Is property important enough to shoot for?

[Gewehr98]

So, for all the Keyboard Kommandos here...

Just what is the dollar value of a human life, hmm?

Because that's the way this thread has distilled. A '49 Harley is obviously worth more than a human life. My own '78 Shovelhead, however, is covered by insurance. They do that, you know, Lloyds of London even covers the more spendy items. Even an idiot like me knows that.

Frankly, this thread disgusts me. Since Doug didn't get the atta-boy he was looking for on the other thread, he started a new one, looking for somebody who agreed we should go back to the Wild West days of hanging cattle rustlers and just plain bloodthirsty living, when life was cheap. Better yet, we have interesting individuals here who proclaim that since the Castle Doctrine laws have gone into effect, they have carte blanche to execute whomever they find in their homes, and are entirely justified regardless of the threat presented (or not presented) by the intruder. Hint - that's not what Castle Doctrine means, and the shooter will have a big surprise waiting for them in front of the judge if they act on that supposition. Having had a house guest appear in my own home one night who was simply lost, but severely mentally handicapped, perhaps I should've done society a favor and ended his life?

Yes, we certainly are a civilized, advanced society. Pogo was right. We have met the enemy, and he is indeed us.

 

[Biker]

Gewehr98...

Some lives aren't worth a pound of piss and others are priceless.
I'm not the enemy, maybe you view *yourself that way*, but I'm not the enemy.
You take your own road, I'll take mine.

Biker

 

[CannonFodder]

Would I shoot someone for taking my property? Probably not...

But considering that all of my property is in my apartment behind two locked doors... if I'm catching you stealing my property, then you've invaded my home. And, if you've invaded my home, I may just be pointing a firearm in your direction.

Just sayin'

 

[Gewehr98]

Indeed, Biker, indeed.

You take your own road, I'll take mine.

I have. It's called The High Road. I just wish more around these parts would do the same.

 

[Sir Aardvark]

Shooting someone for stealing your property seems a bit silly to me.

Of course, you might want to shoot someone who stole from you - but come on now... I think life is worth a bit more than that.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot in the below scenario and say that it is OK to shoot someone over property theft:

You are lying on the floor of the local 7-11 bleeding to death after being shot in the gut 5 times by the store clerk because he thought you stole a pair of $5.00 sunglasses.

The clerk would have had every right to shoot you because any reasonable person in the same situation would have believed you stole those sunglasses too.

How would you feel about things now?

 

[CliffH]

They made their decision to be anti-social, so remove them from society. And I personally don't want to pay for their long-term storage. Maybe after a few harsh examples are made, others might think twice about whether or not they can live within societies rules/customs.

I don't see how a dollar value can be put on this decision. I've got med's that, due to my insurance, don't cost an arm & a leg (<$50), but I'd be hurtin' without them.

 

[Owen]

You know why I wouldn't shoot somebody leaving the scene with my property?

I don't want to get in a gunfight. My TV isn't worth me getting my butt shot off. I know that my shooting skill is probably light years ahead of any thug stealing for a living, and any sane gambler would bet on me over the other guy, but all the other guy has to do is get lucky once.

I won't instigate a deadly confrontation because I can't guarantee that I'll win, and living in the bushes behind my job is better than not living at all.

 

[Dr.Rob]

This thread has strayed from the High Road several times.

I'm closing it for now.

 

[hso]

We can joust with examples of rape, kidnapping and finding someone in your home with your family. Forget those, they're red herrings to the question because they are situations where the threat of grave bodily harm or death is real. The argument here is, Is it justifiable to kill another person over property.

You use deadly force out of fear to protect others or yourself from the immediate threat to life or from grave bodily harm, not out of anger.

Anything else is disgusting.

I've had my property stolen, both from my apartment and from my car. I was mad as hell each time. I didn't have 2 dimes to rub together then either and it meant that I couldn't replace those items that were stolen for a long time. But nothing that was stolen was needed to prevent my death or prevent grave bodily harm to me. No critical meds, no essential medical device. Nothing I couldn't, literally, live (unhappily) without and could eventually replace.

If you are in fear because another person is a direct threat to life or represents a threat of grave bodily harm then you have a moral duty to defend yourself, or whoever is threatened, up to and including using lethal force to stop that threat. Can the theft of property warrant that same level of fear? Only if that property is essential to your life. Not your happiness, not your bank account. You will die or suffer grave bodily harm without it. Then and only then is taking another human life valid as part of our social contract. All else is murder.

