Aragon
member
And they didn't hit anyone else they would have went to the can...
What are armed citizens in Balitmore doing?
- Thread starter Redstate
- Start date
- Status
Officers'Wife
Member
USAF_Vet
Member
If it comes to defending one's home, I'm 100% with Officers'Wife. But for most businesses, it's a very limited set of circumstances that I'd defend that property with lethal force. A family owned business that's generation old, like the one she commented about that predated the Civil War, yeah. I'd defend that. My current place of employment can burn to the ground, and can be looted to the last brick. I'd collect my insurance check for the loss of my tools and carry on with nothing but a minor setback.
As for defining slavery... I really don't want to get into it, but I'm more in agreement again with O'W here. Working for the man, night and day, for nothing but food, clothing and shelter because taxes are too high, the dollar is too short, with little time or money enough for enjoyment feels a lot like slavery. And based on my age, ethnic background, gender, education level and so forth, I'll never qualify for any government assistance, however temporary. So how am I free if I can't afford even the simplest things life has to offer? It's all hypothetical, as I'm not in that situation. I'm by no means wealthy, and I do enjoy some things, but I definitely see where she is coming from.
As for defining slavery... I really don't want to get into it, but I'm more in agreement again with O'W here. Working for the man, night and day, for nothing but food, clothing and shelter because taxes are too high, the dollar is too short, with little time or money enough for enjoyment feels a lot like slavery. And based on my age, ethnic background, gender, education level and so forth, I'll never qualify for any government assistance, however temporary. So how am I free if I can't afford even the simplest things life has to offer? It's all hypothetical, as I'm not in that situation. I'm by no means wealthy, and I do enjoy some things, but I definitely see where she is coming from.
TimSr
Member
They've identified dozens of looters and arsonists from video in Ferguson, but they refuse to prosecute a single one.
TimSr
Member
Ironic signature for someone advocating running away from fighting for your Constitutional private property rights.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Remember that the Constitution is a document that is designed to define and limit the federal government. Civil matters of property damage/destruction are not "Constitutional private property rights" issues -- AT ALL -- so conflating them makes us all a bit dumber-er.
The legal principle that life (even that of a criminal) is more sacred than property (even yours), and hence that one does not kill to protect stuff and things, is a very old one. It predates this country and is part of the basis of the legal system that every one of our Founding Fathers knew, understood, and used to build our system.
TimSr
Member
TimSr
Member
Sorry Sam, but there is huge difference between a specific piece of property and the right to own property. There is a difference between shooting somebody for running off with your property, and protecting yourself if you are unwilling to step aside and watch them take it, and they proceed anyways.
im gonna be honest here....some of you people <deleted> terrify and sicken me.....
you are honestly telling me you would willingly kill another person, to protect a material object...you would kill another person over a play station....over a cell phone.....over a couch........what the hell is the matter with you?
i dont care what sort of psudo-philosophical justification you pin to it...
hell, i cant help but think some of you are just hoping for someone to do something so you get the chance to kill someone......
...jesus.....i forgot why it was i rarely go on forums anymore.....now i remember its because they are filled with trigger happy nutbags who look for excuses to shoot someone....
you are honestly telling me you would willingly kill another person, to protect a material object...you would kill another person over a play station....over a cell phone.....over a couch........what the hell is the matter with you?
i dont care what sort of psudo-philosophical justification you pin to it...
hell, i cant help but think some of you are just hoping for someone to do something so you get the chance to kill someone......
...jesus.....i forgot why it was i rarely go on forums anymore.....now i remember its because they are filled with trigger happy nutbags who look for excuses to shoot someone....
Last edited by a moderator:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Then I think we're in perfect agreement, as no thief or looter could ever steal your right to own property.
As for theft or destruction of property? That's what we have civil law for. That's the very basic definition and function of a civil legal system. No matter how imperfect or unsatisfactory the results might appear, restitution of lost property is ENTIRELY a civil matter. Not a violence matter, no matter how justified the aggrieved party may feel they are.
