self/property defense

[MrPeter]

I have always thought that if someone threw a brick through my window, or started to vandalize my car with baseball bats or something, then that is violence, and that is threatening to me or whomever's car that is.

However, if someone steals my lawn gnome, or spray-paints a sawastika on my door, and I catch them, I would have no problem physically restraining them with force, tackling them or otherwise, but I don't think I would draw, let alone fire, unless the fight got out of hand. Using my best judgement though, I would never get into a fight I didn't think I could win, and I'm a pretty good judge at that kind of thing.


So in a way, I vote property defense is A-OK, but what I mean is property defense can be A-OK

 

[Minator]

Your property takes moments of your life to earn you cannot get these moments back and you only have so much time on this earth, if you cannot bring yourself to defend your property that you have earned or are not willing too then you have no value on your own life or you did not work to earn these things and do not deserve them in the first place. This mentality that is spreading in today's society of not defending your ideas property or well being is what is leading to the loss of our freedom.

For the post adressing racism towards middleeasterners, First and foremost we are at war and on the verge of war with several middleeastern nations so who should we expect and or look at the chinese? Secondly, this is a "GUN FORUM" why is this subject even coming up I didnt even see any merit for it to be posted on. Your at war and someone steals your equipment, personally if I was there they would be dead before even making it to the door to attempt to steal a humv and it would be a good shoot even in the politcaly chained armed forces we have in place today.

The End.

 

[redneckwithgun]

If someone is armed with ANYTHING in YOUR house, that calls for dramatic force. If there unarmed with intension of stealing, I believe you can drop em at the knees just so they cant run from there crime. People can be unpredictable, especially if there in the process of breaking the law. Just my opinion

 

[poppy]

I am always shocked at how many on THR vote to kill over property when this issue comes up. The POS's life is not worth anything, I worked hard for what I have, etc.

I voted for the first option, and yes I have been robbed several times. One was a break-in at my business when no one was around, but two of them were break-in's through garage door windows while the building was occupied.

I am grateful that I was not in a position to confront the thieves. The garage break-ins were only a few days apart by the same perps and they were caught the second time in the act by the police. They were two boys about 10 or 11 years old. If I had shot one of them, I would have found it very difficult to live with myself.

I have mixed emotions about the castle doctrine, but based on the positions of many on this board, I guess I'm not too sad about it not being in place here is Ohio.

We have had several instances of home owners killing theives here in SW Ohio in recent months. The man who killed the young boy while he was stealing his car, was not charged because the prosecuter determined that the man feared for his life. Another man killed an intruder/thief who had a sledge hammer, and again the home owner was not charged.

I looked into the eyes of another CCW holder who had just shot his attacker in a public park. He did protect himself, but I have never seen before or since that look. He was really, really, shook up.

I hope none of you who are "just protecting my property" ever shoots, let alone kills anyone.

 

[one-shot-one]

no criminals life is worth even the cheapest piece of property that i have, they assign the value of their life when they choose to steal!

 

[TexasRifleman]

All states allow you to use deadly force to defenf your life, or the life of another innocent person.

Some (few) states allow deadly force in defense of property.

Well the thing is, my property is inside my home. Anyone inside my home I am assuming is there to harm me or my family, not just take property.

If there's someone in my living room he's getting shot, whether he's holding my stereo or not.

I have mixed emotions about the castle doctrine,

I can't imagine why. What about these types of laws bother you?

 

[MrPeter]

The garage break-ins were only a few days apart by the same perps and they were caught the second time in the act by the police. They were two boys about 10 or 11 years old. If I had shot one of them, I would have found it very difficult to live with myself.

Oh come now. No one is talking about killing a 10 year old child. We're talking about criminals here. Unless a 10 year old is armed and ready to kill you, which I doubt your intruders were, no one here or probably anywhere esle would argue that they would shoot. A phone call to their parents would be more in order, or a phone call to the police at most, to have the monetary value of the window compensated.

I have never felt it was alright to try and take something that wasn't mine, or go into someone's home without permission, and I have lived that way long enough to believe I could survive without doing so.

Lastly, applauding the killing of a human bieng because it sends a message of warning to other would-be thieves and attackers is a terrible thought, but without consequences there is nothing to keep criminals from committing crime. In a perfect world, laws would be enough, and the justice system would work, and everyone would go The High Road, both as their way of day to day life, and their forum of choice for gun discussion

We're not babykillers Poppy.

 

[03Shadowbob]

Poppy the way I read your post about a man killing an intruder who had a sledge but was not charged, sounds like you don't agree with killing that intruder. Am I reading that correctly?
I don't want to jump to conclusions but if that's what you mean, I have a hard time understanding that.