I was furious with the punk who broke into my apartment and took my money and stereo. I was afraid of the guy that lunged out from between 2 parked cars and tried to stab me. I would have not been justified in killing the thief regardless of how badly I wanted to. He took nothing essential to my actual survival. It would have been justifiable had I killed the guy who tried to stab me. He used deadly force and my use of it to protect myself would have been justifiable.

We talk about the social contract and the norm of society being that killing a thief is right and acceptable. Waring canibal tribes have kidnapping, murder and the eating of human flesh as the norm and within the "terms" of their social contract. Sectarian violence, revenge, kidnapping and murder are within the norms for a segment of society in Iraq, much of Africa and (formerly) the hills and hollars of Southern Appalachia and are within the terms of their social contract. Acceptable behavior? No.

Consider that it is the violent car jacker's belief that the use of deadly force to take your property is justifiable. It is the home invader's belief that the use of deadly force to take your property is justifiable. It is the belief of the mugger that stabs you and pulls your wallet from your bloody trousers that the use of deadly force is justifiable. Why? Because they believe that property is more valuable than human life. Because they believe that property is more valuable than their own soul. Some of you seem to as well.

 

[Correia]

We've discussed this, and have decided to reopen this thread and continue this thread.

First poster that says something that makes all gunowners look really loathesome and stupid gets banned.

 

[Jim Watson]

Is property important enough to shoot for?

Long ago, Playboy had an article on the subject. They tried to be evenhanded and so came up with two possible conclusions:

Bleeding Heart - "No, property is replaceable, not worth anybody's life."

Hardliner - "Well, that is for the S.O.B. to decide BEFORE he tries to steal my stuff."

 

['Card]

No, I would not kill someone to protect my property. I would however, try to prevent them from stealing my property, and if that escalated to the point where I felt my life was in danger, then I'd feel perfectly justified in killing them.

This conversation has involved a lot of discussion about the intruder's intentions, but I just don't think that's relevant. To me, it's a matter of place. To put it simply, if an intruder is my yard, then he has the capability of stealing my property, but that's about it. I will attempt to stop them, but I would not automatically kill them. If, on the other hand, the intruder has entered my home, then he has the capability of harming me or those I wish to protect, and therefore he will die. See what I'm getting at? You don't base your decisions on your enemy's intentions. You have to decide based on his capabilities, and respond appropriately.

 

[Biker]

Exactly 'Card. If a man tries to steal my motorcycle, I'll stand in front of it and force him to stop. If he tries to run me over I will defend myself. *It's his choice*!
OTOH, if I see a guy run out of my house with a pack of baloney in one hand and holding a loaf of bread in the other, he's gonna slide.
It's all relative...

Biker

 

[buzz_knox]

Just what is the dollar value of a human life, hmm?

I know you meant it to be rhetorical, but you'd be surprised at the level of research that goes into that question. It's determined every day of the week in corporate offices and court rooms.

It's also a very bad basis for judging actions. There are people whose lives are worth less than the cost of some property, or even some peace of mind. They are objectively of minimal value, and subjectively worthless. But their value isn't what keeps them alive. The value that decent people place on not taking life without true justification is why they are alive. Until they step across the line and become a threat of death or grave bodily harm, my value in being able to look myself in the mirror and say "I didn't kill that thief" is sufficent for them.

 

[ZeSpectre]

You didn't work 24 hours a day for 5 years to pay for the car, though. Would it be reasonable to speculate that your net pay for 60 hours a month would cover the car payment? That comes to 3,600 hours. How is taking a thief's life (possibly hundreds of thousands of hours) be appropriate to the harm inflicted to you?

I'm playing "devil's advocate" here for a minute because I'm not the type to shoot over property.

It seems to me that along with all the other considerations, respect for another human being is part of the "social contract" we all live by. When someone (a thief, mugger, etc) commits their crime they are moving outside the usual "social contract" and it's entirely possible to then say, logically, well the other respect and privliges they had no longer apply as they've gone rogue. We all know what happens when a dog does that and is branded "rogue".

 

[Correia]

I think a part of the problem with this problem is this, and we saw it in that other locked thread also.

Two sides talk past each other.

We all agree on some fundamental things. Obviously anything that is a threat to you, or anything that you would think of as a threat gets dealt with.

So if somebody trys to steal your bike, and you try to stop them, and they continue to steal, and you feel threatened, and defend yourself, good to go. I don't think anybody here would advocate anything other than defense in this situation.

Some of you have brought up rape, assault, car jacking, B&E while you're home, etc. All Strawmen. These things are all things that a reasonable person would consider a threat of grevious bodily harm.

Okay, moving on then.

