Shoot to defend a car?

Status
Not open for further replies.
BUT, in reality are you really going to just let someone violate you and help themselves to your domain?
Click to expand...

Would a reasonable person belive that I'm in danger of receiving grevious bodily harm? Does the assailant have the ability, opportunity, and are they an immediate threat?

Every state law is different. In my "domain" I have the legal ability to exercise lethal force to stop a forcible felony. I even have civil liability protection for any injuries that I cause to a perpetrator as long as said injuries where caused while they were in the commission of a forcible felony except for AUTO BURGLARY.

So I would suggest that you read up on your applicable state laws so that you don't end up like the guy in the first post.

This isn't some little theoretical game I get to play on the internet for fun. I've taught and certified about 400 people to carry concealed firearms. I can't stand in front of a room full of students and talk smack, or make boasts, or tell them how I WISH things were.

I have to tell them how it actually is. In real life.

So if I walk out of my house, and some scumbag is driving off in my car. No I'm not going to shoot him unless I can articulate why I or someone else was in danger of grevious bodily harm.

If the person threatens me in any way, then I will act accordingly.
 
Certainly not the Christian view unless you feel it only applies to cloaks.
Click to expand...

sure it is a Christian view. Not to stray onto a theological debate, but the Bible does permit the use of deadly force to protect your property.

your reference to cloaks is a parable that Jesus was using to drive home a point. Just like turn the other cheek. It isn't mean't to imply pacifism
 
the thief surrendered his rights in life either by jail or by death when he interfered with the man's life by taking his car.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine. You have no legal basis for this whatsoever. If you have religious or philosophical basis for it, I'd be interested in seeing them. Failing that, this sounds more like a rationalization for shooting the thief because you are angry at him.
 
EDIT: on the side, let me pose this question to chew on. Many in here have said that you shouldn't use deadly force unless your life is in danger.
Well, following that through, if someone is raping you or your loved one, you shouldn't use deadly force against them (you can't shoot them) because they are just raping, they are not killing. You should force them off or call the police after the crime is committed, let them catch the criminal and put them away.
Is anyone going to follow this line of thinking?
Click to expand...

Rape = Grevious bodily harm = shoot the scumbag.

See simple. First time one of my students kills a rapist, I'm going to throw a big party at the gunstore with balloons and a cake.

Did you pay any attention at all in your CCW class, or was your instructor dimwitted?
 
Corriea, Joe Demko
I am not arguing about what the law says or with you personally. I am arguing against the notion and the law that ludicrously thinks that we are supposed to just let thieves have their way with you and yours when they have been caught red handed and you have the means to stop them. I am also arguing against the law and notion that downplays the importance of property.

My CHL instructor said pretty much just what you, Corriea, are saying in regards to protecting property.

It is more philisophical and historical than it is the way the law was written ( but you could make a good case in court after having spent a bundle of money that destroying or stealing property is a violation of your person in court because in reality that is what it is)


As to whether Mr. Hall is going to jail, that remains to be seen. The fact that he was released from police custody and the DA has not immediately ordered his arrest and indicted him is a good sign to me. (you might say he got lucky)
 
Not a good plan of action to shoot someone for taking your car. But then again I wouldn't waste tears over the death. Teens need to learn to knock off the nonsense. I have absolutely no sympathy for them.
 
EDIT: on the side, let me pose this question to chew on. Many in here have said that you shouldn't use deadly force unless your life is in danger.
Well, following that through, if someone is raping you or your loved one, you shouldn't use deadly force against them (you can't shoot them) because they are just raping, they are not killing. You should force them off or call the police after the crime is committed, let them catch the criminal and put them away.
Is anyone going to follow this line of thinking?
Click to expand...

I am not even sure if that deserves a reply. Again... This would be an attack and could be plead off as self defense. When someone is being raped there is always a very good chance that the rapist will kill them when it is all said and done. In SC I can fire on a BG if I can claim self defense on behalf of someone else. So Rape..... Double tap to the Chest just to make sure you have stopped him. How can we compare Rape to personal property theft?
 
