Is property important enough to shoot for?

Status
Not open for further replies.
First we had an ethical argument that killing solely to retain property was ethical. We've even seen empty historical references to the Wild West and the American Revolution used to rationalize killing over property. Then we saw empty Biblical references taken out of context used to rationalize killing over property.

I'm no biblical scholar, but I'm not familiar with any portion of the Bible that
gives grounds for killing ... to protect property
and I had a minor in religeous studies.

Killing is promoted for all sorts of things that we don't see as appropriate today like not following the judgement of a priest or striking your father or adultery or not being a virgin, but I don't see anything about killing someone who is only guilty of stealing when they aren't also guilty of being a threat by wounding or killing the propety owners. Twisting scripture to support a flawed ethical argument seems absurd.
 
Last edited:
Since we're debating the morality of shooting at, which has a strong chance of killing, someone who s trying to take your property, I'll let y'all think on this:

Matthew 5
5:43
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
5:45
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
5:46
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
5:47
And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Matthew 6
6:19
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
6:20
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
6:21
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also

So, where is your heart? Do you love, or value, yourself and your own possesions more than you love, or value, the life of another? Yes, your posseions are earned by time out of your life spent at labor. They are still replaceable though. A human life is not replaceable. A human life can be changed.

I will now challenge each of you. Rather than sit behind your keyboard and talk about how you would shoot someone over property if legal, do something better. Rather than talk about how this youth had a juvenile record, poor parenting and it was bound to happen, go make a change. Go out and mentor an under priveledged child, be the help that struggling single parent may need. Call your local family and children's servcices department and ask about the CASA - Court Appointed Special Advocate - Program. Go to court to help these kids get out of an abusing or neglecting home. Halloween is coming up soon. If you don't have your kids to tak trick or treating, take an underpriveledged child. Whats a few hours one night? Maybe you showing that child that you care will make a difference in his life. Stop whining about the systoms and go treat the cause.
 
"...to protect property when no other options are available and to use the death penalty. "

No, absolutely and most decidedly not. Your guns are not disciplinary tools or items with which to mete out punishment as you see fit. You have a right to self defense but you have no right whatsoever to inflict punishment of your own choosing. There's a very significant difference between the two.

So now we also have lots of people saying that insurance wouldn't pay for something adequately. Do these same people really mean to suggest that it would pay off for them better to shoot the thief? Really? $10,000 dollars worth of legal bills for sure - even if you win - is better than a wrecked $2000 car that you might get back?

Oh yeah, I forgot we weren't discussing reality. My mistake.

Obviously you can't just let the criminal element walk all over you, even if they are bigger and stronger than you. However, that fact is exactly why nonlethal tools and techniques exist. Because it is wrong to kill someone over property, but there's nothing wrong with shocking, chemical spraying, or using martial arts to subdue the perpetrator.

So no, you can't just kill someone for stealing. Exercise your nonlethal force options. This may mean you have to learn some. Tough sh*t.
 
No...get insurance.

No...get insurance. Let the police handle it when it pertains to property. CCW application (use of force) should be for life/limb.

Doc2005
 
NO.

That said, one has to step back and view the whole forrest, and not one tree.

Define Property. How does your State define property?
In my state I have to retreat, before I can use lethal force, and legal statutes define what constitues a threat to me, a person of disparity, and felony.

By Law, if I leave my vehicle running unattended, I will get a ticket. I may not leave the vehicle running, to buy a newspaper from a newstand. I may not leave the car running to warm it up during the winter, unattended, even with the vehicle locked , and I have extra keys to re-open door.

Insurance Companies vary, still if the car is running, and window busted out and someone takes off with it, they may not have to make good on the claim. I do not know all the particulars, like I said it varies.

Do I have a legal definition that says I may shoot my vehicle, or another vehicle, yes, there are special situations.