The second problem is one of reality. Sure, I've got a long list of people I would like to see shot. (just kidding, I'm really a nice guy) Problem is, in reality that ain't going to happen with out massive legal repurcusions. In this particular thread, the originator asked us to ignore reality (the current laws and the civil liability aspects of our legal system) and just talk about the morals. So let's disregard the reality problem.

So the question is, should you exercise lethal force on somebody who is stealing from you? You are not in danger. No reasonable man would say you were in direct danger. Nobody else was in danger.

You walk out of your house. Somebody is in your car, and is driving away. Or is on your bike, and driving away.

Should you shoot them or not? (damn, I'm biting my tongue now because of that pesky reality problem, and I want to rattle off fifty tactical and legal reasons you shouldn't, but I'm going to play along with the thread starter).

When I teach a CCW class, I always draw a triangle on the board. The three points are labeled LEGAL (stuff that keeps you out of jail), TACTICAL (stuff that keeps you alive), and MORAL (stuff that lets you sleep at night). So we're going to pretend that Legal and Tactical have left the building.

Moral is up to you.

Yep. These are the tough questions. And from what I've seen in my students, it is the one that bites you in the butt. It is the one that causes you to do something tactically stupid that gets you killed because you wanted to be a hero. Or its the one that gets you thrown in prison because you broke a law to do the "right thing".

But they ain't here. Just Moral.

So you need to decide, morally, are you going to kill somebody over that piece of property?

It is mental gymnastics at its best. You have to ignore 2/3 of the equation and really contort yourself with math about the number of hours you worked, and things like that to justify yourself.

Would it feel good to shoot them? Probably. Does that make it right?

Damn ethics. That's up to you to decide.

I love how people selectively use the Bible to justify their personal morals in situations like this. For some reason I can't see Jesus killing somebody for stealing his car. Good old Old Testement. Usually ignored until it is convenient.

 

[Marshall]

Short answer, unless your life is in danger, no, you don't shoot and kill people for stealing.

There's insurance what they steal and you have to assume there is a certain amount of risk that comes with owning and loosing material items, whether it be to theft, fire, flood, etc. That's life, sometimes it's a b*tch.

 

[Optical Serenity]

No I wouldn't shoot someone for stealing property...unless it somehow puts me or another life in danger.

 

[TexasRifleman]

No I wouldn't shoot someone for stealing property...unless it somehow puts me or another life in danger.

Morally (and legally too though we'll leave that out for now) that's why Texas has the "shoot for property" law.

It goes back to transportation when it was more difficult (and still can be since Texas has no public pass transit really) to get around. Stealing a man's horse or plow or tools might be deadly since he could not work or grow food to feed his family.

If I'm a mechanic barely getting by and someone is stealing my tools that I could not afford to insure, will my family go hungry?

It's possible, and if you happen to be the unfortunate soul in that position then morally I think you're OK to shoot.

Someone stealing your $800 Trek offroad bike you left behind your Hummer?
Let them have it.

 

[GEM]

Absolutism in this situation is a hidden fault.

You see someone stealing your car - shoot him! Morally just.

You go to a picnic and a child you don't know runs over and steals your fried chicken - shoot him? No, he or she is child.

You go to a picnic and a grownup man steals your fried chicken - shoot him?

The problem with the folks who want to discuss this in terms of half baked and ill understood philosophy and religion is that they, IMHO, ignore the underlying psychological variables - we have folks who are itching for a fight. Is it posturing or whatever - that clouds the idea that this is an abstract moral debate. I sincerely doubt the abstractness of some posters. They are selectively looking for their justification as they itch to shoot.

The point that Jesus would not kill someone for fried chicken or a car is well taken - it kind of washes away all the rhetoric and selective biblical phrases.

 

[Bubbles]

The problem with this question is that it doesn't take the type of property being stolen into account. If someone took my tv, clothes, truck, tools, computer, jewelry, food, etc. then I wouldn't shoot. They're easily replaced and the insurance company can deal with it. If the stuff isn't covered by insurance, well, stuff happens in life and sometimes you just have to put on your big girl panties and deal with it.

OTOH, stealing my firearms (especially the NFA stuff), ammunition, and my pets and/or livestock is an entirely different matter. 'Nuff said.

 

[Cousin Mike]

I had a nice older car once that I decided to spruce up and put a little time into. Custom speaker set/box, crazy CD player, nice paint job, rims, all the good stuff.

I worked in a crappy 24-hour retail store and made about $9 an hour at the time. For me to have to cover some jerks shift and end up working a 70 hour week was not uncommon. So I think it's fair to say that a nice amount of my hours at work went into this car at the time.

