Is property important enough to shoot for?

[SoCalShooter]

Depends

I would say it would depend on the property if a burgler has a weapon and my property in his hand he is getting shot.

P.S especially if he is stealing my guns, I would kill a person stealing my weapons because I do not want those to hit the streets without me.

 

[pythonguy]

Buzz_Knox, I guess my real point is those that use their weapons to protect lives don't post in a gun forum if its OK to shoot someone for stealing, I just did it with sarcasm. Its a no brainer to protect ones self and family from grave harm with their guns, when not shooting for fun. Just playing word games with when its OK to shoot another human being under the guise of some "fun forum chatter" is hurtful to the future of our RKBA. Look how eroded it is already, and with these school shootings and other random shooting like one we just had here on Long Island, this does nothing to bolster a good image for shooters. We are hurting ourselves badly, in the name of some harmless conversation. Great quotes on this thread for the anti-gun community.

 

[High Planes Drifter]

If inside the house trying to take my property, you're goin' down. No chances taken. I am not going to wait to see if you just want the color tv. If I have a shot, Im taking it. Outside the house, if I catch someone taking my property, I'll TRY to catch and subdue them till law enforcement comes. In other words, I wouldnt shoot a kid stealling an ice chest off of my back porch, but I would try to sack him and hold him for the cops. I've had too many things stolen from me to just sit there if I knew it was happening and not intervene. I guess thats made me a bit more emotional about it than most.

 

[Joe7cri]

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

You better believe that anyone who enters my house illegally will be stopped permanently. Luckily I had this right even before the Castle Doctrine was enacted, imagine that, NY actually was a step ahead on this one.

 

[Soybomb]

Certainly not for me but if someone is in a tigher financial situation and someone is trying to steal their livelyhood like their car with liability insurance or their work tools that that let them feed their family I wouldn't hold it against the person for it being important enough for them to shoot over.

 

[brerrabbit]

Just on an off note, I live in Oklahoma. Relatively heavily armed state. Big Meth problem here also. Lots of thieves. I do not believe the thieves in my AO are any better skilled than in any other AO. I have yet to see any mention in the paper of anyone being prosecuted for shooting a thief caught in the act and thieves do get shot often enough that there should be a mention of it. I am pretty sure many of the prosecutors do not believe they could get a conviction of someone shooting a thief. Considering that DA is an elected position here, it would be politically unwise for them to try.

That being said, as many of the others have noted. The question really should not be are we willing to shoot someone for stealing property, it should be if the thief thinks the property is worth getting shot over.

I keep livestock and equipment. I would shoot to keep my livestock and large equipment from being stolen or pretty much anything I own, but after the livestock and equipment it becomes a judgment call. If he stops, I will not shoot him, but will call the local deputy to come get him. I am not blood thirsty but I have some extreme beliefs concerning property rights.

The thief did not enter into a social contract with me stating that I would not shoot him over property. If I shoot him, as someone has already said, I will take away everything he is and ever will be over just a piece of property. Morally and ethically wrong, I agree, it was not his right to put me into the position of making that call concerning his life.

There are a lot of thieves out there and more every day. I can totally see deadly force laws being extended to protecting property in the near future.

 

[.357 magnum]

Must make a clarifying statement.

No I would never shoot anyone over property! [I have lost two cars to thieves that is what I have insurnace for] Someone stealing from you is not a reason to use lethal force. For anyone to agree that you should be able to kill someone for taking property you would be consenting to going back to a lawless society. [not to mention I think it is gravely immoral] We have a great country here. It is a christian society with laws that for the most part work. If I kill someone over property then I am worse than any criminal out there. As I stated in an earlier post on this thread it is totally different if they enter your dwelling while you are there. Then you need to use lethal force to ensure your safety and the saftey of those you are entrusted to protect [wife, children, siblings, grandma etc] There was an incident in my city last week home invasion and they shot a woman in the house she lived thank God but it a good example of how lethal force is needed to put down an intruder in your home. Unless some stealing property is a threat to your safety or someone elses than lethal force is wrong morally and ethically.

