Shooting to save your Property...

[Okiecruffler]

Over a water hose..., maybe not, but you'd better hope I'm in a good mood. Anything else and you're going to get very permanantly damaged. Everything I own I paid for by being puked on, bled on, and cussed at. That makes me a tad bit protective. As far as civil suits go, I'll file a counter suit for the cost of the bullet and the cleaning bill. And if it's my day off, I've got 200 acres and a shovel, I wonder if you'd be missed.


Maybe I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, but I just can not stand a thief.

 

[m.i.sanders]

We're not allowed to shoot over property here, however, IF there is an intruder in my house, I WILL SHOOT. I don't know or particularly care why they're in my house, only that they are. With that being said, I believe that one is moraly, if not legaly allowed to use force to protect what one owns if it is deemed necessary by the individual.

 

[TheOtherOne]

In Utah, you're not allowed to even show your weapon unless you are encountered with a deadly threat. So the answer to #1 is No.

Going with the eye for an eye philosophy, I wouldn't feel justified in shooting someone over just stealing my crap.

Of course, if more states had laws like Texas and more people felt okay with shooting someone over steeling a garden hose, or whatever... we sure would have a lot less burglary!

 

[para.2]

Offhand, I can't think of any personal property I own that I would be willing to kill over. If, however, I have any inkling that someone intends to harm me or mine,( and that includes waking up in the middle of the night and finding an intruder in my home), I would do whatever was necessary and sleep well at night.

 

[biere]

I agree with everyone that stuff is stuff and can be replaced, this is why I have fire insurance.

But I hate paying theft insurance.

Last time I checked, ohio's laws sucked. I have to be in fear of my life before doing much of anything.

I had some stuff stolen once as well. I learned the police showed up to make a report simply so I had something to send to my insurance, but at the time I had no insurance for theft. They made out like it was entirely my fault since my stuff would never be recovered.

And now due to budget problems prisoners are being released early in a lot of states.

I won't break ohio's laws, but I also won't trust the police or courts to change things anytime soon either.

Only states with the "make my day" property laws will change things.

I am of the opinion that if you ccw because you feel the police can't protect you then why would the police be able to protect your stuff?

And telling me to just get insurance is solving the symptom. The disease continues happily along.

 

[Drjones]

para and the other one:

I'm not interested in the value of the physical item.

I'm more concerned with the moral and philosophical aspect of it:

Stealing is just wrong.

If more people were shot for stealing (as well as any other crime) those crimes would go down.

If not, we can always buy more bullets until it does go down!

Seriously, I don't look at it as, "why would you shoot someone over $x.xx?" Or; "I couldn't justify shooting someone over merely a _____ "

Its the principle....

 

[HS/LD]

1. Circumstances dictate.

2. Y

3. Y

4. Y

HS/LD

 

[Gila Jorge]

I'm fron Texas, obviously. Yes on all accounts as the decision to use deadly force was assumed and made for me by the criminal who was confronted by me. Now circumstances might mitigate killing him outright but it is unlikely. Mitigation might only get me or my household killed.

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No

I'd shoot to defend a life. Property can be replaced, but that's just my crazy take on the subject...

 

[QKRTHNU]

I would most deffinately announce that I was armed and in fear of my life.

I wouldn't feel morally justified to shoot someone for stealing, but If the BG did anything other than run away then I would be forced to.

So property defense laws don't really matter if handled like this. If the BG doesn't leave he obviously intends on doing more than just steal. At that point it's no longer a property issue.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Depending on the property, yes to all four questions.

If the property were my dogs? Without question.

 

[sm]

No
Yes
Yes
Yes

* certain circumstances,i.e. about to commit arson, mine or other property, I'm legal.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I think it would be morally justifiable to use deadly force to defend property, as the thief is abusing your God given, government acknowledged civil rights.


I might not do it, but I thinkit would be justifiable.

Its easy not to get shot in this country, just dont do anything bad.

 

[Smoke]

I'm from Texas (thank you God)

I don't think it wise to shoot someone over property and wouldn't want to trust a jury in such a case.

Unless the property crime escalates into a situation where I beleive my life is in danger, they can take my VCR. I'll try to be a good witness and let the police do their job.

 

[Butch]

Yes to all, with a few qualifiers, not for water sprinkler, yes for camper,not for my car jack, yes for my car, you get the idea.
Also not if I could stop any other way.

 

[para.2]

Dr Jones:
I'm not saying it's OK to steal ( my stuff, or anyone else's). Or even that it's morally wrong (for you, or anyone) to shoot a thief. I'm just saying that I've thought about it long and hard, and if I, or those around me , aren't threatened, I don't see myself shooting.

 

[ahenry]

Absolutely nothing wrong with that.