Is property important enough to shoot for?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The War for Independence was for the most part about property....as a whole it was about life and liberty but all of that centered around property. If you don't have property rights, you ultimately don't have any rights. With the exception of the Boston Massacre and the illegal quartering of troops, there were not massive murders of people, rape of citizens and concentration camps as seen in many other brutal dicatorships in history. Those abuses that did come (as named, quartering of troops, Boston Massacre and other abuses stated by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence) came because the colonists resisted attempts against property and finance. Tea Tax, Stamp Tax, violations of compact agreements between the King and subjects. It was about property, possessions of life that were being violated. THe Founding Fathers equated life AND property when they said it could not be taken by the government, why should they or we feel any different about a thief. They fought for it with treasure blood and toil in one of the longest wars in our history. It was a principle. They resisted an Empire. Why should we act any different against a thief?

It's not about if the property in question is vital to your existance in the long run. It's about being a portion of your domain and life. As stated property is ultimately something that you put a portion of your life into.

Just because it is say a television set (something not key to the continuing beating of your heart.....or if it is...you've got issues) it is still a violation in process that must not be allowed to take place.

Even if you have insurance for X Y or Z item, that money has to come from somewhere, it ultimately costs somebody something.

Think of it this way. For those of you who say you would not shoot think about this: If a BIG guy (bigger and stronger than you) were to knock on your door tomorrow. You open the door. He says "hi." Brushes you aside casually and eases his way in (not harming you or assaulting you but just manipulates his way in and says "I'm going to take that VCR." You say "okay, just don't hurt me." He says, "oh I won't, but while I'm at it, I think I'll take the TV with it and maybe your microwave and whatever else I can grab and stuff in my SUV before the police get anywhere near here. I mean, it's not like your going to shoot me or anything." Are you seriously going to just let him help himself to whatever (he is not harming you or threatening your physical body) without any kind of resistance? You are wearing your .38. That is the only edge you have. Are you just going to sit back in your chair (hope he doesn't take it out from under you) and call the police on the phone while he helps himself and leaves? He is gone, the police probably won't find him or the things he stole.

I realize that this scenario is not going to play out so simple or comical but that is ultimately what that "property is not worth shooting over" line of thought leads to. This person has no regard for you or yours. HE has made the choice to violate you. HE has helped himself to a part of your domain. HE has taken it upon himself to take what does not belong to him. Police are not there, you are.

To let criminals act with impunity is absurd and dangerous.

Of course this would all be on a case to case basis. If a 5 year old child stole a candy bar from me I couldn't in good conscious pop a .38 into him. If a bum off the street got into my back door and grabbed a few cereal boxes and took off running I wouldn't try to shoot him. These I can have sympathy for.

But if some thug attempts to hotwire my car and expect that I am just going to stand by so he can make off with it to strip it and hock it for money at my expense, he has got another thing coming. If I can tazer him, club him or scare him off or flag down an officer to nab him, all well and good. If I can pull on him and pursuade him to surrender, all well and good. Shooting him would be excessive force I had these options readly available. But if he tries to make off with the car, should expect to get shot not a wave bye bye from me. It is robbing me of a portion of my life.

Now I realize most modern laws takes a different turn on this.

Would my conscious bother me? Morally, Holy Scripture seems to give me a clear conscious from a Christian standpoint. It says as I quoted that I am NOT guilty of bloodshed if I kill to defend property and have no other alternative to stop theft. Historically, men (good men) have acted on this belief and code and were willing to carry it out without any problems up until recent decades. As Davy Crockett used to say "Be sure you're right, then go ahead."

My dad was once told by a LEO supervisor years ago "you never want to shoot someone, because it will haunt you for the rest of your life." I have heard from a non-internet person that there can be psychological trauma over killing a man when you are unsure of whether you were justified. But, perhaps it is the modern pychology of guilt manipulation and socialism that has spawned this altered view of human life, downplaying the value of private property and and making social victims out of criminals.

I can seriously respect a person who doesn't want to shoot someone over property because they fear the moral responsibility. Nobody wants innocent blood on their hands. But I believe their fear is unjustified and has been manipulated by the modern world we live in.
 