The best to all -really this is a good thread I am glad it was re-opened very important issue for gun owners- when NOT to use leahtal force. My compliments to the moderators they do a wonderful job.

 

[Soybomb]

No I would never shoot anyone over property! [I have lost two cars to thieves that is what I have insurnace for] Someone stealing from you is not a reason to use lethal force. For anyone to agree that you should be able to kill someone for taking property you would be consenting to going back to a lawless society. [not to mention I think it is gravely immoral] We have a great country here. It is a christian society with laws that for the most part work. If I kill someone over property then I am worse than any criminal out there. As I stated in an earlier post on this thread it is totally different if they enter your dwelling while you are there. Then you need to use lethal force to ensure your safety and the saftey of those you are entrusted to protect [wife, children, siblings, grandma etc] There was an incident in my city last week home invasion and they shot a woman in the house she lived thank God but it a good example of how lethal force is needed to put down an intruder in your home. Unless some stealing property is a threat to your safety or someone elses than lethal force is wrong morally and ethically.

So let me pose a question to you. Lets say I'm a laborer working hard days to feed my family and keep a roof over their head. I don't have the extra $50 a month for full coverage auto insurance, just liability only. My work tools are also in the back of my truck. If a meth head is stealing my truck and I will lose not only my transportation but also the tools I need to do my job how would I be worse than a criminal for shooting? To me this seems to be a natural extension of protecting yourself and your family.

 

[hso]

Let's stay focused on the original ethical proposition because it's very easy to read too much into it.

It was proposed that

I say that property is important, it is ethical and right to shoot to protect it and keep it from being stolen.

or to put it into a queston, Is it justifiable to kill someone over property?

Remember that we're talking about property that is not essential to sustain your life or stave off grave bodily harm and we're not talking about clear situations that the person can be perceived as a threat. Not have you discovered the thief in your home with your family. Not that they're making off with your last vial of your child's insuline or taking the last gallon of water in the Mohave. The property isn't essential to sustain life or essential to prevent grave bodily harm. Let's not try to justify the shooting by creating conditions that would make it essential to protect life.

Just, Is it justifiable to kill someone over theft of property?

 

[Joe Demko]

Here's a thought: Set a dollar value on your own life.

 

['Card]

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?

Nope. If there's no possible threat to me or to those I protect, I don't shoot.
I don't say that from a religious standpoint, since I'm not a believer.
I don't say that for fear of the legal consequences, either. If I felt it was the right thing to do, I'd do it and damn the law.
I also don't say that out of concern for the thief's well-being. If he sold my car, used the money to buy drugs and then overdosed, I'd say "Good riddance".

I say that because I have to look at myself in the mirror when I shave every morning.

(Good job of clarifying the issue, though - shame that most of the participants in this discussion don't seem to have paid it much attention)

 

[jlrhiner]

Amazed

People continually amaze me. Most of the posters go out of there way to justify these criminals. The defender of their property didn't make the choice, the criminal did. Why should their actions be condoned because they didn't steal enough to be a "real" nuissance? "But what about the 14 yo that takes your newspaper?" He should have his behind blistered and learn that there are consequences for his actions. No wonder were becoming a pathetic society. :banghead:

 

[Correia]

You can stand all amazed all you want, jlrhiner, but most of us here don't delight in killing people unless we have to.

So even in the original post's fantasy world that disregards law, logic, and tactical considerations, most of us don't want to look another human being in the eyes and take their life over something like a car.

We aren't talking about teaching somebody a lesson, or blistering somebody's behind. We're talking about putting the front sight on them, and dropping the hammer. We're talking about driving a hollow point through their aeorta and out their back. We're talking about blowing somebody's brains out of their skull and all over the back window of your car.

Some of us teach this stuff for a living. So for us, it isn't some theoretical happy dance on the internet where we can talk tough and babble about moral responsibility for society. It is real. And it is right now.

That's why I absolutely hate just playing in the fantasy world that disregards law and tactics.

But I do take heart that even in the fantasy world, most of the posters on THR don't want to kill anybody they don't have to.