Felony in progress, fleeing felon, and similar.
For instance I observe an arsonist setting a structure on fire, I can, use force needed to stop a felony , or fleeing felon. It might be best to let the arsonist go and report fire as the danger to more folks exist with a fire spreading. Getting a description of arsonist(s) and vehicles leaving a scene , is of use to LEO , FD and others. Getting FD enroute, waking neighbors I can do in the meantime. Maybe grab a garden hose, or assist getting kids, pets, elderly out of a next door structure.

I observe an Enforcement officer, LEO of Fed, State, County, City, even Wildlife, in fear of life, about to be run over by a person in a vehicle. I have some State Statues that dictate what I can or cannot do to prevent that officer being a victim of lethal force. I observe an officer being shot at traffic stop, again, I have State Statutes with what I can, or cannot do, with that "Person" fleeing the scene.

Kidnapping. Another felony here. I witness a kidnapping, I had make real damn sure it is a kidnapping and not some domestic dispute. Again, I can observe, take notes on vehicle, descriptions of persons, direction heading...etc.
Now if I use my vehicle, and cut them off, or ram them, again, I better make damn sure it is a kidnapping, and not a domestic dispute. I had better be sure the person yelling "kidnapping" is not pulling a stunt on visitation weekend with the other parent.

A person, I feel beyond a reasonable doubt, is committing felony (or other State Statue definitions I ) and me taking the prudent steps of a rational person would do in this situation I assure you , I am going to hear those words in Bold said by MY Lawyer, the other Lawyers, and be said time and time again by the Grand Jury, or to a Jury of My Peers in some fashion .

Rape in progress. Let us say one thug is holding while another is having thier way in a vehicle. What does your state say you are allowed or not allowed? I know MY state statues.


The REAL world is not black and white. Besides the legal, we have morals, common sense, and discretion.

I have walked out to another person's car, and they did not tell me they had an alarm, and the alarm went off.

I have walked out to a car, the wrong one, and tried the key. I did this in Tulsa in Larry Ashcraft's car ( his wifes). I swear there were 6 cars exactly like hers, Sandy and her friend, and I walked up the wrong car. Six cars in 2 aisles, right there together. Now that would have been great, Larry getting a call at the hotel some guy has shot me, his wife and her guest, because we three went to wrong car, and I stuck a key into it, and Sandy tried the passenger door handle thinking I had unlocked it.

I have been on jury duty on lots of cases. I have been the Foreman on a jury, and we stayed until the wee hours, sequestered, deliberating a case.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Prudent Steps


You had damn better understand these. You had better understand if these are not clear to a jury in presentation by a lawyer - you are screwed.

We could NOT find guilty , beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused raping the girlfriend, over and over again, as payment for drugs. Boyfriend met this girl in church. He invited her to meet his buds and their girlfriends. She was overcome, tied up, and a sex toy for the drug deal. And we could not find him guilty.

Same accused was a server in a nice resturant, on bail, awaiting his next trial. He just did not want witnesses , so he stuck a .44 on the forehead on a bud and pulled the trigger. That case, better prepared, he was convicted. But the lady raped, she did not get her conviction. She had to undergo her ordeal , all over again in court , and we could not find him guilty. Truth is, the time was spent on the murder case, not the rape case.

I strongly suggest many folks turn off the damn TV, and go sit in on a REAL Trial.

CSI syndrome exists, that CSI stuff is TV and made to get folks to buy stuff during commercials.

Go sit in a real trial. IF you do jury duty your eyes will opened even more.
Defense attorneys will find out what you had for breakfast the day you posted on THR " kill 'em all and let diety sort it out" ...remember, Internet is one thing being messed with as far as rights. Some ISPs are turning over records to assist in the War on Terror.

Firearm discharging by mistake, has cost folks businesess, homes, divorce, families and jail time.

I assisted on some investigations. It is "said" a .380 will not penetrate very far. WRONG!

I do not care one damn bit, what Internet "says", what a test "says" , ammo box "says". I am talking REAL life. A .380 will go through the metal portion of a Surburban back door, pass thru the seats and hit the child in a car seat up front - all that distance, thru all that metal and material.

