A Matter of Values

[TallPine]

However, shooting a thief in the back who is fleeing with your possession(s) presents a different dilema altogether, in that your life is not in immediate danger.

You've raised a fine line question. MT and other states permit deadly force to be used to "prevent a forcible felony".

Well, just what does "prevent" mean ???

If a guy points a gun at you and demands your goods, a forcible felony has already been committed, whether you hand over your property or not. So it seems like the meaning of the law is to prevent the consumation of the forcible felony (robbery, rape, etc).

I don't think any jury in MT would convict you for shooting an armed robber in the back, but still - what's the time limit for responding with deadly force to a forcible felony ?????

 

[308win]

If you are taking my stuff if I have the means, you will wish you had taken another, higher road .

 

[neviander]

Is life more valuable than property? Absolutely. But when an example is made from time to time, i.e. someone getting killed while trying to burglarize someone's property, I would wager that word of said crooks getting killed while burglarizing would get back to whatever crook friends they had and those crooks would be more likely to think twice before trying to take something that didn't belong to them; as a result, lowering burglary rates, as a result, less situations where a homeowner is forced to decide, in barely awake state, trying to determine if this robber means harm to anyone or if he just wants loot; and still having to decide whether or not his wife's jewelry is worth taking a human life.

The only person that chooses to be in a robbery situation, is the robber. The robber has to reap the consequences of whatever emotions, or anger, or confusion he stirs up in the process.

 

[knockonit]

value

I"d have to say, I'm on the fence leaning towards shoot,
The thief or individual has already made the decision to ignore the rules and laws of society and if pushed or confronted could easily make the decisions to cause bodily harm to you or your family.
My concern would be as I am the first line of defense for my family, is the BG would either hurt me and or put me down and proceed on to my family.
A thief when confronted whether out of fear or lack thereof of the laws meant to protect law abiding people most likely will take the low road, as he/she has already demonstrated by illegally entering your humble abode.
Perhaps not all, but most have and will, and once starting down that road, they in all probability will continue to protect themselves and their anonymity.
SO I guess it'll be a judgement call, as one should probably have a throwaway for that use(just kidding) but I would like to think I'll do the right thing at the right time. Will you????

 

[blackcash88]

Why are you all still arguing with a self-admitted bi-polar nut case (The Tourist) who has claimed in the past that he goes off his meds? The very same person who, apparently, cannot see the difference between damage caused by an ACCIDENT and deliberate theft of property.

 

[dalepres]

I don't think any jury in MT would convict you for shooting an armed robber in the back, but still - what's the time limit for responding with deadly force to a forcible felony ?????

There was a recent real crimes sort of show on TV that told the story of a cop who shot a bad guy. The cop was in the house looking out the window on Halloween night. The bad guy wasn't a bad guy at all; he was an up and coming TV and movie actor who had a gun as part of his costume. The cop shot the guy in the back.

The argument of the city, the cop, and the cops attorney, was that the cop saw the guy as a threat and shot. The guy turned to run after the cop was in full motion to shoot. They demonstrated that it is possible for the target person to turn around in less time than it takes to complete an already committed trigger pull.

I'm just saying that, if necessary, there are precedents to call on for a shot in the back. It is possible to shoot someone who is a direct and immediate threat to you in the back.

I just had another thought on this, too. What happens if the bad guy turns away from you and draws a weapon - either knife or gun or anything else that you know gives him an otherwise insurmountable advantage. Do you wait like in the old cowboy movies for him to turn and face you with that gun, keeping it a fair gunfight? I'm not John Wayne.

 

[Just Jim]

Property crimes are in stages. First they come on your property to steal your goods. Second they come into your house with the intent to steal but will do whatever it takes to get away.

I wouldn't shoot a man outside my house that doesn't threaten my life. I will shoot anyone who comes into my home uninvited. He has crossed the line and is a threat to my life when he comes into my house.

It won't be my decision if he is shot or not it is his, he chose to come in my house uninvited.

jj

 

[The Tourist]

It won't be my decision

You sound like a good guy, and it appears that you have given this some serious thought. Frankly, I admire that a lot more than a guy who simply wants to test his hollowpoints.

But I disagree with your last account. Let me explain.

Back in the 1950's, if a guy was accused of rape, his attorney would put the woman on the stand and simply ask what she was wearing. If any part of her desription included something like tight sweaters, short skirts and stiletto heels, the defense raised the point that "she was asking for it."

And it worked. There are guys still alive today who are actually guilty of forcible rape.

The premise of my opinion here is that it really doesn't matter if the guy is wearing all black, a ski mask, and is holding your wide screen TV on the way to moving van.

There is that moment of deliberation in your mind where the chain of events is yours and only yours.

I know that many guys hate my analogies, but let me offer a fitting one.

A biker is cruising down the highway, and he's late for some event. He reaches into the fob pocket of his jeans and pulls out a pocket watch. The watch slips from his gloved hand and bounces off of his thigh. He glances down to catch the sight of his watch hanging in mid air.

You and I both know the future of that watch. Within milliseconds that aged pocket watch is going to hit the tarmac at a full 80 MPH and nothing--nothing--is going to save it.

But in that second, the biker is assured of an event that has not yet happened.

So as you gaze upon the burglar with a pristine custom SW 686 stoked with Federal 125 grain hollowpoints, and for the moment, with your finger along the side of the trigger guard, what is your view of the future? What do you want that future to hold?

Your thought processes are the important aspects of morality, not some goober ahold of your insured TV.

And your life is also swaying in the balance--along with everything you will ever be after that singular moment in time.

 

[blackcash88]

Whatever.

 

[Just Jim]

It takes about one second for a fast man to move 21 feet to kill you. You spend all that time thinking about what you might do rather than doing it and you along with your family are dead.

