self/property defense

[GEM]

The exception proofs the rule.

If you think there is an absolute right to use deadly force to protect property, what about if you leave your Mounds bar on a picnic table. You see an unknown four year old pick it up and run away. You have a good clear shot at the tyke. Should you take it?

What if the 4 year old was running away with your IPOD?

What if the 4 year old was running away with your Hope Diamond?

No good to say you could catch the 4 year old, that waters down the issue and gets away from the absolute point.

 

[M_Olson]

No good to say you could catch the 4 year old, that waters down the issue and gets away from the absolute point.

when you are allowed to define your own terms you can prove anything.

i believe you do have a right to defend your property by deadly force. it is up to the person to make the judgment call on whether deadly force is necessary. with the case you provide it would obviously be unnecessary as you could catch the kid. i would say the same thing if, instead of a 4 year old, you had said a thug, gang banger. in this case, the trauma you would experience over shooting someone out weighs the benefit of getting your items back.

What if the 4 year old was running away with your Hope Diamond

im sure there are armed guards for the hope diamond that are instructed to shoot anyone stealing the hope diamond, if necessary to apprehend. a 4 year old would not fall under that category.

what if a 4 year old was maliciously shooting at you or your family? if you are not willing to shoot the child does this disprove that self defense against a violent attacker is just?

 

[GEM]

So if you were on a jury you would vote to acquit someone who shot the four year old? Would you engage in jury nullification if you were in a state that didn't allow shooting for property? Or would you say following the law is a great moral principle that the right to shoot someone for property.

The armed guards and the shooting back 4 year old are irrelevant for the absolute test. The absolutist believes that lethal force usable to shoot a child over a Mounds bar.

If one believes such, we are in a sorrow state and if one doesn't, it demonstrates that the principle of shooting for property must have some limits.

 

[M_Olson]

So if you were on a jury you would vote to acquit someone who shot the four year old? Would you engage in jury nullification if you were in a state that didn't allow shooting for property? Or would you say following the law is a great moral principle that the right to shoot someone for property.

what i meant to convey, is that all cases of defense of property should not be held to the standard of shooting a 4 year old. just as all cases of self defense should not be held to the same.

to answer your question, i would vote to convict; assuming there was proper evidence and all that. mainly because i wouldnt see the shooting as justified as the person, in fact, could have used other non lethal or even harmful means of retrieving his stolen merchandise.

 

[swingpress]

I may choose not to use such deadly force to protect property, but will not require the same of you.

 

[aufevermike]

didn't vote

I didn't vote, I feel you should be able to defend both life and or property. And that goes for any life whether it may be your neighbor, aunt or dog. If I'm on a hunt and someone is breaking into my vehicle, should I not be able to defend that?

 

[GEM]

The issue is the level of the property loss and the threat to you from the crime.

That's what makes the absolute statement troublesome. If you were in Alaska on a hunt and someone is stealing your jeep so you are stuck in the Wilderness, that's different from your Mounds bar.

I think lethal force may be justified for substantial and damaging economic loss and/or potential threats to personal health (like the jeep).

If someone is breaking into your house, they are a potential threat and that drives the decision.

Let's say you find your brother-in-law is embezelling from you. You see him at the computer doing it. Shoot him or call the law?

Most scenarios that have a shoot or no shoot decision have a physical risk attached - a robbery in progress. That pollutes the clarity of the decision of whether shooting for property in the abstract is acceptable.

 

[LSCurrier]

I would shoot to defend life. I may shoot to defend property - depending upon circumstance.

If someone wants to break the law they take their life in their hands.

I seek to harm no one, but I will not blindly let someone else take what is mine.

Luke

 

[RoadkingLarry]

It would depend on how the thief or thieves reacted when I confronted them and demanded they leave my stuff alone. If at that point him/her/they acted in a way that made me fear for my or a loved ones personal safety/life then yes, I would be justified in using deadly force.

 

[willbrink]

Dang that deend property!

 

[Troutman]

<<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.

Which do you think is correct?>>

Going back to the original posters question. And answering that question. Which do you think is correct?

The correct answer is: follow the laws in the state you reside for defense of property, using deadly force. Then act accordingly when using deadly force to defend it. Or one can always waive that right as well.
There is no law (not using those laws to defend property) against letting someone steal your property. There is no law either; that you have to make a report for one’s stolen property. Check your state.

So….If someone wants your vehicle in your garage and that someone says to you: “Give me your vehicle, sucker, or I’ll blow your brains out. Because, I’m going to send it (vehicle) to a third world country and use it as a fireworks display. And if you tell the authorities, I’ll have my buddies in crime, come back and take you and your family out, and, I don’t mean for dinner, either”.
So….One, either takes action (see above)…... or just let them take it and keep quiet about the whole thing.
Remember how some say about property; your property can be replaced.
Which leads to, which is more important, your property or your family?
Who cares what the B.G. does with the car. You did not commit the crime. And one is not responsible for what he does with it.
Even if you reported it to the authorities, and the B.G. while traveling to his destination, says: “What the hell, while I’m on my way to the drop off point, I’ll take out some civilians (running them down) on the way”
Don’t blame yourself, for it happening. You did the best YOU could.