Is property important enough to shoot for?

[Cousin Mike]

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.

I'd have to say I disagree somewhat. I think you could chalk all of that up to a bunch of people who've never had to make those kind of decisions playing 'tough-guy' on the internet. Some folks think it sounds "cool" to say that they'd lose no sleep over taking a human life.

Those of us who have had to witness violent death, or know people affected by having to make that decision to take a life, well... we know those people to be fools. It's easy to come in a forum and talk about killing with impunity.

It's quite a different thing to watch a human being cry, kick, scream and bleed his life out, crying for his mother while you're standing over him with a smoking gun in your hand. These same types who claim they'd shoot in a heartbeat - I'm not sure that they realize they'd never be able to sleep again afterwards.

Ignorance = bliss.

 

[Marshall]

It all goes back to you or a loved ones life being put in jeopordy. That's the only justified shoot. 99% chance you'll be convicted on any other shoot.

With some of the thinking here, I hope some of you never borrow anything. If you forget to return it or damage it and can't afford to replace it, be prepared to get plugged.

 

[buzz_knox]

It all goes back to you or a loved ones life being put in jeopordy. That's the only justified shoot. 99% chance you'll be convicted on any other shoot.

So there's a 99% chance you'll be convicted if you shoot a group of gangbangers off a nun you've never met?

 

[Joe Demko]

You know, it'd probably be best if this thread gets re-locked. The posts are largely repetetive at this point and the what-ifs are becoming more and more absurd. Would it be the right thing to machine gun a busload of orphan babies? I'm sure, based on what I've read here, that y'all can quickly come up with a scenario where, not only is it right, but Jesus himself would do it and anybody who wouldn't is some kind of unamerican liberal pussy COMMUNIST!
The only saving grace is that I believe most of the chest thumpers are like empty cans. They make the most noise.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

I think there should be consequences to anybody stealing from anybody else. Take this for example: What would you do if somebody was stealing your car. Not just any car, but one that couldn't be replaced. (Many fits this category.) Now you know that if it is found, it won't be the same, in fact it will probably be a total loss. The criminal you've caught in your vehicle is emboldened by the lax laws of your neighborhood and tells you, "You're not gonna shoot me, and if you try to stop me any other way, I'll break your damn neck!" The reason I bring this up is that it happened here many years ago and the criminal was shot. The victim of the crime actually got away with it. Amazing but true.

Perhaps it is because the criminal lived. Problem arises when the civil case comes up and the victim is generally placed in the poor-house. What is needed is a castle doctrine that extends to garages and property which exonerates victims of theft that wound perpetrators, if they are ordered to halt and ignore said order. If they run without your property, fine, call the cops and report it and consider yourself lucky. If they get nasty because they are used to stupidity in local and state laws, we shouldn't have to suffer consequences. They should.

 

[Gewehr98]

Buzz, that's a weak argument, because it falls under protection of life and limb.

And Marshall knows it, too, he just didn't feel like throwing in the bazillion related examples that tie into that life and limb protection thing.

I wish I could go back a decade or so, and take Doug .38 and his ilk to my assignment in Bosnia. My task was to investigate the mass graves, and place detectors in them and on their periphery - to prevent further body dumpings from happening under cover of darkness.

The sight of all those people who had been killed made a serious impression on me as far as human nature and the evils that men do. They had been killed solely because of their religious beliefs and ethnic backgrounds. Their lives were not worth it in the eyes of their executioners.

Doug .38 and the other Keyboard Kommandos here remind me of those who did the ethnic cleansing. He is somehow so superior to his fellow man, that he has no problem playing judge, jury, and executioner in one fell swoop for the theft of a large inanimate metal object. As Cousin Mike stated earlier, this hearkens back to the days of segregation when young men were found swinging by wires from trees for looking at a young lady the wrong way. "Good Old Days", and "Frontier Justice". Wonderful.

I would seriously invite the chest-thumpers here to do THR, the 2nd Amendment, and the RKBA a big favor and go start a forum elsewhere called "www.KillThemAllAndLetGodSortThemOut.com" There one could enjoy plenty of light-hearted banter about taking a human life for mere inanimate objects, perhaps with a yearly pilgramage to a quarry or private range where one could have a staged "Thief Shoot" or "Stranger in my House Shoot". The more, the merrier, and don't worry, you don't need to use THR as a place of referral. I'd prefer you didn't, truthfully.