There is, though it is a muddy one. It's like we try to explain about bank/armored car guards. They are not armed to protect the money. They are armed in case they need to protect themselves.
Now, how far are they supposed to go in protecting the money? Not very far. If protecting the "stuff" is going to entail injury or loss of life, no.
danez71
Member
Sam already addressed this for me but I have to say....
Show me that part of the Constitution and then we'll talk.
Fighting for your Freedom is not the same as killing to save your car because you feel free when you drive it.
These slavery comparisons to looters and general thieving scum are an embarrassment.
I will say that I'm not 100% disagreeing with Officers Wife. But when the arguments are taken to the Nth degree, they lose all effectiveness because the comparison is like an apple to a avacado pit.
"Just hand it over and no one gets hurt."
Wallet, keys, money, credit cards, car, contents of your safe - just material objects right?
The point isn't to kill, it is to protect. That is why the entire concealed carry revolution began, to protect. In many states, Castle Doctrines extend to business' and that includes protecting property with lethal force.
All for gummi bears and pocket lint, right M-Cameron?
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
No it doesn't. Only TX recognizes a right to kill someone over property, and only under specific conditions. You can call it "protect with lethal force" but what you're saying is kill someone over property. Castle Doctrine laws do NOT grant or protect a right to use lethal force over theft or trespassing. They grant certain assumptions to the defender, and those assumptions include that if an occupied structure is being forcibly broken into that LIFE is threatened. But that isn't the same concept as granting the ability to shoot to protect your property.
The only excuse/reason/justification for using lethal force is to protect LIFE and/or prevent grievous injury.
Sav .250
Member
Not everyone lives at......ground zero. Alert mode would be the order of the day....
Well, that is the crux of it isn't it Sam?
We cannot know what is in a man's mind. Is someone breaking into my home just trying to steal my gummi bears, or are they are going to harm me or my family?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
That's why Castle Doctrine laws recognize that you may assume to be in grave personal danger if someone is breaking into your occupied home.
And why almost all state laws recognize that arson of an occupied structure is a valid justification for use of lethal force.
That's not the same thing as "... wallet, keys, money..." or your place of business.
And why almost all state laws recognize that arson of an occupied structure is a valid justification for use of lethal force.
That's not the same thing as "... wallet, keys, money..." or your place of business.
45_auto
Member
supernaut said:
Interesting bit of internet BS there.
Here's Texas law with respect to deadly force to protect property, do you have ANY legitimate references to the laws of the other "many" states to which you refer?
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.42
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
The "ands" in that are very important. It isn't one or the other, it's all.
AND...
AND, that's just TX. About the only place in the nation where such a law exists.
AND...
That line makes the whole thing pretty moot in this day of insurance coverage.
AND, that's just TX. About the only place in the nation where such a law exists.
I've read a lot of misinformation saying that MD residents should be assumed to be unarmed in their homes.
My BIL has 4 Enfields and 2 milsurp shotguns in racks in his condo. Not exactly unarmed.
His neighbor 2 doors down had a very nice Browning sporting clays 12 gauge shotgun and a police 870 as well as a Tikka T3 in 7mm and a very nice condition 1904.
They both talked about their other buddies and their milsurps and their shotguns. I'd guesstimate another half dozen plus guys and their families.
That's just my personal experience instead of random conjecture from someone that hasn't been there or doesn't actually know anyone there.
***
The smart person gets his family away from catastrophic conditions to a place of safety/security where they don't have to worry about their well being. If they have the neighbors to back them and the means to enforce it they can work together to secure the street/block/neighborhood against marauders after they have gotten the family away. If they don't, they're better off staying with their family in that place of safety and security well away from the riots/looting/arson.
***
No, not "filled with". For every "nutbag" posting there are many many more sitting at their computers shaking their heads or thinking "internet poser".
