A Matter of Values

[pyle]

Well, it all depends on the situation. If a BG tries to steal my car (suppose my family and I are in the middle of nowhere) and that act of "theft" puts my family at risk - then yes.

You can't pretend to know the intentions of a BG. Suppose he steals your property and then uses it to do you more harm? Will you let someone steal your guns - then possibly use them on you and your family? In many cases - property can equal life.......

 

[fletcher]

For simple thievery (lifting something from a store, maybe a pickpocket), I wouldn't say so.

However, for a burglar that has gone out of his way to break into and invade someone's home for their own personal gain with no regard for others, I see no value in that life. That doesn't mean I would shoot, but I have no problems whatsoever with thieves being shot in someone else's castle.

 

[RPCVYemen]

I'm not sure of the whole story, but I think Joe Horn told them to stop with his gun drawn. Then, I believe, these guys advanced at him to try and attack him, causing him to shoot.

Actually, I just looked up the most recent news, and autopsy report found that both men were shot in back. They could have been shot in the back while advancing, but it looks more and more like that they were probably retreating.

http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou080616_tnt_joehorn.c262cd7.html

But the original poster asked a more interesting question - suppose it Joe Horn shot solely to protect property, was that ethical?

My answer is that it's a tough question but probably not.

The tough part is not so much the human life vs. property issue. The problem - for me - is more that if you permit property thefts, maybe you increase the general level of lawlessness, which then may cause a greater loss of life. But I don't find that compelling.

Mike

 

[HonorsDaddy]

Not a tough call in my book.

If i am not permitted to defend my property, is it really mine? If i have to just roll over and give it to whatever miscreant wants it, am I not, in effect, saying "I dont truly own this. I merely retain possession of it until someone wants to take it"

Using that "logic", even my very life doesn't belong to me.

My property represents a part of my life, and it should be my decision alone as to the degree i choose to protect it. Yes it is only property, but on the other hand, I have to replace it if someone takes it, and that means MORE of my life spent because someone else decided to violate my rights.

Would I use lethal force to prevent someone from taking a bicycle my kid left on the lawn overnight? Probably not. Would I use it to prevent someone from taking my car? Absolutely.

 

[Blacksmoke]

Blacksmoke,

We've had these discussions before on THR and you'll get the predicable range of opinions from kill to protect property to shoot only in defense of life not property. Some of the opinions were clearly and eloquently expressed and some were crudely expressed (some folks changed their opinion during the course of the threads). You'll see the whole range of opinions expressed in this thread.

Remember that we're talking about taking a life.

HSO Moderator

I hope what you wrote is true. Also, this is a subject that should be revisited over and over again, not to the point of irritation but to keep the issues fresh in mind. If any of us are ever in Mr. Horn's situation, we might want to demonstrate how much time we reflected on this question; i.e. we did no act rashly. That could either help us or condemn us as a shooter.

 

[xjchief]

I'm operating under the theory that other people need to determine if MY property is worth THEIR life. The choice is theirs.

I doubt they'll have time to determine which of my belongings I don't think are worth killing someone over and which are so steal from me at your own risk.

Regardless of how you view the issue I thinks it's important to remember that the right to defend your property is essential to preserving our way of life and our society. That right allows each of us to make the determination of whether or not a belonging is worth defending from those who would take it.

 

[Hutch]

If my life is dependent on the property (post-disaster supplies, lifesaving meds, whatever), then, yes I believe I could take a life to preserve property. I might brandish, threaten or confront a thief, but to shoot out of hand? Nope. Not out of regard for the thief, but because of what it would do to ME.

 

[Joist]

ZeSpectre said:

On one side of the debate is the argument that it is "just stuff" and you can "just get more". On the other side is the very real argument that you obtain that "stuff" by trading some of your time (your life) that you will never get back so there is a very real cost against your life for the property you own.

It is also not always accurate to simply say "you can just replace it".