.32ACP will exit out a plate glass storefront, thru passenger window and hit a child in a car seat. Hits count all right, better make damn sure you hit what you are supposed to be hitting and legal in doing so.

Turn off the TV, Video Games, shut down the Internet, and go attend a REAL trial.

Watch a person lose everything they had, and will have because they used Force to save Property. It does not even need to be a gun. It can be rock in the yard, a branch off a tree, baseball bat, tire iron, scrap 2x4...

Lose gun rights too, because they "thought" someone was stealing property, or being kidnapped and used their car to run over someone. Dead is dead, didn't mean to, but now you have a felony, and no guns.


Get an LEO or Lawyer to get permisson to be around visitation at a Youth jail (juvie) and the youth used force because someone scratched their Bling Bling wheels, or tried to get them.

Go to an adult facilty and see the granddkids being left in one area, as the parents visit one at a time the Grandparent. Visitation over -
In the distance the Grandparent can see the grandkids, and they wave "at that window over there honey, yes that one"
" I miss you grandpa" as they wave, and they don't understand.

All I will say about that Grandpa, Carter days of high gas prices, and shooting someone for stealing gas, was not allowed according to State Statues.

It does not apply here catching someone breaking into a car for holiday packages, snatching power tools off a truck, or Keying the side of the door either.

Dammit to hell! There is more to reponsible firearm ownership than firearms!
 
Book of Buzz said:
And should thou be awakened in the night, thou shalt go forth into said night, and thou shalt searcheth for the cause. And if thou shalt find a thief, thou shalt challenge the thief. Lest the thief surrender, thou shalt whip out thy Glock - and peeleth a cap off into thine ass. And thou shalt thereby smoketh his ass.

Thou maketh little sense.

"Thine" translates as "your" and "lest" translates as "in order to prevent any possibility that".

So, translating the Book of Buzz, Chapter 3, Verse 1-4:

If you are wakened in the night, you will go and find the cause. If you find a thief, you will challenge them. To prevent the thief from surrendering, you shall pull your Glock from your waistband and shoot your ass. ( Translation difficulty. It either refers to NDing yourself in the fundament or shooting your donkey. Either way, :uhoh: ) Thereby, you have smoked his ass.

I think there were some mistranslations from the original Buzzese. :p
 
Am I correct in interpreting...

That Buzz would bust a cap in a thief's posterier even if the thief posed no physical threat to him? :scrutiny:
 
I think there were some mistranslations from the original Buzzese.

What do you expect? There have been many iterations since it was originally written. I mean, it's been half an hour!
 
That Buzz would bust a cap in a thief's posterier even if the thief posed no physical threat to him?

No, and you would be incorrect. As evidenced by my repeated comments in this thread, I would not use deadly force except to protect myself or another innocent person from death or grave bodily harm. I just thought a bit of levity might be appropriate, as is frequently the case in such heated threads to try and reduce said heat.
 
I've already apostisized, written a new translation of the Book of Buzz (the New International Happy Fun Times Version), and started a church. I should have the paperwork for my tax free status done by this afternoon.
 
How do I know that you wouldn't try to kill me or one of my family members while you were trying to steal something from my property. Something to think about.
 
It's not as simple as "yes or no"

These days the punks are getting more and more aggressive. If a guy breaks into your house waving a gun around, sure, you are within your rights to shoot him.

If the same guy breaks in and grabs your VCR and splits....it's a grey area.

If the same guy is lost and disoriented, you will probably call him a taxi.


Back to the grey area:

If you shoot the guy while he's holding your VCR, you may or may not be within the law depending on the state you're in. So, let's say that you let him go, because you don't want jailtime. Then this guy thinks he's got an easy score. Next time he comes for your TV, but he needs a buddy to carry that. Suppose your wife is home and the buddy is feeling frisky.....then what? You will wish you were within your rights to shoot the 1st guy the 1st time.

Suppose you don't shoot the guy, but instead you call the police, and they get there in time to catch him. You press charges, and this guy does a month or twelve in the clink. Now you've got a pissed off badguy on the streets that knows where you live. He may or may not want to seek vengence for his lost time.