 

[XavierBreath]

I'll toss in my two cents on this one.

The real question should be: Is property important enough to kill for?

As a person who still questions his past actions at times, and who has had to make the choice to take a life, I can offer this perspective. Other than my wife, my children, and my dog, there is nothing, not one thing that I own, that I would not gladly give in exchange, to never have to wonder how I could have prevented myself from having to take a life.

Many here have stated that stealing something is taking a part of their lives. My life, and the lives of those I love have nothing to do with property. Our lives are our hopes, our dreams, our actions, our accomplishments. Our lives are not a depreciating hunk of metal and plastic in our driveway. A piece of a person's life is taken when they are raped, when they are paralyzed, when they are killed. No piece of life is missing when a possession is taken, unless you equate your life with possessions.

The question I ask myself is: Am I willing to die over this? If I am unwilling to die for my car, then I am unwilling to kill for it. When you are willing to kill, you should be willing to die for the same cause, and give your loved ones all the associated grief for that cause. You may very well die for that cause, either the same day, or ten years later on death row.

But...........Do not enter my home or assault my person trying to take anything I own. I do not know your intentions, I will not trust the words of a thief, and I will protect my life and the lives of my loved ones.

 

[BullfrogKen]

hso said: Let's stay focused on the original ethical proposition because it's very easy to read too much into it. . . Just, Is it justifiable to kill someone over theft of property?

Doug 38PR, that bible reference you mentioned goes against your justification over killing someone over property. It acknowledges the reality that if someone enters your home at night, there is an expectation that someone will be home, there exists the very real possibily of confrontation and violence, and that his intentions go beyond mere theft. Otherwise, he would have waited until daylight when the homeowner was away working to make the burglery.

No, morally it is not right to kill someone over property.


Recall the Founders of our nation debated going to war and struggled with these same moral issues. Still, many were reluctant to do it until the situation became untenable. As long as we have the ability to seek recourse in a functioning and incorrupt court system, we are compelled to use it.


Moral men do not allow the behavior of others to dictate our actions, and our responses. It doesn't matter to me how worthless we deem another man is, we place value of human life, PERIOD. Bemoaning the constraints that prohibit us from killing another human being under any circumstance other than immediate necessity sickens me. Of all people, those who walk about society armed should possess the moral code that recognizes the value of life. By that decision, we state to our communities we do have that moral code within us, and we can be entrusted not to take another life for anything less than preventing serious bodily harm or death to another.


Perhaps we can reach a middle ground with the more bloodthirsty of you and resort to cutting off his hands?

 

[Low-Sci]

Yes, people should learn that there are consequences for their actions.

However, 1) they won't learn that if they're dead, 2) they shouldn't be taught at gunpoint, and 3) its not my job to teach street scum a damn thing.

My guns are not educational or disciplinary tools. They are for defense, and that's it. Point-shooting out your back door at someone making off with your property while yelling "I'll teach you a thing or two" is not acceptable, its pathetic.

Someone posed the possible scenario where a thief is stealing everything you need to provide the necessities of life. Without what the thief is taking, you'll go broke and won't be able to provide for your family.

Lets remember that your trial fees for shooting that person could also very easily do this to you if you're in a fragile situation like the above. So you'll probably be no better off for killing that thief.

You will go to court over that shoot, and it will cost you dearly. Contrast that with what the thief can do. You have the license number and a description of your car with your livelihood in it. You might even have a description of the thief. Because you have that, you've got a much better shot of getting most of your stuff back than your odds of keeping your money after a court case.

But back to abandoning reality.

Morally, ethically, its still wrong. You aren't killing this person because you need to, you're killing this person because you want to. I understand the emotions behind it; I've been stolen from and I know how badly it can enrage a person. Even so, if we want to keep being called "the good guys" we have to play by the rules.

An example: Our soldiers in Iraq against the insurgents. The insurgents have no rules of engagement, no targets they aren't allowed to fire on, nobody they can't kill to also kill an American. Anyone is fair game by any means to them. Our soldiers can't do that. We have rules, nontargets, and we do what we can to avoid killing noncombatants. That's what makes us better than them. We stop obeying our own rules, and the line between how we are percieved and how they are percieved will quickly fade.