If someone stole all of my computer equipment some folks would say "hey you can buy another computer" and that is true, however that equipment contains many years and thousands of hours of irreplaceable photographic work including a mass of family history work that simply can not be redone.

An opposing consideration is the cost (in personal anguish, legal fees, and social backlash) against anyone who kills regardless of the justification. Certainly some property is NOT worth going through all of that over.

Please consider backing up your data.
Insurance for fender-benders, extinguishers for fires, seat belts for accidents, firearms for self-preservation.
Back-ups for faulty hard drives (or gross equipment theft.)

 

[HonorsDaddy]

Joist

Here's a better thought: Rather than expecting the law abiding to have to expend more and more $$ to backup or replace their property, how about criminals reconsider their actions lest they find themselves dead?

Yes, insurance is a good idea as are backups. Ultimately though, it is MY property and if I choose to use deadly force to defend it, that is the attempted criminal's problem.

 

[buck00]

If I am burgled again it will be my third. At some point a citizen is entitled to protect his property even if there is no specific statute authorizing the use of force. We are not creatures of the law but of human nature, which the law is imposed upon to moderate. Still, at some point there is a natural right to protect what is yours from the depredations of others.

Yes, you absolutely have a natural right to protect your property. However, move beyond the conclusion that the only way to protect your property is with firearms.

Firearms are for self-defense of you and your family. There are other measures to defend property- extra locks, security system, a big dog, motion sensors, flood lights, etc.

Trust me, before you complain about the $$$, these precautions are far more inexpensive than the life-lasting guilt (and legal costs) of blowing away a teenager by mistake because he was snooping in your garage for beer.

 

[xjchief]

To further muddy the waters, if someone is in your home to steal your stuff how do you know that they aren't planning to or willing to harm your or your family?

I'm a big fan of the Castle Doctrine which eliminates the need for a homeowner to make complex legal judgments and determine in a split second if someone constitutes a legal threat worthy of meeting with deadly force. Further, you have no civil liability under the law.

Here in Florida crooks are on notice that if you are in someone's home you are risking your life.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Please consider backing up your data.
Insurance for fender-benders, extinguishers for fires, seat belts for accidents, firearms for self-preservation.
Back-ups for faulty hard drives (or gross equipment theft.)

Joist,
First don't nit-pick, you understood my point.

Secondly, read more carefully I said -all- of my computer equipment (that includes servers and backups).

Still the point was the idea not the specific equipment. Some folks could get a car stolen and say "eh, it's just a car". For others that would put them on the road to starvation and ruin. More often than not "property" isn't "JUST" property.

Kinda reminds me of something overheard in the lockup when I was still working LE. A young punk was in the cell, beat to hell and back. Older guy says "man, what happened to you" kid says "guy beat me up after I took his wife's wedding ring". Older guy says "oh man, you is stupid, you never try and take the WEDDING RINGS, people goes crazy over that s**t".

 

[Joist]

HonorsDaddy:

I'm not disagreeing that criminals should reconsider their occupation. I agree that it's your property and you can choose to use deadly force to protect it

I'm just saying that it's not necessary to lose your work to equipment failure OR theft when you're not around to defend it. Especially in the case of irreplaceable research; when it goes [poof] with a dead hard drive (unusual, but happens) the only one to blame is sysadmin/owner.

Sorry, ZeSpectre, I did understand your point, and am trying to give full value to your work.

I don't disagree with defense of property

 

[Mongrel]

It surprised me that no one really directly commented on this post by UhKlem:

"It's illegal and distasteful to kill over 'mere' property, but that is really a shame and a degradation of western culture and values. For acting man, property is life. Placing the life of a criminal above an honest man's property devalues property rights which is the foundation of western civilization, capitalism, and self governance. Man would have never gone from bands of hunter-gatherers to agriculture without the ability to claim ownership of that developed and life giving property.