I used to live in a neighborhood that was getting greatly overpopulated with lower class people with subsidized housing. I've got a couple of nice cars. These people's kids (12-18 years old) would ride bikes into my cars, and throw footballs over them, and sometimes onto them. If I said nothing to stop them, I would just risk the potential damage of the errant pass, or misstep on the bike pedal. When I did say something, I would have to sit at the window for about 2 days straight to make sure those ******* didn't key my car in retaliation. Point being, it isn't always the initial act you have to worry about.

~ Edited by Larry Ashcraft to remove creatively spelled profanity. Next time the post will just disappear. ~
 
How do I know that you wouldn't try to kill me or one of my family members while you were trying to steal something from my property. Something to think about.

You don't, but in that scenario you're alluding to using deadly force to protect life and limb. The debate started in a thread that was locked over in S&T about a man shooting a car thief. The shooter was not in danger or life, nor limb. If someone forces entry into your home in the middle of the night I believe that you would be reasonable to fear danger of life or limb. If someone is stealing your car out of the driveway, and not trying to run you over, again, you are not in danger of life, nor limb. This debate is purely on shooting to defend property.

I think we would all do well to read sm's last post.
 
Gewehr98 said:
Am I correct in interpreting... That Buzz would bust a cap in a thief's posterier even if the thief posed no physical threat to him?

Nope. The correct interpretation would be that the Book of Buzz instructs you to put a cap in your own ass before the thief can surrender, possibly to show the thief how hardcore you are. Either that or it's trying to show you the dangers of using Mexican carry with a Glock... :eek:

GeorgiaGlocker said:
How do I know that you wouldn't try to kill me or one of my family members while you were trying to steal something from my property. Something to think about.

Because it's a hypothetical.

silverbird said:
Suppose you don't shoot the guy, but instead you call the police, and they get there in time to catch him. You press charges, and this guy does a month or twelve in the clink. Now you've got a pissed off badguy on the streets that knows where you live. He may or may not want to seek vengence for his lost time.

Suppose you cap his ass and send him to hospital and a few months in the clink. You still have a pissed off badguy who knows where you live. He may or may not want to seek vengence for getting shot and sent to jail.

Say you're a better shot and he lands in the morgue. He's going to have a lot of pissed of friends, relatives, and possibly fellow gang members that may or may not want to seek vengence on you for killing him over a VCR.

Neither of those situations are any better.
 
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.


The analogy is that the appocolypse, the coming of the Messiah, etc... will happen like a thief in the night....just as we all know that a thief could break in we don't believe it will happen to us.....so Jesus said....my coming will surprise you as thief in the night....wait for it as you do the thief in the night...believe it could happen to you.


Even in Texas, shooting a thief for stealing mere property is against the bible. Shooting in protection of one's livelihood is akin to shooting in self defense, that's the difference between mere property, and property that sustains life, (tools vs VCR).
 
Shooting someone over property loss (to me anyway) is totally against the grain of "responsible gun ownership". Now, I have yet to take a CCW class, but are there any CCW instructors out there that teach you to kill someone because they stole something from you? I always thought that shooting someone was a last resort, last ditch solution when your LIFE IS IN IMMEDIATE DANGER.

If some hood steals something from you, how is that jeopardizing your life at that INSTANTANEOUS moment in time? Unless he's robbing you at gun/knifepoint, I can't see a moral reason for killing him.

Property is just that; property. Material possessions can be replaced. Yes, they represent your hard work and time, and believe me it's no fun when someone takes that away from you. But taking someone's life is an extreme action that cannot be reversed. I can replace a TV...but once you shoot someone dead that's it. They can't walk over to Best Buy and replace themselves. Yeah yeah, "he's probably a scumbag" and all that...but no Televison, car, VCR...whatever....is worth a human life.