If we break our own rules simply because the other side has none, it shows us a weakness in ourselves that must be overcome, lest we slip into becoming what we work against.

 

[Gewehr98]

XavierBreath, if you don't mind...

I'd like to change one word in your question, "Is property important enough to kill for?"

I'd state it so:

Is property important enough to murder for?

There it is, plain and simple.


Evidently, to those here who hide behind faceless internet personas waiting for the second coming of Judge Roy Bean, property is indeed important enough to murder for. That's truly sad, but it's a good thing we're forewarned of their true character. I just hope when the day comes and they actually follow their own advice that they're not too surprised to learn of the judge and jury's penalty phase.

Personally, nothing I own is worth murdering somebody over. I have insurance, and can always get another car, truck, or TV. Even my guns have a separate insurance policy, they're just wood and steel, and won't go on a crime or killing spree by themselves any more than the vehicle that was stolen won't run over a pedestrian.

As for the Castle Doctrine being a license to murder, read the fine print. You drop somebody standing in your living room who doesn't present a reasonable threat, and you won't be issued a Get Out of Jail Free ticket by the judge. The Castle Doctrine laws state that an individual has no obligation or duty to retreat from a threat when in their homes/domiciles. Nor does it say one should pull the body back across the front door sill into the house afterwards. (Another sage bit of internet legal advice I've seen posted on this forum and elsewhere)

 

[Jim Watson]

My Dad pointed out to me that once upon a time, in our jurisdiction, nighttime burglary of an occupied dwelling was a capital crime. The legal theory being that anybody who broke into a house at night could reasonably expect to find somebody home and must therefore be ready to harm them to get the loot.

I think the question is not whether we are legally or morally justified in shooting somebody making away with the family silverware; it is what happens when we confront him with a gun and say "Stop, thief!"

Would you say "Stop, thief!"?

 

[RGBydand]

Well, I haven't read all of the replies to this one, but I'm gonna put my 2 pennies in anyway. I agree with some of the others that have posted here. Personal property is important and can be considered a part of your life, considering the time invested in earning the money to purchase things. Ultimately, though, I could really care less about stuff. If someone smashed the window in my car and stole my stereo it WOULD piss me off, but I won't shoot someone for it. Insurance covers that stuff anyway, and since by LAW I have to be...... I have read others on the board here refer to "opportunists", like the guy that grabs and goes, but this stuff is usually left outside or in plain view. Again, not gonna shoot someone for that, even if I'd LIKE to if I caught him. (That's something a good ****-kicking can cure) However, once a thief crosses the threshold of MY home..... look out. I have seen too many documentaries about thieves turned murderers and thrill-killers. I can remember one where these two scumbags went to some farm to "rob" the place, and ended up murdering the whole family. I have a loving wife and two gorgeous young daughters (2 and 4 years old). If someone breaks into MY HOME, whether DAY OR NIGHT, I will protect my family with a tenacity and ferociousness the likes of which only our Lord God has seen. EVEN IF it is against the law in my state (I actually don't know and don't care). ANY possible legal problems that could occur in the aftermath are worth my family members lives.

 

[M2 Carbine]

"Would you say "Stop, thief!"?"
---------------------------

Probably not but if I said anything it would be with all the slack taken up on the trigger.

In 1956 I was in the Marine Corps with a man that could draw from a western holster and pull the trigger on you before you could pull the trigger on your gun, that you already had pointed at him.

After teaching folks the basics of home defense type shooting, playing the burglar, I would usually "shoot" them several times while they tried to talk to me.

Chances are the only thing I'll say to someone that's broken in my house or out buildings is,
Man, I bet that hurts like hell.

I'm not interested in checking their ID for their age, or asking them if they are going to steal enough to justify me shooting them or if they are a criminal because they weren't potty trained or any such foolishness.

They are the aggressor and will be treated as such.