As for the specious argument about a big guy blowing past me to steal something in my home, nothing says the dogs and I can't tackle him while my wife is calling 911, and if he escalates the violence to a dangerous level, then I'd have no moral objection to using deadly force. In that order.

As for the insurance revisit, so a $500 deductible is now considered the lower limit placed on a human life. You people would be funny if it weren't so sad.

 

[RGBydand]

Doug.38PR's post early this morning has made me think a little more on this, and has clarified his opinion and question much more for me. In short, I WISH WE COULD be allowed to shoot someone for theft of property, when given no other opportunity to stop them. This would save tax-payers millions if not billions of dollars every year. Theivery would drop to lower levels if every thief KNEW his life might be in danger every time he stole, no matter how petty the item or crime. Some (smarter?) thieves would give up thievery altogether, figuring that "I ain't gonna get shot for some car stereo"etc. etc. Some of the less intelligent thieves would be removed from the gene pool, and thus not able to continue with their careers. Those morally upstanding citizens such as ourselves would have nothing to fear, as we are not thieves.

 

[george29]

Quote:
Exodus 22:2-3: "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed, but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.
A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft."

In Hebrew, GANAV means THIEF (ever hear the yiddish word "Gonnif), the punishment for a thief when caught is twice the valued restitution of articles stolen, because a Ganav fears man (breaks in secretly at night), but he does not fear God, making him more pathetic in biblical terms. A GANAV, fears violent encounters with man above all. At night, the homeowner has no clue WHY there is a stranger in his home, so he has the legal right to defend himself, however, if the burglar breaks in during the day, when people are out and about and a GANAV who fears violence is killed, if he is killed solely because he was stealing, the homeowner is guilty of bloodshed.

Therefore, according to the old testament, the answer is emphatically NO!!, not under all situations may a homeowner take a violent stance against a common thief, and the use of the old testament to allow such is proof that people have little understanding of what is truly written.

 

[Cousin Mike]

George29, thank you. If only more people took the time to learn that book instead of trying to pseudo-quote and preach it to others...

If there's a reason for this thread to stay open, I believe it's because it does show that despite the few 'empty cans,' common sense is still the rule of the day with most of us here. That has to say something.

As far as this goes...

Theivery would drop to lower levels if every thief KNEW his life might be in danger every time he stole, no matter how petty the item or crime. Some (smarter?) thieves would give up thievery altogether, figuring that "I ain't gonna get shot for some car stereo"etc. etc. Some of the less intelligent thieves would be removed from the gene pool, and thus not able to continue with their careers. Those morally upstanding citizens such as ourselves would have nothing to fear, as we are not thieves.

This is just the Republican version of the Democrats famous "Well if we enact more laws to prohibit ownership of [whatever], then criminals won't be able to blah blah blah..." By this logic, since Reagan's "War on Drugs" went into effect, we should have FAR less drug dealers now than we did in the 80's, since of course, they would be fearful of the stiff penalties...

As someone already said, when they publicly executed thieves in some of the most horrific ways imaginable (boiling oil, etc.)... there were still thieves.

This would save tax-payers millions if not billions of dollars every year.

So it's still all about that almighty dollar, huh?

So in essence, to take a serious look at all of this, you guys are advocating killing a person over money... How does that make you any different than the murderers we put away every single day in this country who kill people over money?

So if one drug dealer rips off another's stash of cocaine and drug money, the dealer who was stolen from is entitled to kill the other? By all of your logic, yes.. We should let the dealer ride. After all, that cocaine was his property.

You know what a jury of 12 reasonable people calls that?

1st degree murder.

 

[buzz_knox]

Buzz, that's a weak argument, because it falls under protection of life and limb.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Marshall knows it, too, he just didn't feel like throwing in the bazillion related examples that tie into that life and limb protection thing.

So instead, he makes a blanket statement that is factually and legally incorrect? Hyperbole and exaggeration doesn't serve either side very well. That was my point.