In the present modern context, placing the life of a criminal over an honest man's property delays meaningful and effective feedback that leads to a loss of control. For any feedback system dead time in the feedback loop leads to a loss of stability and control (basic control theory). The dial 911 and wait mentality leaves criminals emboldened and gives them a window of opportunity to succeed. The lack of swiftness of consequence and punishment (celerity in the parlance of penal studies) removes a barrier or cost in the criminal cost-benefit calculation. Paying later is always preferable to paying now. Armed victims threaten to make the criminal pay now, but only if it is known to be a real threat to them. Criminals routinely relate they fear armed victims(pain now) more than they fear prison (pain later).

Removing the knowledge that one has a problem from the moral authority to act leads to both a criminal and an ineffective police state. For the armed victim there is no ambiguity as to who is right and wrong, so self and property defense is more accurate, timely and effective than security ordered up as deliver-to-your-door commodity, or worse an extracted tribute of window dressing that supports little more than a collective con. The very ultimate model of the security state is the prison. How safe would you feel in prison? Freedom is messy, and to too many, scary.

That which you subsidize, you get more of. Criminals cost are subsidized by laws that make crime cheaper and easier by lowering the costs (consequences) of encountering effective countering force at the moment the criminal makes the actual decision to act. We need to get back to the modern day equivalent of being able to shoot-to-kill horse thieves. Fpr acting man, property is life. Without that we become little more than wards of the state."

For me, that really gets to the crux of the issue.

IF we are going to VALUE the life of someone to the level some suggest where does it end? And isn't this the reason we have no consistent response to murderers? Because we've (society in general that is) been 'convinced' that their lives have value?

It is a hard question to ask what YOU WOULD DO in these situations.

It is not a hard question to ask WHAT IS PROPER to do in these situations.

When an individual crosses the line between RIGHT and WRONG they just forfeited any right to getting away unharmed.

In my mercy I may chose to let them get away-but they should not enter into the situation expecting it or having it guaranteed by the state.

 

[bennadatto]

There have been some really thought provoking opinions in this thread. I really like 357 Wheelgun's perspective. If we can't defend our property, do we truly own it. I also like dog mush's point about criminals choosing a path outside of civilized society and therefore being subject to the laws of the "Jungle."

My opinion for its .02 worth is that while it should be legal for one to defend their property, I personally don't think I could or would shoot someone over posessions. If caught in my home they get one chance to run away. If they make any gesture or movement that resembles anything other than retreat, my safety is then threatened.

Then I consider this scenario: My wife and I are walking through my neighborhood and are mugged by someone. "Give me your wallett!" I'd comply. "Give me your cell phone." With irritation I comply. "Give me your wife's diamong ring!" This ring has been worn by 4 generations of undivorced women in her family. I don't think I could let that go. The law is on my side, but what would I do?

 

[3KillerBs]

Do I value life above property? Yes, but with qualifications.

I would sacrifice any amount of my property to adverse circumstances to preserve my live. But theft is not in the same category as fire or natural disaster.

Being obtained as the fruit of my labor my property is an extension of myself and to rob me of it is to violate my being. Those who knowingly and deliberately CHOOSE to violate others devalue their lives since the life of the innocent is more valuable than the life of the one who chooses to prey upon the innocent.

Anyone who does not wish to be shot during the commission of a crime can easily prevent it -- by not committing the crime in the first place.

Executing thieves as a court sentence would be disproportional. But a homeowner encountering an intruder in his/her home should be automatically considered justified in assuming that the person presents a threat of "death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault". I should not have to pretend that I could read the intruder's mind to determine if he "just wanted my computer" or if he would be willing to kill me to prevent me from interfering with his predation.

This is slightly qualified in a "common sense" way in that it would not be justified to shoot a thief who immediately darted out a nearby door -- without passing by me, one of my kids, or any other innocent bystander -- or who immediately dropped to the floor and lay facedown with his hands on his head so as to make it plain that he presents no threat.

Additionally, I believe that any form of mugging or hold-up
justifies deadly force. No matter how much anyone might say that the robber "only wanted the money", the fact is that he presented a threat of violence in order to obtain the money and we should not be obligated to read his mind to determine whether he meant it or not.

