wallet and take off his pants. Then I'd call the cops. If he then decided to just run, I wouldn't stop him... because that would probably mean shooting him, which I never really intended to do unless he (foolishly) decided to attack for some reason. But the weaponless thief doesn't know this. Besides, now all I have to tell the cops is "here's his wallet; look for the guy with no pants on". That would be a real hoot, I think.
 
I have the means to stop many things, Doug. Does my having the means indicate a necessity of using them? It's Halloween and, last night, I chased some kids off who were soaping the windows of my (new, less than 1500 miles) car. It took me some time to clean the soap off the window, Doug. I could have killed them. I had the means. It would have prevented them from further misdeeds. Should I have shot them, Doug?
Click to expand...

Of course not......*yawn* Look, I'm getting tired. We've been going back and forth on this for about 2 pages now. I'm through talking about it for tonight. Let's take some distance and get some rest. Maybe we can pick this up tomorrow. In the meantime if you want, go back and reread my posts and especially my original post for a better understanding of where I am coming from.
For tonight, I am out.

Night all.
 
Only if they enter my house.

If someone enters my house it could be over property or to harm me, my wife, or the dogs, or all of us. You enter my house I am not asking why. You are going too see a lead hailstorm, no questions asked. They may have just started out looking for a tv, then maybe raping the wifes sounds like a good idea since they are there anyway. Situations like that can escalate really quickly. I am an ex-detective. I have seen too much shtf. If a perp enters the house its over for them! If there are multiple intruders, such as these house invasions, they better be good shots, because I sure as hell am. Entering someones dwelling is always with bad intentions. If they steal outside your home, on your property there is no immediate threat to you or those in your home. I do not believe this mandates lethal force. I would not kill over property outside the home even morally. The person has to pose a threat. Just being in your home involves breaking and entering-that is a threat in itself and must be eliminated.

The Best to all!
 
That's another good point, once somebody is in your house all bets are off. Everyone knows this as immutable fact. I would be doing somebody a grand service just taking their pants and letting them live, the way I see it.

I've never been in the situation, so I can't say exactly what I'd do. The pants scenario is 1000% ideal circumstances, which of course is not going to happen. Adrenaline is flowing, and I might end up shooting. Who knows? It's not like you get 3 time-outs or anything. But I still feel that killing a man you know to be defenseless over property is questionable (at best), and I also know the aftermath will be issue-laden to say the least in a number of ways.
 
Of course not. Deadly force is only to be used against the threat of deadly force. Anyone with a sound moral and ethical base knows that. Most of you are completely on the wrong side of this argument.
 
Could be your morals and ethics aren't shared by me. That's not my problem and it's only yours if you make it one.

Biker
 
Depends. If someone stole my food and water that I had to have to survive I would kill them to stop the theft. If someone was stealing my firewood that I needed to survive the freezing night I would kill them. It somtimes comes down to survival. Now here in the USA at this particular time NO. But things could change. Think War, Disease, Nuclear War etc. Think living in Africa and having your food stolen that you knew you or your kids would die without. Yes I would kill the theif. Kinda like the idea of hanging a horse theif.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
What about liberty and property?
Replies
10
Views
624
Owen Sparks
O
Blacksmoke
  • Locked
A Matter of Values
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
146
Views
4K
The Tourist
T
T
  • Locked
BS Gun Stories
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
princewally
P
L
  • Locked
Lethal force to defend property?
2 3
Replies
60
Views
3K
JagerRanger
J
N
  • Locked
Legally protecting your property
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
vector40
V
Back
Top