The intent of someone who willfully comes into another persons house is without a doubt an evil intent. He has chosen to come in uninvited to do whatever. It is his will to die for what he is there to do.

Do as you will because only you and your family will pay the price for your decision.

jj

 

[The Tourist]

You spend all that time thinking

Oh, I agree. In that "moment of truth" is just about the worst time to decide your core beliefs. It is my opinion that a moral man already knows--perhaps for years--on what kind of a husband, father, employee and neighbor he plans to be.

There are criteria for actions. I know I have criteria for a "shoot, don't shoot" scenario.

But I also have a code for cheating on my wife, charging fees to clients, paying my taxes, even consuming alcohol.

I did so years, if not decades, ago in still and quiet times of prayer and reflection. In fact, I often use those "zen moments" as I work in the hush of my home.

If my home is invaded, especially if my wife and dogs are home, yes I will grab a pistol. But any action from that moment forward is filtered through the belief system I wish to mirror in my life.

 

[dalepres]

But I also have a code for cheating on my wife, charging fees to clients, paying my taxes, even consuming alcohol.

All in moderation?

 

[Just Jim]

You will live or die in spite of "Your Code". What you don't speak of is the intent of someone who is willing to break into your house. The intent is pure evil. He comes across your threshold and cares not who is there and is willing to do whatever he wants. He made that decision.

Being willing to stop the evil to befall your family is simple survival. If a man has no will to do what it takes to survive then maybe he shouldn't. His darwin decisions then becomes the survival of the fit.

If evil is more fit than your

prayer and reflection.

then you will die and so will your family. However he made the decision to die when he commits evil and you make the decision to let him get away with it, or not.

jj

 

[leadcounsel]

As others have said, it depends on the value of MY property. A few bucks, no. My vehicle, which will cost my deductable and/or any significant damage they do with it or to it, and the signficicant inconvenience of missed work, other transportation, etc. Probably thousands of dollars in lost time and money. Not to mention they could kill someone with my vehicle, so I have a moral obligation to stop them from committing a potentially violent felony.

The simple solution is to confront the thieves with non-deadly force. When they turn violent, which they may, you now have a fear of imminent deadly force from criminals and are entitled to defend YOUR LIFE with deadly force.

Scenario. One afternoon you leave your garage open while mowing the lawn. Criminal spots your power tools in the garage and while you are mowing he scoops up an armful. You see him, get off the mower and approach, with concealed handgun still holstered. "Hey buddy, what do you think you're doing? You're not going anywhere with MY stuff!" you boldly ask. "F-U pops," says criminal, while dropping everything in the driveway and pulls our a screwdriver from his pocket. Bam - right there he has committed aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and YOU are ENTITLED TO SELF DEFENSE WITH A DEADLY WEAPON in most states. Unfortunatley for him you happen to be armed with your trusty Kimber 1911 and solve one more of societies ailments right there in your driveway at the cost of about .25-50 cents.

 

[rainbowbob]

The simple solution is to confront the thieves with non-deadly force. When they turn violent, which they may, you now have a fear of imminent deadly force from criminals and are entitled to defend YOUR LIFE with deadly force.

Or you're already dead or injured because you allowed them to make the first move.

 

[357WheelGun]

As to the concept of "motorcycle damage," I used that scenario to show that "we" are not always the ones who set a standard. Oh, you might view accidental bike damage as a petty error. You're not the one who sets the standard, and "standard" might come as a surprise to you.

Whether the accidental bike damage is a petty error or a gross error is irrelevant. It is still, by your own admission, an ERROR and therefore, by definition, non-volitional.

As I pointed out before, there is a standard of reasonableness that is required for review. In your example, the biker fails the test of reasonableness.

We all understand your point, however the example you're using is flawed.

 

[Creature]

Exodus 22:2-3

 

[The Tourist]

"motorcycle damage," there is a standard of reasonableness

Fair enough, I agree 100%.

Any cager who is stupid enough to knock over a motorcycle gets what he deserves.

I've been "reasonable" to these idiots my whole life. It's about time they got off of the cell phone and watch out where the SUV is pointed.

In that world, you won't be judged by your reasonable standards, but by ours. Turn-about is fair play. You don't think a guy's scooter is important, just nuts and bolts. I disagree. Fair play.

 

[gallo]

It depends on the type of property being robbed. If the perp is walking away with the tool you use to make a living and feed your family? Perhaps, yes.

If the perp is walking away with TV? Probably not worth all the legal aftermath.

 

[justin 561]

If that criminal doesn't value your property and privacy, what is going to make you think he values your life, your kids, or your wifes?

 

[woodsja]

Just a bit of a legal warning...

Anyone here from a state that disallows deadly force to protect property who makes a claim that "I can just say I felt threatened" might want to go back and rethink their statement in the off chance *knock on wood* that they do get into such an altercation. There is a real probability that those comments could end up in court and it might show premeditation.

 

[The Tourist]

then you will die and so will your family

I think the confusion comes from my comment on "prayer and reflection." It makes it sound like there are no circumstances where deadly force will be utilized. And that's not true at all.

For example, most people here dislike the policy of "zero tolerance" at their child's school. They believe that each child and each infraction should be judged on its own merit.

I feel the same way about self defense. I don't have a "yes/no" template of action. However, I assure you that I have several combat-dedicated pistols and Golden Sabers and the enhanced synaptic abilities to apply cold logic.

There's a time for violence, self-defense and even ideas of death and maiming one's adversary. In my life, by my moral compass, it will not be 100% of the time. It will never be a tree-huggers avoidance, either.

But there will be personal guidlines which dictate a moral code. I know what the 21-foot rule is, and I love my wife, dear friends and dogs. You just don't want to be standing in the wrong place when the boutons fire against mercy.