After all, if a robber was not presenting a threat of violence its not a robbery at all -- just an encounter with a panhandler to whom you can simply say "No," and get on with your day.

There is a difference between a thief and a murderer in the same way that there is a difference between a mountain lion and a tapeworm. But both predators and parasites are threats to our lives and well-being so that distinction does not always need to make a difference in the way we react to them.

The same goes for human predators and human parasites.

 

[3KillerBs]

blowing away a teenager by mistake because he was snooping in your garage for beer.

How is a teenager stealing your beer less guilty than a professional robber stealing your electronics?

Is that teenager no able to distinguish between property that is yours and property that is his? Is he not able to understand that he has no business being in your garage without your direct and specific permission? Did he not DELIBERATELY AND KNOWINGLY CHOOSE to violate the law?

And how are you to know that he is "only" stealing your beer rather than lying in wait to kill you as a gang initiation or the private fulfillment of some sick fantasy. "Teenagers" commit such crimes daily.

IMO, once a person decides to live outside the law the guilt for any adverse consequence of that choice is on that person's head alone.

 

[GhostlyKarliion]

Depravity only operates one way.

If a man is willing to commit acts of violence during a robbery, then he is willing, either consciously or subconsciously, to murder during the robbery.

Why? The impulses come from the same part of the brain, it is one thing for a criminal to say "I am going to take this" and when confronted to say "I give up, take it back I don't want it anymore" but it is another thing entirely for a criminal to say "I am going to take this" and when confronted to lash out in violence.

When someone tries to steal from you, you give him or her two choices, surrender or fight.

it isn't about the thing they are trying to take, it is about me being between them and the thing they are trying to take. if they want to remove me, then they do so at the barrel of a gun. They are more than welcome to surrender either by running away or waiting till the cops show up and turning themselves in.

But it isn't about the thing, they aren’t getting that until I am out of the picture, not because of it's great worth but because justice and righteousness demands it.

 

[3KillerBs]

Then I consider this scenario: My wife and I are walking through my neighborhood and are mugged by someone. "Give me your wallett!" I'd comply. "Give me your cell phone." With irritation I comply. "Give me your wife's diamong ring!" This ring has been worn by 4 generations of undivorced women in her family. I don't think I could let that go. The law is on my side, but what would I do?

My question is, ...

If the person demanding your wallet is NOT presenting a threat of violence along with it then why are you surrendering your wallet?

If you routinely give up your property to anyone who asks for it please PM me so that we can arrange for you to transfer a substantial amount of your money to my PayPal account.

 

[TallPine]

According to the law in Montana (and some other states), I may use force not including deadly force to protect property.

Simply being armed is not deadly force nor is actually pointing a firearm at a thief (though, a warning shot is deadly force by statute). Deadly force is warranted to prevent a forcible felony or to defend life or against serious harm.

If the thief/trespasser chooses to escalate the situation to a forcible felony, then that it his/her decision.

I've "greeted" unexpected visitors at night with a rifle in my hands. If that intimidates them, then so much the better considering some of the people who have showed up around here.

Armed robbery is a forcible felony, FWIW

 

[VirginiaShooter]

If a criminal enters my home, consider them dead.

If a criminal initiates a violent confrontation with me for my money, i.e. armed robbery or car jacking, it would depend on what I thought was safer for myself and my family given the circumstances. I wouldn't give one ounce of weight to the criminal's life in this balancing test.

If someone is stealing my property in a non-violent way, i.e. breaking into my truck in my driveway, I'd probably go out armed and confront them depending on what the property was and how much risk it looked like for me. I'd hold them at gun point until police arrived. If they made any aggressive movements toward me, consider them dead. If they clearly aren't aggressive or if they turn and run, I am not going to end their life merely for a transgression against my property, even if I could do so legally. However, I am also not going to watch my hard earned property beign stolen from inside my home when it appears that the only danger in going out there is going to be danger to the criminal.