My BIL has 4 Enfields and 2 milsurp shotguns in racks in his condo. Not exactly unarmed.
His neighbor 2 doors down had a very nice Browning sporting clays 12 gauge shotgun and a police 870 as well as a Tikka T3 in 7mm and a very nice condition 1904.
They both talked about their other buddies and their milsurps and their shotguns. I'd guesstimate another half dozen plus guys and their families.
That's just my personal experience instead of random conjecture from someone that hasn't been there or doesn't actually know anyone there.
***
The smart person gets his family away from catastrophic conditions to a place of safety/security where they don't have to worry about their well being. If they have the neighbors to back them and the means to enforce it they can work together to secure the street/block/neighborhood against marauders after they have gotten the family away. If they don't, they're better off staying with their family in that place of safety and security well away from the riots/looting/arson.
***
No, not "filled with". For every "nutbag" posting there are many many more sitting at their computers shaking their heads or thinking "internet poser".
Last edited:
if someone comes up and pulls a knife or gun on me as asks for my wallet/ phone/ car.....you know what im going to do........im going to give it to him.
lets run through the scenarios here....
scenario 1) someone holds me up and asks for my wallet....and i give it to him........im out $100, and a cell phone.......i call the police and file a report, maybe they catch the guy, maybe they dont....life sucks, but im safe.
scenario 2) someone holds me up and asks for my wallet....i go to pull my gun and he shoots or stabs me before i can get a shot off. Best case i end up in the ER, worst case im dead......life sucks, im out the $100.....oh, and im dead.
scenario 3)someone holds me up and asks for my wallet....i pull my gun and shoot him, great, im safe and i keep my wallet and phone......oh, but i just killed someone.....that means i spend the next several months dealing with the police and lawyers, best case is im cleared of all charges, but i still had to pay my lawyer, miss several days of work,.....but im still open to a civil suit from the muggers family....worst case is im charged with murder, that means i have to pay my lawyers even more, miss more days of work....oh, and potentially spend time in prison.
it doesnt take a rocket surgeon to see which is the best scenario.
....but if you want to play johnny patriot and fight for some idealistic right that in your mind makes you george washington fighting the british oppressors....then by all mean.....
People please. Our courts have always followed British common law when it comes to these issues of protecting property. In short you can NOT shoot someone to protect your business. And those people who gamble by not having enough insurance then try to protect themselves against overwhelming loss of income are not justified in shooting people to prevent rioters (known as civil trespassers in common law) from burning down that business no matter how much money they stand to lose. They should have had better insurance.
BUT your house is an entirely different thing. It is considered to be an assault on your person if they attempt to attack your house. You ARE justified in using deadly force for that. This is the pertinent ruling going back several centuries into British courts (which, again, we have always followed).
“But, the making an attack upon a dwelling, and especially at night, the law regards as equivalent to an assault on a man's person; for a man's house is his castle and therefore, in the eye of the law, it is equivalent to an assault."
For that assault on your person you are allowed to use reasonable force. That doesn't mean that you shoot anyone who happens to come on your property but if you see someone heading your way with a molotov cocktail in his hand it "may" be legal to shoot.
BUT some states have banned using deadly force for any reason other than protecting against the threat of deadly force. The states that allow shooting are said to have (everyone knows the term) a castle doctrine. Notice the term "castle" in the court ruling above. That's where the whole "castle doctrine" thing comes from. You don't have the requirement of fleeing when it comes to protecting your home and in some states, your car if you're in it. Ohio has a castle doctrine law that allows for the use of force against people that threaten your home or your car while you're in it.
The castle doctrine is very controversial as we all know. But it's at the heart of the matters being discussed here. For a very long time no states made that exception. You had the duty to flee and unless there was no retreat you better not shoot at anyone. You can't fire a warning shot either even if it's in the opposite direction of the attackers.
I'd suggest everyone bone up on their state laws before they get themselves in trouble by shooting at someone in trying to protect property. It's VERY important to know the laws of your state and for any state you might happen to be in for that matter.