Doug, and I don't disagree about that. If the law sucks, do what you can to change it, but don't gamble on breaking it and getting off.

However that is a topic for L&P. S&T needs to stick to reality. This is supposed to be where people come to learn about self defense, and about the skills they need to stay alive and out of jail.

Sadly S&T has degraded at times into a big chorus of chest thumping and macho posturing, with advice that would frankly wind most posters in jail or worse. Jeff White has been on a crusade to keep S&T on the high road, and he's done a good job.
 
The hypocrisy in this thread is astounding. If the government started executing car thieves, you people would be in an uproar about how this country is turning into China... and rightfully so. But if a private citizen does it, then it's okay. These same folks who claim to take issue with Middle Eastern tradition and radical Islam (of maiming/executing people for simple property crimes) now seem to be advocating the right of citizens to commit that same injustice on inner-city teenagers...
Click to expand...

I do think we should execute car thieves. And identity thieves. And anyone who would steal anything that affects another's Life, Liberty, or Pursuit of Happiness. I'm not saying we do it without a trial, like China. I'm saying that in my perfect America, society would treat a man's car, identity, and money as somthing that is not to be messed without permanent consequences.

I know that's not how it is NOW, that's why I haven't shot any of the several people I firmly believe "have it comming". I'd like to change that though...Riktoven for President.

There is no question that the punk stealing the car was in the wrong, but there is no valid moral or ethical justification for killing someone who is stealing your car while you are not in danger. You shoot to defend your life or the life of another. You can't defend a thing like a car.
Click to expand...

Unless you have had an intimate word with the Almighty, you don't have the credentials to make a blanket statement like that. It's not just about defending a car. It's about defending right from wrong. That car is freedom. Letting the thief have it without a fight, while LEGALLY the only sane choice one has in most states, is a detriment to society in the long run.

Look at it like this, if the Native American's would have made a better show of force to the first group of foreigners blatantly stealing from them, would they be better off than they are now? Can't say for sure, but I'll bet you anything they would have liked the opportunity to find out instead of just letting it go until the "thieves" surrounded them in unfightable numbers.

Crime needs to be nipped in the bud, and if some punk kid and his tramp of a girlfriend have to die to reinforce the point, so be it. I say smite the smiters.


CLARIFICATION: Again, I know that what I believe to be right does not coincide with the law. My fear of imprisonment keeps my beliefs in check. I just think criminals should be more afraid of society than society is of the law.
 
correia makes a lot of good points. The shooter appeared to break the deadly force laws in his state. He's probably going to face some time.

As i said eariler, he's screwed legally. Morally I don't blame him a bit, but as a gun owner who carries for self defense, you HAVE to know when its legal and not legal to whip your piece out and waste someone. This guy either didn't know or didn't care, and he makes the rest of us look bad.
 
That makes sense. I'll let it drop here then and maybe I'll open up a new thread in L&P.:)

Doug, and I don't disagree about that. If the law sucks, do what you can to change it, but don't gamble on breaking it and getting off.

However that is a topic for L&P. S&T needs to stick to reality. This is supposed to be where people come to learn about self defense, and about the skills they need to stay alive and out of jail.

Sadly S&T has degraded at times into a big chorus of chest thumping and macho posturing, with advice that would frankly wind most posters in jail or worse. Jeff White has been on a crusade to keep S&T on the high road, and he's done a good job.
Click to expand...
 
Those of you advocating shooting the punk thief need to think carefully about what the ratio is between those agreeing with you and those that aren't and decide if perhaps you're off base on this position. Remember that you're not at the average PTA meeting, but on an RKBA board where everyone that disagrees with you not only advocates the individual's right to self defense and use of firearms, but probably many of them carry on a daily basis and have thought through their responsibilities.
Click to expand...