Maybe modern culture has influenced our willingness to kill. I'll certainly agree that society as a whole is much more casualty-averse than it was a hundred years ago.

However the desire to not kill someone is universal, and the effects of killing a person on the killer (provided the killer has a normal personality) are well documented, going back well before the first world war. Whether you see this as an automatic assignment of a certain value to human life or not, this resistance to killing has always existed.

And more directly, again with the cars? I've got insurance. If I shoot him, I'm gonna spend ten times more than my car is worth on my legal defense. I don't have insurance for that. So from that standpoint, it doesn't make pragmatic sense to shoot. Moral doesn't even enter into it if it doesn't get past practical.

Lets say that I'm not insured, theres no way I'd get my car back if he took off with it. Now I'm seriously screwed, because my car is in jeopardy, and if I shoot him I'm out all kinds of money for legal fees.

However, I could shoot out the tires in the hopes that that would make him stop trying to steal it. I can also maybe get it back when the cops track the car down. Not a good option, but neither is shooting the punk. Again shooting doesn't make the practical cut. If it could, then we could talk about morality.

So understand, its not that you're not shooting him because its somehow immoral or wrong - that notion doesn't even enter the equation. You're not shooting because it would do you more financial harm than good. Killing this man would be inflicting great harm upon yourself.

There's a reason people say "don't kill him, he's not worth it." This is that reason.
 
If ANYONE steps into my house I do not want, I am grabbing my gun calling the police and they will leave in a bag, on their own, in an ambulance, in handcuffs. period. People entering my house to steal falls under the category of people I do not want in my house.
 
The root problem with the entire debate is this: By asking if someone should be justified or not in shooting someone over property, we are attempting to place a value on individual human life.

One man's definition of value is much different than anothers.
I wouldn't shoot someone over stealing my truck. It's a nice truck, cost me $30K, but it's INSURED. I would do a good job trying to stop a thief. But I'm not gonna kill him.

Someone else would shoot a man for taking a bicycle. Or a stereo. They value life much less than $30K.

That's the whole problem. The individual valuation of life is not something that can be quantified. Look at the victim compensation fund for the victims of the WTC on 9/11- they had to somehow divide up a large cash pool amongst victims, "fairly". The janitors' families took home a lot less than the CEOs' families. Nevermind the fact that the janitors' families took a much harder hit than the CEOs' in terms of day to day life quality.

But again, that depends purely on the raw monetary value of the item. But that itself is subjective, too.

We all pretty much agree nobody sane would shoot for a candy bar. But what if you were stranded on a deserted island and that candy bar was the only food you had? Remember the Donner party? What did human life come priced at per pound for those poor souls?

Ultimately there will always be those who stand up and say that shooting a thief is the best way to go. I can't argue with them. I have been so enraged on a number of occaisions that the piece of human debris responsible should have spontaneously combusted if that were possible.

But as rational humans, and sparing all the touchy-feely new-age "the criminal as a victim" crap, it's just not worth it. We are a society of Law. The Law states that every accused has a right to a trial and a jury of their peers. That's what makes us different than those screeching savages over in the desert, we don't pile stones on someone at the first harsh cries of insult or injury. That's why we take Death Row inmates and give them the very best medical care we can, right up until we execute them.

It's because to do otherwise would be wrong.

And discussions like this are what is delaying Castle Law enactment in more states; it's what fuels negative perceptions of us gunnies in the media and in the non-gunnie public; and it gives people more reasons to try to outlaw or hate that which we enjoy.

People think we are a bunch of crazy louts who would rather shoot first and ask questions later.

Are we doing anything to challenge that?

Read the thread and judge for yourself.
 
Why are we worried about what the life of a thief is worth. Getting shot is a known issue with thieves. Are they endangered? coming close to extinction?

Is the life of a thief worth a stereo or a VCR? The thief attempting to take it has already set the value of his life as being equal to that property, not us. All we are deciding is whether or not WE value the property more than the thief's life and the slight possibility of legal entanglements afterwards.