So, to make a long story short, one morning I wake up and go outside, and I notice my back seat is all torn to hell, from where some #%@$#&*! tried to get into my trunk through the backseat.. well, my car was not capable of this, so they just decided to tear the damn seat off of the frame. I look in the front seat. My CD player was gone, wires hanging out of everything. They took my CD's too. I look at the trunk, and there's a hole where the lock used to be. After about 20 minutes trying to get in, and praying that they hadn't gotten my speaker system, I got in the trunk.

They got my speakers too...

:banghead:

I was mad as all hell... Don't think I've ever been angry in that way before or since. Sure, I'm not a perfect person, but I've NEVER stolen anything from anyone, EVER! Why would someone do this to me? I worked so hard for it, so someone to just come along and tear my up - they didn't even have the decency to just steal the car, they had to tear my back seat out and leave it there shredded all to hell for me to find the next morning...

Would I have shot that person, had I caught them in the act? Nope... not if they didn't pose a threat. Sure, I would have tried to stop them. I might have beat the living hell out of 'em, maybe. And of course, had the situation escalated to me fearing for my life, I would have stopped the threat.

But even at the time, I knew ANGER was what motivated me to want to kill the bastard that stole my stuff and vandalized my car - and not any sense of reason. You know, I never did get any of that stuff back, either. And I had to sell the car, eventually... it made me sick to look at while I did still have it.

I think most of us here have had something stolen from them. Some of you are lucky enough not to have gone through anything like this, but the idea that certain people feel comfortable stealing your things that you worked hard for makes you sick and angers you very much. But I think we should be careful about what we post, and why we post it.

Saying we should go back to the "good ol' days," when they hung horse thieves... Well, back then they also hung a lot of people who didn't deserve a hangin' - turns out maybe the good ol' days weren't so good after all for some people.

I grew up in catholic school, so the selective Bible quotes are especially digging into my skin. There isn't anything in history that's been misunderstood more than religion. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, none are immune to the BS, especially to those who can't see the parables, understand the ancient writing style/speech of the day, or think you're supposed to take EVERYTHING literally.

That said, I'm a firm believer in "an eye for an eye," - explain to me how that can be applied to killing a man over a car? An i-pod? A $6000 pair of earrings? A $25,000 watch? How about a $100,000 car? How is that an eye for an eye? By killing that man, you're permanently ending every chance he ever had to make amends. You take away any chance for him to return your property, or apologize. You take him away from his family - who did nothing to you and had nothing to do with his actions - yet I've heard people's families attacked in these threads as well. You take away his chance to become a decent member of society.

When you kill a man, you take away everything he has, and ever will have. In todays world, if you can afford to have a $25,000 watch, or a $100,000 car - then you DEFINITELY should have the insurance to get a new one if it's stolen. If you're not that wealthy, then life may be harder for you for quite some time... but you still get to wake up every day, spend time with your family, and live your life. No matter how much you might miss whatever was taken from you, you are still ALIVE. You still have your family. You still have your friends. You still have your memories. You still have everything that makes you who you are.

When you kill someone, you take all of that away from them.

Killing someone is an ugly thing. It's something I hope I never have to do. I could never live with myself if I killed someone out of anger, or to prove a point to society, or for any other reason other than to protect myself or another person from serious harm. And maybe if some of you REALLY stop the posturing, and think about what you are saying, you'll understand why that passage reads, "an eye for an eye."

Not "an eye for his life."

 

[crawfish]

NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[pythonguy]

Isn't great how being allowed to have a gun can give you the ability of who lives or dies? Isn't it nice to spend a few quality hours debating on a gun board if it is OK or not to SHOOT someone if they are stealing? Wow the power of god you have now. Me, I just use my guns to target shoot and have fun. Not that any of you would ever use your guns for real, just like to be computer "dirty Harry's", go on and get off on it. I play shooting video games myself, that way I can sleep at night a free man rather then spend 10 or so years in jail being a moralist and correcting all the wrongs in the world with my shiny gun. Whats the tough guys saying? Better judged by 12 then carried by six, or is it, serve 12 and be gang raped by 6? Oh well, your choice.

 

[buzz_knox]

Isn't great how being allowed to have a gun can give you the ability of who lives or dies? Isn't it nice to spend a few quality hours debating on a gun board if it is OK or not to SHOOT someone if they are stealing? Wow the power of god you have now.

A firearm provides the same ability any tool with the capability of causing injury.

Not that any of you would ever use your guns for real, just like to be computer "dirty Harry's", go on and get off on it.

You were doing okay until that point. Then, you decided to slam everyone . . . including those who have actually used their weapons to save their lives and the lives of others.