You can bet Maryland does NOT have a castle doctrine law BTW. But even there if a mob tried to set your house on fire with you in it my guess is no jury would ever convict you for defending your family. But I'm NOT A LAWYER so please don't take my word for this.
AGAIN I AM NOT A LAWYER AND MY ADVICE IS BASED ON COMMON KNOWLEDGE WHICH COULD VERY WELL BE WRONG!
BUT your house is an entirely different thing. It is considered to be an assault on your person if they attempt to attack your house. You ARE justified in using deadly force for that. This is the pertinent ruling going back several centuries into British courts (which, again, we have always followed).
“But, the making an attack upon a dwelling, and especially at night, the law regards as equivalent to an assault on a man's person; for a man's house is his castle and therefore, in the eye of the law, it is equivalent to an assault."
For that assault on your person you are allowed to use reasonable force. That doesn't mean that you shoot anyone who happens to come on your property but if you see someone heading your way with a molotov cocktail in his hand it "may" be legal to shoot.
BUT some states have banned using deadly force for any reason other than protecting against the threat of deadly force. The states that allow shooting are said to have (everyone knows the term) a castle doctrine. Notice the term "castle" in the court ruling above. That's where the whole "castle doctrine" thing comes from. You don't have the requirement of fleeing when it comes to protecting your home and in some states, your car if you're in it. Ohio has a castle doctrine law that allows for the use of force against people that threaten your home or your car while you're in it.
The castle doctrine is very controversial as we all know. But it's at the heart of the matters being discussed here. For a very long time no states made that exception. You had the duty to flee and unless there was no retreat you better not shoot at anyone. You can't fire a warning shot either even if it's in the opposite direction of the attackers.
I'd suggest everyone bone up on their state laws before they get themselves in trouble by shooting at someone in trying to protect property. It's VERY important to know the laws of your state and for any state you might happen to be in for that matter.
You can bet Maryland does NOT have a castle doctrine law BTW. But even there if a mob tried to set your house on fire with you in it my guess is no jury would ever convict you for defending your family. But I'm NOT A LAWYER so please don't take my word for this.
AGAIN I AM NOT A LAWYER AND MY ADVICE IS BASED ON COMMON KNOWLEDGE WHICH COULD VERY WELL BE WRONG!
Last edited:
M-Cameron, your scenario assumes much, like they are only interested in your "stuff", and wont hurt you. That certainly isnt a guarantee in such a situation, its been common enough that even with complying, people are hurt or killed.
If someone displays a weapon with intent to rob, its an implied threat "give me your "stuff" or else...". Such a threat shouldnt be assumed to be benign if one complies. I wouldnt condemn anyone for responding with a weapon or a shot. You have zero idea whats going to happen after giving in to their demands. Assuming the worst is probably safest.
If someone displays a weapon with intent to rob, its an implied threat "give me your "stuff" or else...". Such a threat shouldnt be assumed to be benign if one complies. I wouldnt condemn anyone for responding with a weapon or a shot. You have zero idea whats going to happen after giving in to their demands. Assuming the worst is probably safest.
Feel free to be sickened. That property represents a significant part of my life. I had to work to get those belongings, I didn't steal or loot them from others. Actually I should ask what's wrong with you?
Legal to defend property here ...
http://www.texasgunlaws.org/chap9.htm
well that is a different scenario now isnt it?
if i comply and someone is still holding a knife or gun to me....then yes, i would assume they are going to harm me and act accordingly.
but thats not what we are talking about.
we are talking about shop owners defending their shops from looting with deadly force.....assuming you dont live in your shop...that means you would have to put yourself in the "riot zone" willingly...for the sole purpose of protecting your possessions, not your life....
thats like willingly jumping into a lions den, and then killing the lion because it threatened to eat you, and claiming self defense....well you went out of your way to put yourself in harms way......you cant really claim self defense.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