Many thieves recognize the fact that it is unlikely that they will get shot at due to the fact that it is quite likely illegal in many places to shoot a thief in the act. I believe it is law enforcements urgent duty to get the message to them letting them know that not everyone knows the law.
 
As a side note....

my daughter's car was broken into sitting in our driveway. Driver's window smashed out. A $129 stereo was taken. Total damage to the car was $2,675. Our deductable was $500.

When you say insurance covers it, well that's not entirely true. They probably got $20 for $2,675 of damage.

I heard an office say one time " Now that we can't shoot at someone running away, a good set of legs is a license to steal"
 
There was a time when all I had was a POS 77 Chevy pickup. It had a chain
holding the hood down, no front bumper, and rust in the gas tank but it was
My POS and it got me to and from My jobs. The times it was laid up and I
could not repair it before I had to be at work. I would walk to work (seldom
could I get a ride) anywhere between 35 minutes to over 2 hours depending
which job I was working that day. Snow, Rain, Shine, or Texas Broil I'd still
have to be at work and that can take a toll on your health and it started to.

Most of the time I had more fingers and toes than I had dollars to my name
so replacing the truck was out of the question at the time. As for insurance
covering it. A pay-of for theft on a 77 Junker would not get me enough to get
another Junker even if I had theft coverage on it.

So yes, downing a man to protect property can be ethical. If one wants to
continue to live in the same state of health that they awoke in then don't
steal. As for the home invasion issue that will never be looked as a possible
theft issue by me. I will not risk my life or the life of those who rely on me
by making the assumption he is only here for the toaster. Besides, it is my
home or my property, so that makes it my responsibility and mine to defend.

And what if what they are stealing is a gun, even if it is unloaded. Many here
keep truck/trunk guns. Would it be right to the naysayer to shoot a man who
was stealing your truck if in the back you had your loaded SKS? Should you
be held responsible if he uses that weapon to kill someone and you had the
chance to stop him?
 
jlrhiner:
I always used the guidelines for deadly force i learned in the Navy.
Click to expand...
The Navy? The US Navy? What were these guidelines for deadly force, and when did you learn them? I'm assuming they apply to thievery, and civilian life. But then you speak in the past tense, so perhaps you no longer use them. What do you use now?

Did the Navy endorse these deadly force guidelines on Cat Street in HK? Thieves Alley in the PI?

What were these Navy deadly force guidelines sir? When were they taught, and by whom?

Just an old curious squid wanting to know.......
 
We're beginning to get a lot of repeat posts. If not enough new folks are interested in the debate to add their voice we'll close this to prevent the inevetable flame wars that are beginning to smolder.

Remember that we all agreed to keep posts civil. Even if you're personally passionate about this, reign in the urge and read your post twice before sending it in.
 
:barf: OK, here is a very basic flaw in the argument, one person stated that we were befuddling the point which was purely and "courageously" asked by the thread starter, shoot or not over robbery. Now look at post #126 by the thread starter, he is saying how of course he wouldn’t shoot a kid stealing cereal or a bum who broke into his house for cereal because he was hungry. That's the same thing HSO admonished others for doing by qualifying their answers, and it make the whole thread preposterous because how do you know what anyone is thinking when they commit a crime? The 17 year old who might be a first timer doing something stupid on a dare, or the 21 year old who has already murdered, these suppositions all hinge on reading minds, can any of us read minds? Can you then seriously take a life over assumptions on someone’s true character? What’s next, ethnic cleansing? It’s nice to cite American history as the thread starter does in his post, but that was then, this is NOW. It’s the 21st century, there was no insurance then, why not go back to the caveman days and use them as an example. It is very disingenuous to link shooting a common thief to American history, it is intellectually dishonest. Has the desire to shoot clouded our vision? If one of our sons does a stupid thing as kids are prone to do would you be happy justice was served because someone killed him for taking something? Please revoke my membership to this board, I got into shooting 30 years ago to have fun, protection was a distant thought, I don't want to be a part of this anymore. And to all the good and intelligent posters and moderators on here, thanks, you do a great job and have far greater patience then I do.
 