 

[DarthBubba]

Life or Property ?!!

To me I will use deadly force in defense of both.
Fact is that if I catch someone in the process of an unlawful entry into my home I am not going to take the time to find out if he or she is only there to steal enough to cover the cost of their next hit of crack or meth; or if they mean to do me grievous bodily harm. They will get one chance to surrender themselves peacefully and then Mr. Buckshot will decide their fate if they do not submit quietly to detention for law enforcement.

DarthBubba

 

[High Planes Drifter]

Yes, I do believe in the right to use deadly force in the protection of property. I believe if this was exercised more there'd be a whole lot less robberies going on today.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Sociopathy

It's interesting to see how many people regard life as so sacred that they wouldn't kill a bad guy until the bad guy was in the process of killing them.

Which is a little sad.

The sociopath is able to do the damage he does because he KNOWS most people are good and he can use the laws, rules, and social mores against the honest people and to his own advantage.

It has been my privilege in this life to have known perhaps a handful of genuine, real live, in-the-flesh sociopaths.

They will do all manner of harm, tell all manner of lies, ruin a life without hesitation, and all the while using the honorable impulses of good people to protect themselves.

You all, I'm sure, remember the definition of chutzpah: a young man standing before a judge pleading for leniency because, since he murdered his parents, he's now an orphan.

You know who a sociopath WON'T cheat, steal from, defraud, or otherwise overtly harm? The guy who says with complete icy calm, "if you mess with me, I will kill you; there won't be a trial, no one will call the cops, no one will file a law suit: you will be dead."

And for some reason, the sociopath's sense of self-preservation and survival actually registers that. Okay, if I screw with this guy, I can't use the "social judo" tricks against him; let's go find an easier target.

I generally regard "all life" as sacred. Still, without any compunction at all, I kill cockroaches and similar pests, because I know that the survival and quality of life of my own species improves when the roaches are gone.

I am entirely okay with limiting the propagation of roaches and the like wherever I live.

I generally regard "all human life" as sacred (see above), but I also know that there are -- within the species -- those who damage the species as a whole and without whom the species is better off.

None of this is to suggest that an individual should act as "judge, jury, and executioner" for these low-lifes.

The point is this: if your bias toward the sanctity of life is so strong that you can't recognize actual evil when confronted by it, that failure can kill you.

You ignore the fact of evil at your peril.

Giving too much "benefit of the doubt" when it's not warranted can dramatically shorten your life.

 

[AJ Dual]

Theft of property = theft of life.

I don't believe that execution is justified over theft after the fact, since killing the thief does nothing to return the lost property, and in that case, the thief's life is paramount. However, lethal force to defend property threatened at the moment of theft is justifiable.

If someone steals my car, at price of car divided by my yearly salary based on a 40-hour work week, it took X months of my life to acquire that car, which is time spent in this damnable cube-farm called my job. Time which I will never get back.

And those who'd argue over insurance, it's moot, since I still will have to spend yet more time doing the paperwork, haggling with the insurance provider, sourcing a replacement vehicle, and spending yet more time at work to earn my $500 deductible. And we all just wind up paying with little slices of our lives to pay for the increased premiums which ultimately will pay for my replacement car.

Let's put it this way: If I were a 89 year old man in a nursing home, and someone came in and killed me the same number of months it took me to earn my car, just before I was going to die of natural causes anyway, that person would still be up on murder charges, no?

I suppose you could make an argument that lottery winners or those who inherited shouldn't be able to kill to defend property, but even in the case of inheritance, that represents the time spent out of the life of the relatives you inherit from. So let's just say lottery winners can't kill over property then.

Seems fair to me.

 

[BigO01]

Just can't understand the whole "It can be replaced" and "O it isn't worth killing" crowd . Look at just how far has this been taken in modern society animals roam our streets and in many places you can't protect even yourself from harm . Women are raped and perhaps murdered but don't defend themselves because it isn't worth killing someone over yet even if caught and punished the criminal serves a few years and gets to do it all over again . Children are kidnapped , molested and even killed yet how many perpetrators get the death penalty ?

We are programmed to believe that it "no matter what IT IS" is only yours up to the point that some scum wants to take it away from you and then you're suppose to just roll over and let them have it . You all know Police Departments that advise against resisting or fighting back now don't you ?

Why protect your 3-10 YO child ? After all you and your wife are in your early 30's and healthy you can just have another child Right ? Is it relay worth the trauma of killing another human being ? Doesn't matter if they take your child's life you have to live with killing the poor little POS .