 

[XavierBreath]

XavierBreath, if you don't mind...
I'd like to change one word in your question, "Is property important enough to kill for?"
I'd state it so:
Is property important enough to [bold]murder[/bold] for?
Plain and simple.

The reason I avoid this is: murder is a term of judgement, a term of legality. It is a term the righteous defender of life will hear whispered behind his back whether the killing was justified legally or not. It is a term of condemnation that only a jury should render. It is not up to me to proclaim any man a murderer unless he is deemed such by a jury. I prefer kill, it is simply factual.

 

[Marshall]

I think there is a distinction between breaking into an occupied home and someone stealing your car, for example. When breaking into an occupied home, one presumes that someone has made a conscious decision to take a risk of being confronted by people with guns to defend their home and family. With that kind of person I assume they are willing to cause me or my family harm and that they are there to commit armed robbery, minimally, and possible harm to my family. Chances are, they will become a statistic.

Someone stealing my car, boat, tools, etc., isn't going to receive the death penalty from me unless I feel threaten for my life or one of my family members.

Willingness to kill someone for taking mere possessions is, in my opinion, over the top morally and, more than likely will get you criminally prosecuted and time spent intimately with Bubba.

 

[hso]

People still keep insisting on deviating from Doug .38PR's original premise.

They keep adding conditions that are theats to their life and would justify using deadly force. While I don't agree with his postion and think it's insane, but Doug.38PR clearly bounded the premise and excluded conditions where nothing else was at risk beyond the theft of property. We keep muddeling the issue with these additional conditions.

He contends -

that property is important, it is ethical and right to shoot to protect it and keep it from being stolen.

He doesn't play games with the basic ethical premise he's proposed.

He does not contend that someone found in your home at night while your family sleeps is or isn't a threat that may force the use of deadly force to protect your loved ones or yourself from death or physical harm.

He does not contend that someone who is trying to run you down with your own car as they try to steal it is or isn't a threat that may force the use of deadly force to protect yourself from death or physical harm.

He does not contend that someone that is stealing the last food in the county, last drop of water in the desert, little Timmy's irreplaceable dialysis equipment or the thermonuclear weapons from your garage is or isn't a threat that requires deadly force to protect someone.

He simply asks the basic ethical question that if no one is put at risk of grave bodily harm or death, is it ethical to kill someone to keep your property from being stolen. He then clearly says that he thinks it is ethical to kill another person just over property.

I might interpret the fact that about 53 of you either said something akin to "Of course not! It's unrealistic to think like that and no one should do it!" or "Yes, if he's a direct threat to the safety of myself or others by (insert extenuating self defense condition negating the premise)..." vs the 22 that pretty clearly said it was ok, that the greatest majority of members that responded to his thread think that killing another person is justified only to defend their own lives or the lives of another and not if it's only to protect property that isn't essential to life.

This thread wasn't allowed to go on when folks were howling for blood just to prove that more members thought killing someone over property was wrong. It was to have all of us think about what was realistic and rational before we were put in the situation where in a split second it was someone's life held in the balance over stuff.

 

[Handgun Midas]

I suppose I would not try and kill someone that I caught stealing my property, if only because I know that it will be harder on myself if I do kill them versus letting them get away with it.

So if I caught a guy tearing up my car's dash, or running out the back with my TV, I wouldn't draw on him, but I very well may give chase. I do carry OC as well as a .45.

Those would be my probable reactions because that is the reality of our society. I don't believe I agree with it, but I'm smart enough to abide.

 

[Marshall]

HSO, no kidding? Really?

Of course that's the kind of response he's going to get. The question itself begs the response. People are naturally going to respond with what conditions they would take a life under, if for no other reason than to set some boundaries on a subject that gets no more important than the taking of a life. And, hopefully have those boundaries shed some light to those that may think killing over mere possessions is justified. That's The High Road thing to do.

You speak of not playing games with the question. I guess we would have been better off having agreed with Doug and let him think that killing over possessions is the thing to do or, just replied with a simple "No". That would have made for interesting forum reading and been so very helpful on a subject that it's answers have no possible ill consequences.


Respectfully