Owning firearms is no excuse to use them irresponsibly. If anything, being a gun owner should make you even MORE responsible than the guy who doesn't, because you have the power to (potentially) take away the life of another human being (at least moreso than a person who only has a big stick in their hand). As they said in Spiderman...with great power comes great responsibility :D

Yes, there's a lot of semantics involved in this debate...what's being stolen, how is it being stolen, did he break into your house to do it, etc. etc. I don't have the time or desire to argue all of those "what if's". The original post asks whether or not property is important enough to shoot for; I say no.

If you're so worried about losing stuff, get insurance.

And to those of you who insist that killing a person for stealing from you is justified, then we shall just have to agree to disagree. Oh, and using religious arguments to make a point seems kind of pointless...what if I'm not Christian or Jewish or Islamic etc etc. Do those "rules" apply to me? :) Last time I checked, the bible was not the rulebook for the world. But I digress!

Back to your regularly scheduled debate...
 
How Much Life?

After a review of the various arguments pro and con, I believe I will stick with my original statement.

Rather than re-post it, I'll refer:
See http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=229824
My posting (title "How Much Life") on page 2:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2798017&postcount=35
pretty much covers it.

Ditto that.

Let me add this:

If a man steals my stuff in the context of our current society, I am (generally) not, myself, threatened.

If a man steals my stuff in the context of bare survival, where said stuff is vital and indispensable to my continued viability as a living creature, then he threatens my life and existence.

Steal my bucket from the garage? In today's world? No sweat. I'll get another.

Steal my bucket when it's the only way for me to get water, and my family can't live without it? Now you have a problem. Put the bucket down and back away. Now run, and don't come back.
 
Kill or don't kill?

I took the time to read the entire thread and I just have a few things to say. I am just as religious as many of you are and one thing I think we all can agree on is that no one fully understands the Bible. Anyone on earth that is. :uhoh: (Did he just say that?, OH MY GOD!) So taking random verses and trying to mold them to what you want is crazy. The Bible just cannot work like that. Read it all, not just what you want. You will start to see how the verses relate.

While I do think that property is very important, there is only one instance as to where I think that I would be able to draw (if I draw my weapon it will be fired, if it doesn't need to be fired, it will not be drawn). That is if the property being stolen will result in the eminent loss of life such as if someone tries to steal a machine that is being used to keep someone alive, if medication (that cannot be replaced in time) is stolen that will result in the death of a person. Anything that is NEEDED to perserve life and cannot be replaced in time to save a life then that, and only that, would be why I would shoot. I would only shoot to save a life or to stop a rape and even then, I would only shoot if the offending person needs to stop what he was doing RIGHT NOW.

I, like most here, hope that I never need my sidearm. The next to last thing that I would ever want to do is kill another human. The last thing I would ever want to have happen is to need my gun to protect the lifes (not property) of my family, myself, and/or innocent bystanders (in that order) and not have it.


Summary:
Protection of ANY Property that is not required to keep someone alive - No
Protection of Rape - Yes
Protection of Life - Yes
 
Common law allows reasonable force in attempting to
recover stolen property from a thief--such as tackling
or striking blows. Reasonable force against property
crimes does not include deadly force--you kill or injure
only to prevent killing or injury. Inflicting punishment
with malice is not self defense and will not be found
justifiable in any court of American or English law.

The biblical thief in the night would probably be a
cut throat; therefore, a reasonable person would be in
fear of life or limb faced with an intruder in their
domicile after dark. A robber, who confronts a person
and threatens to harm them or else, deserves to be
shot on the spot with #00; a petty thief who sneak
thieves and runs away deserves a butt full of rock salt
not death.
 
It all goes back to you or a loved ones life being put in jeopardy. 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?

Gee Buzz, a Nun is a loved one to me. Not to you?

I didn't think I had to list all the things that constitute protection of a life. I figured most folks are smart enough to understand. :rolleyes:

If you read the responses from different people you will see that the arguments made for kidnapping, rape, gangbangers doin a Nun, are all violent crimes where a life is in immediate danger or can be presummed to be. Your comment was cheap and argument weaker.