Hso you are implying that majorities are always right with that statement ? If so the majority of voters in my home state of MO voted against a CCW law when it was put on the ballot . So did the citizens of Germany when they elected Hitler as Chancellor by the way , were these majorities right in your opinion ?

There's an old saying "What's right isn't always legal and what's legal isn't always right " if things were as they as they should be the shooter would never have had to deal with all of this as the punk would have been in some kind of lockup for his previous crimes .

As one who was a victim of crime more than once when I was younger when it happens to you a few times even property crimes get to the point you don't just blow them off with the attitude that "it" can be replaced .
 
sure it is a Christian view. Not to stray onto a theological debate, but the Bible does permit the use of deadly force to protect your property.

your reference to cloaks is a parable that Jesus was using to drive home a point. Just like turn the other cheek. It isn't mean't to imply pacifism
Click to expand...

A car in America today is not like taking a man's millstone in the OT. People
still have ways to get to work whereas a millstone would have been a hard
to replace item where the family could have literally starved to death in the
meantime. Your family starving to death in today's America is not going to
happen if your car is stolen. It is not the farm horse of the 1840s.

WWJD? I just can't imagine Jesus going for his 9mm and popping the kid in
the car. Rather, I see him saying "What you're doing, you know is wrong."
In fact, tossing the kid the car keys might have had a profoundly shaming
or humbling effect on him. I'm not saying the kid wouldn't have still driven
off, but how would his mind have digested that one later?

Now we have multiple lives screwed up on both sides of this over an inaminate
object.

I have a bicycle worth more than this car and if someone tries to steal
it out of my pole barn from across my property should I break out my varmint
rifle, scope the lad, and take a shot? Get real.....
 
Where the hell did Hitler come from in this thread?

Some days I hate the internet.

:scrutiny:

Listen to me very carefully. S&T is not the place to pontificate about the moral issues of shooting thieves.

Deal with it.
 
Well, following that through, if someone is raping you or your loved one, you shouldn't use deadly force against them (you can't shoot them) because they are just raping, they are not killing.
Click to expand...

That's what's referred to as a "straw man". "Well, you wouldn't shoot a someone stealing your car then you're telling me you wouldn't shoot a rapist/kidnapper/child molester? Why wouldn't you shoot a rapist/kidnapper/child molester? Are you soft on child molesters?" Let's not get off the topic.:rolleyes:

Some of you have advocated killing someone fleeing with your property. You you worked hard for it. You value it. They value it enough to steal it. Do you value it so much that you'd kill someone for it? Do you value it so much that you'd kill some punk who may be a 15 times loser or who may be a dumbass kid who thinks it would be funny to move the car a couple of blocks away?

We limit the use of deadly force to defending ourselves and others from death and grave bodily harm because those are clear cut situations (most of the time) where you're protecting the health of the person you're defending.

If you think shooting someone over property is right, the law does not support you in this. That's the reality. To deny the reality is foolhardy and to put yourself at great risk and at odds with the vast majority of members here and this is a group of people who support self defense. That's not "majority is always right", that's "if all these folks who believe in self defense and RKBA don't agree with me perhaps my opinion on this issue isn't correct and I should take some time to examine it". (and it's a significant topic drift from the original topic)
 
I didn't say I particularly liked it, but if we want to keep every thread in S&T from degrading into a Kill 'Em All and Let God Sort Them Out forum, we probably should keep this place related to, oh I don't know, STRATEGIES AND TACTICS. :p
 
Wow......:eek:

Seems like thee are a lot of wingnuts laying around the shop lately.:neener:

I prefer the advice about the extra key for warming-up the vehicle.
You can also buy a remote ignition if you are so inclined.

I own an old Chevy truck which gets driven very seldomly. A slow witted child could figure out how to break in and jump the ignition in short-order.
So to prevent theft and subsequent murder, I open the hood and disable the spark.

Most thieves prefer vehicles that run.