Last edited:
I read a bit about Jefferson, Locke, etc. knowing the huge emphasis/importantce the 'fathers place on property. The few things I read did not really show an inclination towards justifying killing another, but more towards ensuring there were laws protecting private property. I also got the jist they were concerned more with land then goods. It is interesting stuff.

Anyway, depending on your opinion on the matter, publically posting how you feel may not be that condusive to your defense should you ever find yourself in a lethal force situation. Be careful.



Python, obviously your intended goals for guns is different then many others. For many defense is the primary, maybe only goal. To each his own. You may be confusing what you suspect is a "desire to shoot" position with an arguable "don't tread on me" position.
 
A dumb kid that moves someone's car around the block as a prank is stealing your property. As far as you know when you see him driving away you can't tell if it's going to be left in your son's buddy's driveway down the street or bound for the chop shop. You just see someone in your car headed down the street. Do you shoot or not. Most of us say no because there's no direct and immediate threat to our lives or direct and immediate threat of grave bodily harm. From what a few have said they'd take that dumb kid's life over it.

Doug.38PR's admittedly absurd illustration, while intended to be amusing, ignores the point that while the thief politely removes your possessions you could just as "politely" flatten all the tires on his getaway vehicle to prevent it. You could even use your gun if you feel you just had to shoot something, but a good screw driver would be safer.

The "American Revolution" argument is empty. If the "founding fathers" and our "honorable ancestors" believed that it was moral to kill someone stealing they would have simply had the same legal punishment for thieves as for murderers. Execution! Obviously they didn't think that way because there were many grades of punishment less final than killing the thief.
 
Last edited:
In Doug's fantasy (I've noticed he seems to have a lot of those), I think the butt end of the gun would be of better use to you than the business end.

Still, I think you have to give Doug the credit he is due for being able to answer his own question without blurring the circumstances to make shooting the thief acceptable. I still think it's funny that no one from the "shoot 'em" camp can answer this question without stretching the scenario to bring the thief into their home, or running off with the last bit of water in the desert, etc.

If one of our sons does a stupid thing as kids are prone to do would you be happy justice was served because someone killed him for taking something?
Click to expand...

I don't think I'll hold my breath for an answer on this one. :rolleyes:
Although I can already see the first post in reaction to this statement..

"My son would NEVER..."

Of course not... :D
 
I have a 17 year old son I love more then life itself and while he doesn't steal he does do stupid things and exhibit bad judgment at times. As he matures and grows I see the changes that life lessons teach him, just like when all of us were growing up. Think for a second the guy you are shooting for theft is YOUR son, your nephew, your grandson. See how sick and worthless this threads question and answer is? Are we so above it all that we can dole out lethal justice because we are mad our hard earned possessions are being stolen? Of course we'd all be mad as hell and want to exact revenge, that's just being human. But to speculate about really shooting someone over a possession only, that’s disgusting. And what’s even more revolting is trying to justify this with quotes from the bible or American history. You know who else quotes from the bible in the name of killing, the terrorists we are at war with right now, want to be like one of them?
 
And what’s even more revolting is trying to justify this with quotes from the bible or American history.
Click to expand...

That's called selective memory. Those who love quoting the "founding fathers" on life, liberty, equality and justice seem to forget that a lot of these same people held slaves, and that by the very nature of that act, they were hypocrites.

Those who talk about "the good ol' days, when they hung horse thieves" don't seem to remember that people back then were often also hung because of what they looked like, or in some cases, who they looked at. Lots of those types don't even like that aspect of American history to be brought up.

Those who quote the Bible to further their agenda usually don't even know how to read/interpret it correctly.

Just like those who advocate executing petty criminals for property theft always seem to "conveniently forget" the anti-social/illegal/stupid things they did in their own childhood and/or early adulthood.

I'm sure a psychologist could come in and tell us WHY certain people seem prone to this kind of behavior, but I think it's all posturing. I think it's simply a way for some people to see perfection where it never existed - either within a time period, with an idealogy that they agree with, or with themselves and their own version of law & order...