 

[buzz_knox]

Those morally upstanding citizens such as ourselves would have nothing to fear, as we are not thieves.

Want to take a bet on that? Every gone up to a car you thought was yours and only after fumbling with the lock, realized it wasn't? Did you know that the key to one car often fits several in a given series? Want someone cranking off rounds at you because you made a mistake?

I was in a parking lot one time and saw my car pulling out. I took off on foot, chasing the thief down. As I rounded a dumpster, I saw my actual car. A nearly identical one had parked next to mine while I was in the store, and the driver had left just as I exited.

During the time I was running, I could have sworn with absolute confidence that it was my car being stolen. Using the standards offered by many (far too many), I would have been justified in sending rounds down range and, if I'd hit the person, murdered an innocent.

Sorry, but I value my sense of self-esteem and self-respect (what little I have), as well as my intact future and posterior to engage in such behavior. Once again, the life of a thief isn't worth much to me, but the value of my not having killed said thief without true justification is sufficient for me to hold fire.

 

[Blakenzy]

I would have to say that ending a human's life is at the very least regrettable, under any circumstances, regardless of who the killer is and who the dead is. I also beleive that someone who takes human life is in turn affected in a significant maner, despite of how justified he may have been and how cleanly he gets away from any bodily or legal harm. You will suffer consecuences to a varying degree no matter how tough you think you are, unless you are a completely devoid of human emotion.

That being said, concerning lethal force, I also beleive that some people deserve to die, and others just have to die. The difference being those who "deserve" to die (according to a certain moral code) can be delt with in other ways that do not necesarily involve the use of lethal force in order to avoid damage to oneself or other innocents. Those who "have" to die cannot be delt with in non lethal ways in order to preserve one self from harm. Lethal force in the latter situation is the only choice left to you.

Some one who is stealing your property propably deserves to die, but you can deal with the problem at hand by sending the cops after him for example(provided that inocent bodies are not in harms way). Now if the same person in in close proximity to you, and decides that he wants to carve a smile on your neck with a very sharp object, and you cannot make a safe getaway, then by all means he has to die to avoid serious injury to your self. Use of lethal force is not only plainly justified, there is no other option left.

I guess that if some one is stealing or causing irreparable damage to your property (significant property that is, necesary for your own survival or livelyhood), -e.g. burning down your house (eventhough no inocents are inside) or stealing or damaging a very costly piece of equipment that is necesary for your daily labour (that you probably will not be able to replace with in the foreseeable future) - that could lead to a significant deterioration of your and your family's cuality of life, then use of lethal force with out warning would also be justified (moraly).

You cannot put a cut off price below which lethal force is unjustuified or above which it is. This is because, for example, a $200,000 home may be irreplaceable for a low middle class family, but for Bill Gates it's just pocket change. It is entirely circumstancial and relative.

 

[Doug.38PR]

let me ask a reverse question. What makes a thief's life who is willing rob others of their fruit worth more than the value of the property he is trying to steal? Obviously you don't kill him if the property is saved or if he is captured during or after the fact. But why is a thief's life worth more than the property you are going to lose if he gets away?

Let me ask another question that might be better answered first before you answer the first question: In your mind what is property?

 

[Joe Demko]

His life is worth more than property because he is a living human being and property is nothing but an inamimate object. However bad he may be at that particular moment, he has the potential to be better.

Property, to me, is the reward for my labor.

 

[buzz_knox]

But why is a thief's life worth more than the property you are going to lose if he gets away?

That's the wrong question. The proper question is what do you own that is worth having to look at it and every time say "I killed someone for that?" Will your car be more valuable to you for having killed to protect it? Your pocket watch? Your garden hose?

 

[Cousin Mike]

What makes a thief's life who is willing rob others of their fruit worth more than the value of the property he is trying to steal? ... why is a thief's life worth more than the property you are going to lose if he gets away?

I think the question that you should be asking yourself is this:

You quote the bible and claim to be a Christian. So assuming that you believe in God...

...who are you, as a man, to determine the value of human life?

 

[Doug.38PR]

You quote the bible and claim to be a Christian. So assuming that you believe in God...