If its my neighbor's property, the only reason I'd go out there is if it was a repeat thing and I thought they might target me tomorrow. Of course, I don't really like my neighbors.

 

[The Tourist]

My opinion is more global in nature, not just what is tied to the issues of guns and self-defense.

I believe all action must derive from a moral center.

For example, would you debate the inner conflict of taking the life of a burglar, and then go cheat on your wife? Would you train troubled kids on the value of karate to build character, and then screw a THR member on the price of a used gun?

This morning I had a long, candid conversation with hso on why I'm even here at THR after all of the times I've been let down in the world of cyber-space.

I been hoodwinked by an MA "sensei" who couldn't punch his way out a wet paper bag, and I've corresponded with "bikers" who didn't even own Harleys or know the slang.

This is such a common occurance that I once told a member that I was actually a fourteen year old female cheerleader who played the role of a crusty old biker on the 'net. I firmly believe that hundreds if not thousands of forum hobbyists truly believe I own pom-poms because they have been lied to so many times before.

But the payment follows the piper. It might be a lark to cheat, lie and have a wonderful hedonistic experience.

Just remember, you'll be facing the mirror everyday as you shave, and you will see that man and his sins.

 

[3KillerBs]

According to the law in Montana (and some other states), I may use force not including deadly force to protect property.

NC is the same.

This irks me because it puts me into second-class status for property protection because a 5'3" woman doesn't have much in the way of "reasonable force" options while a 6'3" man is far more capable of forcibly resisting theft by non-deadly means.

Why does being small and weak make my property less worthy of protection than property belonging to the large and strong? It comes very close to a presumption that the large and strong have the right to take property from the small and weak.

 

[M203Sniper]

I think it's reasonable to use the amount of force necessary to get the offender to leave my property or get arrested. I don't expect someone who isn't physically able to grab a kid by the neck, but I will.

Going straight to deadly force is not what I have in mind when things go bump; I do not believe that is the purpose of the self defense argument.

If a life is in immediate jeopardy then of course I wouldn't hesitate to shoot, but I wouldn't open fire for my TV walking out the door. Some property can be replaced some can not; like the situation in India I read about.

I know it's hard to follow if you aren't actually following world events but there's a place called Singur, India; They have a Constitution very similar to ours and a representative form of gov't but things are a mess there

http://www.livemint.com/2007/02/06235557/Reverse-Robin-Hood--land-refor.html

Here are the Highlights.

Acquisition was meant for public purpose—to construct roads, bridges, dams or public utilities. Requisitioning was more a wartime precaution. The protection afforded to property from the government was in Article 31, which originally read: “No person could be deprived of property without due process of law” and “no property... shall be taken possession of or acquired for public purposes under any law authorising the taking of such possession or such acquisition, unless the law provides for compensation...”. This was an attempt to incorporate the ‘Takings Clause’ of the Fifth Amendment in the American Constitution: “No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. This restrained the government’s power to implement agrarian reforms.

Jawaharlal Nehru amended the Constitution and added Article 31A and 31B, which allowed acquisition of any property through legislation even if it infringed on our fundamental rights. The Ninth Schedule was primarily included to protect land acquisition and agrarian reform legislations from the purview of judicial review. Article 31C added under the 25th Amendment completed the trilogy by making any law attempting to increase distributive justice valid even if it infringed on fundamental rights.
The result of all these constitutional provisions and amendments has been disastrous. The government has the authority to acquire any individual’s land under the garb of public interest, against his will and without just compensation. It is ironic that while these provisions were enacted to give “land to the tiller”; they are now being used for “growth and development” by industrialists.

I wouldn't hesitate if they were coming for my land, home family etc. My tv... you can have.

 

[bennadatto]

3Killer B's

My question is, ...

If the person demanding your wallet is NOT presenting a threat of violence along with it then why are you surrendering your wallet?

If you routinely give up your property to anyone who asks for it please PM me so that we can arrange for you to transfer a substantial amount of your money to my PayPal account.

I should have clarified. Mugger with weapon says "Gimme your wallet!"