It's just a way for some people to justify seeing themselves as being superior to others. Same dance, different song.
 
Because things have always been that way, since the beginning of time. Thieves exist... they're not going anywhere... and as one poster said, sometimes you've just got to put on your big girl panties, and deal with it. This discussion has nothing to do with the way life should be.

So I think a more appropriate question would be:

"Why do some choose to ignore the reality that some people steal things, and that executing them on sight is not an appropriate way to solve that problem?"
 
For all of us morally pure, never did anything wrong CCW holders, I sure do get a lot of questions after class about: "When I was (14-21) I got busted for (theft, shop lifting, possession, DUI, drunk & disorderly, etc.) now I'm (21-65), can I still get my permit?" :)

Fascinating. I average probably one in seven or eight male students who ask me this, and probably one in twenty female students.

Obviously none of them ever post on THR. :p
 
Location, Location, Location

Personally I beleive that defending property is all about location. If the property I am protecting is outside my home sure I will take my weapon but only to protect my person. BUT if the property I am protecting is inside my home, ie: a home invasion or robbery senerio, I would with out hesitation use deadly force to protect my family. I beleive that no man should have to retreat from or feel threatened in his own home.That is my "safe zone". I work hard and am morally obligated to provide my wife and child a safe enviroment. I am not a "mind reader" nor can I look into my "crystal ball" to find out the true intention of some scumbags actions. The "question is he/she here to steal my VCR or kill me?" will never run throug my skull. I can and will not risk my familys safty by hesitating to act immediately. In deadly situations the outcome is often determined in fractions of seconds as to whom wins or looses. When it comes to my family "I WILL NOT LOOSE!"Sure, I will worry about judgement latter but with the confort of knowing that my wife and ten month old daughter are safe.
 
Like most people said, it really depends, everyone has different values and circumstances, me personally, I will SHOOT TO KILL if someone enters my house, armed or not armed, he/they are going to die. My house has already been broken into, for those who don't know the feeling, it is absolutly disgusting knowing some low life was going through your personal belongings, to this day, I wish I was home, so I could have sent them to hell........
 
I think the “let the insurance pay for it” is bunk. Ultimately, you pay for insurance and any payouts the insurer makes will be charged back to you with higher premium and deductibles. The initial cost of insurance, deductible, higher premium, and the time spent to remedy the theft (getting a temporary replacement, shopping for permanent product replacement, phone calls, filing police reports, court time, and insurance assessments) all eat into the household pocketbook which is directly linked to the welfare of your family. If your living paycheck to paycheck, as many Americans do, the loss of a car could at best mean eating Ramen noodles and PB&J for a few weeks or losing a few vacation days; at worse it means skimping on a needed medication or losing your job.

An items value is not just its market value, you must also consider its quality of life value. If someone stole my $5k flat TV (I wish I had one to loose) and was running away I would just let them go. If someone stole my $5K car, I would give chase and do all I can to stop them. What if someone stole your grandmother’s dialysis machine, oxygen, or wheelchair accessible minivan? These items have a inherit value to their owners that goes beyond the market value. I would also think the property owner’s income would play a part as well. There is a difference in stealing Bloomberg’s limo and grandma’s 94 Buick Skylark.

There are so many variables involved I think it is hard to make a universal shoot/don’t shoot policy.
 
Another subtext that bothers me is that independent of the debate of whether shooting for property is justified as is killing an appropriate punishment, is that some folks wouldn't regret taking the life if they did.

Is not taking a life, even in a justifiable circumstance regretable? For the grace of God and luck, many of us are not thieves. We could have easily become such in certain circumstances. Some will argue that regretting the taking of life makes our society weak and modern psychology has generated a wave of cowards. However, I think that a person who acts to kill must on a moral level regret that the circumstances came to place where a life had to be taken. Not to feel this - IMHO - is just an indication of the commando mentality or superficial emotion. It is indicative of person without true depth or understanding of what if means to be civilized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
What about liberty and property?
Replies
10
Views
623
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