...who are you, as a man, to determine the value of human life?

Well, from a Christian standpoint, the answer to that question, as has been demonstrated a few times already including the original post is that: I don't determine it, the Bible (which the Christian believes to be the inspired Word of God) does. It gives grounds for killing in self defense, to protect property when no other options are available and to use the death penalty.

Property is an extension of yourself. As one Joe Demko said

"the reward for my labor"

Also please note that I am not saying that killing a thief is a MUST happen as is or should be the case in cold blooded murder (an eye for eye), but only if there is no other option to preserve and protect property (that is somewhat the intent the written law in some states like Texas that do allow, at least to some extent, the killing to protect property)

 

[GEM]

Some people may believe that structurally they are upright and moral citizens. Thus they pontificate about the thief and how in their righteous view they would shoot him or her dead.

However, social circumstances can be powerful determinants of behavior. A change in your life could easily make many of us commit illegalities. Born into the wrong place at the wrong time, and a life of crime may have been your fate. Stupid mistakes as kid could make you the car thief killed so blithely by our internet commando.

Thus, my point was that one should not chortle and pat oneself on the back for defending society by suggesting they could easily kill. Killing is regretable as in some alternate branch the thief might have turned out better.

Look at GWB, clearly he has a history of substance abuse. He has a DUI - might he not have stolen a car when under the influence? Perhaps. However, to his credit, he turned his life around and became president. Independent of his leadership and one's opinion of his job - he was redeemable. Thus, when the Internet Commando calls on Jesus to promote killing of a thief, I prefer to look at any killing, even if justified, as regretable.

 

[Cousin Mike]

It gives grounds for killing ... to protect property when no other options are available and to use the death penalty.

No, it does not... Your (rather short sighted, and distorted) interpretation of it does, and you've been shown multiple times to be wrong on the issue.

I know you're not going to start backpedaling now, Doug.

 

[Biker]

Cousin Mike...

We "determine the value of human life" all the time, every day, whether it be in the power we entrust to our LEOs and courts, or to the power we give to our Armed Forces through the politicians we vote into office. We're all killers by proxy, in one form or another.

That's a weak argument. When viewed in the big picture, life is cheap.
It becomes cheaper when the human owning the life puts it on the craps table. It's his choice - every once in awhile, you roll snake eyes.

Biker

 

[Doug.38PR]

No, it does not... Your (rather short sighted, and distorted) interpretation of it does, and you've been shown multiple times to be wrong on the issue.

I don't see where I have been proven wrong on that issue. It is the plain language of the said law that DOES allow for the killing of a thief when there is no chance of stopping him in non lethal ways. Most thefts back then at night were quick and swift. They came, the grabbed and left within seconds. That's why Jesus said later in the NT that "I will come like a thief in the night" as an analogy that you won't even know it happened, be on your guard because it will be that quick. That is part of the context of the way that law was written

 

[GEM]

Ahd that's why you want to do it?

 

[Cousin Mike]

We "determine the value of human life" all the time, every day, whether it be in the power we entrust to our LEOs and courts, or to the power we give to our Armed Forces through the politicians we vote into office. We're all killers by proxy, in one form or another.

Biker - I think you and I disagree in the terminology. I'm not sure I think that taking a life when necessary is the same as "determining the value" of said life...

Doug: I suggest you have a nice looong talk with a preist or something about that passage. The definition of "thief" as meant in that verse has been covered more than once.

For the last time... It does not say "Lest the thief surrender, thou shalt whip out his XD - and peeleth a cap off into thine ass"...

...no matter how much you'd like it to.

 

[pythonguy]

What you are saying Doug, is like God, you are to determine who lives or dies if the object that they stole meets some standard in your mind. Very nice, and you can even defile a religion to defend your stance, hard to believe this is the 21st century. I take back what I said this is a usless thread, it has opened the eyes of all moral, responsible gunowners to what are still some neanderthal and sick thoughts of their peers. NOT my peers mind you, but maybe all too many that are into guns......

 

[buzz_knox]

[Edited because an obvious joke intended to show the frivolity of an argument and reduce the heat both sides are dishing out is now being used to disprove my clear statements in opposition to said argument]