For Titan6 and the rest of you who wont shoot a common thief Please PM your home address with a list of your property "anyone got a nice big screen HD Flat screen TV I relay want one of those for free" , leave your doors unlocked and I'll make sure I announce myself as just an unarmed thief there only to steal your property .

This attitude is exactly why this Nation is in the trouble it is . We have illegal Mexicans invading us and stealing jobs from hard working Americans , committing crimes and sucking local communities dry with Public aide and education for their Anchor babies but hey we just let them because it isn't right to shoot them when they cross the border illegally to invade us now is it ? I mean come on now all they really are are thieves as they are stealing the country from under our noses and we just can't shoot a thief now can we ?

Many of you have decided a thiefs life is worth more than the value I put on my property , so what if I put no Value on anything of yours including your LIFE ? Why should I take the chance of accidently getting shot by you when you try to defend yourself and let you carry a gun ? Why should I pay higher taxes so the uninsured criminal will get free health care when you shoot him defending your life when if he kills you it will all be cheaper in the long run since you more than likely have insurance for a funeral ? Your life means nothing to me and if you get killed by a criminal I couldn't care less .

At some point you have to decide that right is right and wrong is wrong and the first person to commit a wrong is at fault for whatever may wind up happening and not turn the blame on the true victim of the crime .

 

[Big Calhoun]

@TexasRifleman:

I've read that statute and it's the one it refers back to that influences my decision:

PC §9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in
using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate
the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the
property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable
property by another is justified in using force against the other when
and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately
necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor
uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession
and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right
when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force,
threat, or fraud against the actor.

Now, maybe it was living in New Jersey that softened me up and made me a little squeamish, but I see a lot of subjectivity in that wording. From folks that I've spoken with, and also the sentiment echoed by my CHL instructor, you may be able to justify your actions in accordance with the law, but you still face having the case put before a Grand Jury.

In addition, I live in Irving, Dallas County...my understanding is that in situations like this, it really comes down to luck of the draw and how that particular officer sees it. I've always had bad luck...

 

[03Shadowbob]

To some keyboard commandos,
Have you ever shot someone? Have you ever stood over someone who bled to death? Someone who couldn't get the words out because his mouth looked like a volcano with all the blood coming from it? Have you gone through hours of psychological testing and help after having to do that? And not because someone broke into your car but was shooting at you?
Trust me, it is a whole lot easier to sit behind a computer screen and say I'd do this and I'd do that without one ounce of sorrow or disgust in myself or without questioning myself. If you have been in that situation and felt nothing then you are a cold SOB and I know quite a few both on the good side and the bad side of the law.
As you said right is right and wrong is wrong. You kill someone for breaking into your car, then you sir are wrong, IMHO. Now, just so you all know, I do believe in shooting someone who is trying to break into your home or your car when you are in it and believe in capital punishment. I am not an Anti by any sense of the word.
But then again typed words are just typed words and are taken for what they are.

 

[Soybomb]

Just can't understand the whole "It can be replaced" and "O it isn't worth killing" crowd .

Even if you believe an action to be morally ok, it doesn't mean it still won't do you harm. Lots of good guys who kill undeniably bad guys suffer alot of mental trauma from taking a life. Is that worth keeping a $300 tv? Are you absolutely sure you wouldn't be one of those guys who can't sleep? Personally the rewards aren't worth the risks, ymmv.

 

[sorensen440]

No I dont think I would be able to live with myself if I killed somone who was stealing from me
Although If I thought there was any danger to myself or others around me I wouldnt think twice about quelling the situation.


Would you really wanna shoot his guy anyways???

 

[Max Beep]

Frankly my interpretation of the question was; can I kill someone for stealing my hubcaps. No. Can I kill someone for stealing my car. I'd want to, but no, I wouldn't. Come into my home uninvited or take other action that threatens me, my friends, or family...different story.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Arfin - In the previous threads several people suggested shooting at a fleeing thief was a proper course of action. If they are not aiming at the back than what are they aiming at? In fact in several other threads here on THR it has been suggested as a proper course of action. My responses were not all directed at you but rather to show the idiocy, smallness and cowardice of these type actions.

Sir, I respectfully submit that shooting a fleeing thief in the back IS a "proper" course of action. The problem is that it is not, in most jurisdictions, a "lawful" course of action. That should be changed. (But probably will not be.)

I have mixed emotions about the castle doctrine, but based on the positions of many on this board, I guess I'm not too sad about it not being in place here is Ohio.

The castle doctrine does not address use of force in the protection of property. It addresses use of lethal force in defense of the person.