With some of the arguments using the bible to back up killing for property, I feel like I'm reading from the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas guidebook. :rolleyes:
 
Well I'll leave the biblical interpertations to the experts, I have a hard enough time with the ten commandments. I have been involved with this type discusion before as an LEO. Specificly shooting a fleeing felon, which includes someone that stole property over $1000. Now I'm leaving out the state but at the time that was the rule. I as a LEO could cap someone running off with a vcr worth $1001, according to law. Aurguments raged back and forth just as this thread has, what if, what about that, on and on. At the end of the aurgument and after researching case law no one had actually shot a thief in recent years for just stealing. The rule of thumb is as others here have tried to say Life and Limb.

Morally I wouldn't do it if someone was stealing my property. The use of a firearm to settle anything HAS to be the last resort. I have been stolen from and have seen many others who have been stolen from. Violated is how you feel, anger, hate, fear, don't begin to describe it. Taking a life feels worse even for a good cause.

Jim
 
Some of you self-righteous bliss ninnys make me sick.

"It is not acceptable to kill for property."

I take it none of you are in the military. That is what the military is for...defense not just against death, but of property, land, and way of life. We have fought long and hard for allies, but we've fought pretty damned hard for oil and airbases too. Obiously some things are worth killing for besides immediate self defense.

The soldiers who volunteer for military service knowing full well they may be ordered to shoot someone who is not a direct physical threat to themselves are not going to Hell for it. The drafters of Texas laws were/are not immoral people. A lot of good people feel some property is worth killing for.

If you feel it's so morally wrong to shoot someone in the act of stealing things that are valuable to oneself, fine. Don't shoot them; but don't tell me I can't and don't tell me it's immoral, because it sure as hell isn't to my God.

If I weren't such a good moral human being, I could be tracing the IP addresses of the non-shooters replying to this thread back to their valuables that they emphatically say they would do little to defend. I bet it could be one heck of a haul if enough of you are in the same area.

Your mindset makes society weaker and encourages corruption. Hmm, maybe that's why so many corrupt politicians keep fighting the Castle Doctrine for property. They know they're thieves and want to make sure nobody puts them in the ground for pinching public funds. "Good Christians" such as yourselves enjoy the benefits of us hardliners every day and you don't even realize it.

I'm going to keep living the life I know is right, you guys live the life you know is right. We'll see who's kids grow up stronger. I teach my kids that if they are greedy, hurtful creatures who are willing to intentionally wrong others that there is a good chance they are going to die in the process someday. That's life. Yes kids make mistakes. Some of them get you killed. Period.

Don't like that? Fine, you can deal with the thieves who know better than target my property.
 
Soldiers != civilians.

Apples != oranges.


I think this thread has done about what it can do at this point....
 
Riktoven said: Some of you self-righteous bliss ninnys make me sick.

"It is not acceptable to kill for property."

I take it none of you are in the military.

Now I'm a self-righteous bliss ninny, am I? OK.


Where are you now serving, or where do you serve, sir?
 
Oh, and using religious arguments to make a point seems kind of pointless...what if I'm not Christian or Jewish or Islamic etc etc. Do those "rules" apply to me?

It was my hope that the passage which I quoted from the fifth chapter of Matthew would be seen for it's wisdom even if someone is not a Christian. If I may, I'll elaborate onm the context of the time and place. The "publicans" (as translated in the KJV) Jesus speaks of in that passage were the Hebrew Tax Collectors. These people were dispised. The Nation of Israel was unhappy under Roman rule. In that time period tax collectors were paid by charging however much over the tax they thought they could get away with. This particular group Jesus speaks of were hated because they were Hebrews who had, in today's vernacular, "sold out" to the Romans and were turned against their own people. They were both in a despised job, and ally of the despised empire ruling over the Jews.

One could draw the parallel that the tax collectors were like today's gang members; despised as the lowest of the low, thought of as less than civilized. What He was saying is the tax collectors (or gang members) are kind to those who are kind to them (look out for their own and their friends). So if you're kind to those who are kind to you, aren't you looking out for your own? How can you claim moral superiority over someone who does the same as you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top