My daily-driver has comprehensive insurance coverage. So far this has been adequate protection.

I have had vehicles stolen before, they are replaceable.
Get a Club for the steering wheel and brake. They can be defeated easily, but most thieves do not want to spend extra time on a more difficult car when they can just go on to the next one.
 
I have a take on this. Let's say you are at the bank and you are talking to the banker. He is crook and is about to swindle you out of $1500 (the amount of this crappy car). He laughs at you and is about to press the button that will transfer your funds away. Thus, you pull out your 'gat' and blast him as he is pressing it.

Is that justified? Or would you better off going to the law to retrieve your funds? What do you think would happen to you - even if you could prove the fraud?

On a theoretical note and as as 'psychologist', what we see here is an emotion driven response in part due to a sense of terroritorial violation. The man stole property involved in our ego structure. Thus, he should die. That generates most of the blood lust as compared to the 'protecting' Christian values or Western Civilization.

Some folks here would die to prevent themselves being given a cavity search? Is that worth dying for? As an older person, I get that search everytime I get a checkup - :eek:

Pragmatically, the costs of shooting the dude over the crappy car:

1. Expensive court costs even if a no-bill. Is ego and Western Civilization worth it?
2. Possible psych trauma to you after the kill. No, it won't happen to an Internet tough guy like SteelWarrior45ACPMan!
3. Possible psych trauma to your family and various social shunnings by coworkers and neighbors.

Now worrrying about this might lead to think that we a nation of cowards, etc. but survival and success is complex - your choice if it is worth it to make a statement for your crappy car.

As far as Hitler - he'd better not steal my car with 220K miles on it.
 
Wow! The thread got Godwin(ed) in just 3 pages!

Leave it to somebody to bring Adolf into the discussion...

As for the shooter, it wasn't Texas, and if his life or health wasn't threatened, he committed MURDER - plain and simple. It sucks that the kid was a car thief, but that vocation didn't warrant his execution.

The Keyboard Kommandos may think otherwise, but as Correia pointed out, the law defines how it's going to work for Mr. Shooter. He'll be lucky if he just gets violated in prison on a regular basis, assuming Ohio doesn't have the death penalty.
 
Heck, I LOVE my Jeep and I still wouldn't shoot anyone over it.

Now, I'm not saying the shooter was wrong to go out in his driveway with a gun. I'm not saying he was wrong to wave his gun around and yell something along the lines of, "stop, you filthy little weasel!"

Those are things I think I would do, and for which, if there were legal repercussions, I would be ok with being responsible for.

But...assuming he wasn't about to be run over, he should never have fired on the thief (kid or not). Beyond the fairly obvious legal issues, a car just ain't worth killing someone over.

EDIT TO ADD:
Unless it was Hitler stealing my Jeep. I'd shoot Hitler. Had to keep with the spirit of things.
 
Last edited:
the shooter will face charges, I am pretty certain of that. The real surprise is that the perp's mom was shocked to hear her lil darling was killed. She should have been expecting it for several years. The real shame is that a guy's life is ruined because he reacted to the criminal act of a hoodlum. Everyone loses in this one.
 
EDIT TO ADD:
Unless it was Hitler stealing my Jeep. I'd shoot Hitler. Had to keep with the spirit of things.
Click to expand...

Ok, I admit it. I'd shoot Hitler also if he was stealing my wife's Prius.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

evan price
  • Locked
Cincinnati CCW holder will not be charged in death of car thief
Replies
13
Views
752
carebear
C
O
  • Locked
Shoot to Defend a Car…the rest of the story.
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
J
  • Locked
Finger off the trigger until the sights are on the target
Replies
13
Views
946
ATLDave
A
C
  • Locked
Wow!!!!!
Replies
16
Views
2K
Ragnar Danneskjold
R
ACP
  • Locked
VERY Lucky Mother
Replies
4
Views
601
Mainsail
Mainsail
Back
Top