 

[Max Beep]

Frankly my interpretation of the question was; would I kill someone for stealing my hubcaps. No. Would I kill someone for stealing my car. I'd probably want to, but no, I wouldn't. Try to break into my home or take other action that threatens me, my friends, or family...different story. But I guess I'm just an ol' softy....

 

[Cosmoline]

So according to the majority here, I'd be OK blowing the head off a repo man? Killing a store clerk who just swiped a few extra dollars from me?

I'm speaking to you folks as a longtime member of the bar now, because this is damned important for you to understand:

Using lethal force to defend a property right ALONE is NEVER justification for killing someone. EVER! Deadly force may often be used against a criminal who invades an occupied home or carjacks when such a person poses an imminent threat of unlawful deadly force, or your state law allows you to presume as much.

Depending on the code and the circumstances, you ARE allowed to use a certain amount of force to defend your property, and even to reclaim it under some limited circumstances. Do NOT get confused between these provisions and the provisions allowing for deadly force!

This nonsense:

In my opinion, any consideration for their life ended when they decided to violate my property.

WILL land you in prison.

 

[R.W.Dale]

This thread just reinforces my suspicion that 3/4 of all gun forum members are mall ninja wusses who can only defend their honor with a gun.


I voted NO, I would not shoot you for stealin my cat. But I might take it away from you and beat you with it. A lowlife thief ain't worth the trouble that shootin them would cause me.

 

[poppy]

TexasRifleman

Quote:
I have mixed emotions about the castle doctrine,

I can't imagine why. What about these types of laws bother you?

I have mixed emotions because (using Florida's law as an example), if I understand the law correctly, I would have been justified in shooting those kids that broke into my garage because I can assume that their intent is to do great harm to me, plus I have no obligation to retreat.

MrPeter

Oh come now. No one is talking about killing a 10 year old child. We're talking about criminals here. Unless a 10 year old is armed and ready to kill you, which I doubt your intruders were, no one here or probably anywhere esle would argue that they would shoot.

Those who have said that the POS's life is not worth their property have not put conditions of age on the statement. And these 10 year olds are criminals, repeat criminals who took valuables from my cars, and entered the main part of the house on the second visit.

Shodowbob

Poppy the way I read your post about a man killing an intruder who had a sledge but was not charged, sounds like you don't agree with killing that intruder. Am I reading that correctly. I don't want to jump to conclusions but if that's what you mean, I have a hard time understanding that

No, you are not reading that correctly. I never suggested that I didn't agree that the killing was justified. My point in those two examples was that the home owners were not prosecuted because they were seen as defending themselves and one of them was outside his house. The castle doctrine, which Ohio does not have, was not needed in those cases.

Aquila

The castle doctrine does not address use of force in the protection of property. It addresses use of lethal force in defense of the person.

It's not quite that simple, although it is true that property has very little to do with the doctrine, and perhaps does not belong in this discussion.

As one of the mods said, the original question was a little too general, but I stand by my postion and remain shocked at the number of THR folks who don't seem to value life over property.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Now, maybe it was living in New Jersey that softened me up and made me a little squeamish, but I see a lot of subjectivity in that wording. From folks that I've spoken with, and also the sentiment echoed by my CHL instructor, you may be able to justify your actions in accordance with the law, but you still face having the case put before a Grand Jury.

Very true. You shoot someone in Texas you are likely to face a Grand Jury no matter what.

The shoot for property statute is vague on purpose I suppose, so you'd better have a good reason for shooting someone over property.

But, most of my property is inside my house, so it doesn't matter at that point. If they are in my home I can assume it's me they are after, not property.

So, they get shot.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I have mixed emotions because (using Florida's law as an example), if I understand the law correctly, I would have been justified in shooting those kids that broke into my garage because I can assume that their intent is to do great harm to me, plus I have no obligation to retreat.

Being justified in shooting and deciding to do it are not the same. I like the fact that the statute covers me IF I decide I need to shoot someone.

Worrying about getting sued and hesitating too long to shoot is dangerous.

This Castle Doctrine stuff just removes that worry.

You see 2 10 year old kids in your garage you still don't have to pull the trigger unless you think it necessary to protect your life.

But, with the Castle Doctrine, you have better coverage IF you make that decision at some point.

So I still don't know why it's a mixed feeling. It doesn't REQUIRE you to shoot.

I understand the worry that some nutcase may take advantage of the law, but so far in the states that have adopted it that doesn't seem to have happened. There was the same fear blood would flow in the streets of Florida and Texas after the concealed handgun laws too.