Deadly Force to Protect Property?

[brerrabbit]

NC Dave

Not very likely in my AO.

Most voters round here think as little of thieves as I do and they are the ones that sit on the juries.

And again I will not arbitrarily shoot over property, but if I catch someone stealing property from me, there will be severe consequences.

A few years ago I saw an episode of COPS where a little old lady took a few potshots at a guy breaking into her shed.

The policeman doing the report was admonishing her about shooting at someone without a clear shot. He was doing this while reloading her .38. This happened not far from here.

The point is, I do not live in one of the liberal bastions where your property is judged to be owned by the community and young socialists running solo-ops to redistribute wealth are thought to be worth protecting.

 

[CaptMac]

For LEO's Deadly Force is pretty straight forward we have to follow the guidelines of Tennessee v Garner in a nut shell LEO's can use Deadly Force under the following.

1. To stop the use or imminent use of deadly physical force against yourself or another person.

2. To prevent the escape of a person who is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon and who if not stopped without unnecessary delay is likely to cause death or serious physical injury to others.

3. To prevent the escape of a person who has been adjudicated and is in custody. (prison guards and sheriff’s and deputies)

They can’t use deadly force to stop someone who just stole a truck load of gold bars, nor can they use it to stop someone from killing an endangered animal, etc.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Even in states where it is legal to shoot people for stealing property, you can still be prosecuted in a civil suit. So, ask yourself, is the property really worth it.

In the case of a firearm- well, the person could be using the gun to commit a violent crime later, so I'd say yes. For everything else- unless they're stealing an irreplaceable work of art, a slave quilt that your great great grandmother gave you, or your vintage Fokker Eindecker, then probably not.

Pretend the perpetrator of the crime was your wayward child. After your emotions subsided, could you honestly forgive someone for shooting your kid over the theft of a lawnmower? If it were my child, I'd say, "no". If my kid were trying to steal your grandmother's slave quilt, which had your family's entire history etched out on it, I would obviously be enraged, but I could probably understand your actions in context. It was more than fabric, it was your entire family history. Or in the case he was trying to steal your Jan van Eyck original, yes, I could understand.

 

[plexreticle]

Don't drag dead bodies around if you want to stay out of jail.

 

[brerrabbit]

Prince yamoto

Yes, I could be sued in a civil suit for shooting someone stealing my property. I can also sue you for your hair color. The odds of either suit finding merit with a jury are roughly the same here. Think of it as buying a lottery ticket for the price of perforation, it could win, but the odds of it are pretty slim.

I will agree that a thief is someone's wayward child. Odds are that he/she already have been busted before for stealing property. I am not the law or the justice system, I am just the poor SOB that will protect my property when both of them have failed me.

I am not talking about putting a slug into someone for stealing a candy bar, more like someone trying to steal agricultural equipment, anhydrous, or a slew of other things a child would have no use for.

I am not blood thirsty. I will confront a thief first and try to stop them with words and threats first. The law will be called, but considering that they have an arrival time of over a half hour, I will likely have to deal with the problem myself.

If they run I will aim low. I have a fully stocked first aid kit and a bit of practice on livestock. Odds are they will survive an encounter with me. They may walk with a bit of a limp after ,,,

 

[NC Dave]

The point is, I do not live in one of the liberal bastions where your property is judged to be owned by the community and young socialists running solo-ops to redistribute wealth are thought to be worth protecting.

brerrabbit,

Since you don't personally know me from Adam, you don't know how completely laughable this statement is when it comes to describing me. "Liberal" and "redistributing wealth" are terms that have never been used to describe me by anyone who has spent 5 minutes with me.

My not taking a shot at someone over stealing a TV has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do the laws governing justifiable force in my local jurisdiction. North Carolin law is very clear that if you shoot someone leaving your home when all they have done is to steal from you, the shooting is not justified and you will, more than likely, have a lot of trouble coming your way.

Do I think I should be able to shoot someone for simply stealing from me? Yes.

Do I know that in this jurisdiction that is a completely unrealistic view, one that is completely contrary to the law, and would not pass the "reasonable man" standard by most juries? You betcha.

I don't always like the way the real world works, but I have no choice but to live in it.

 

[csmkersh]

Even in states where it is legal to shoot people for stealing property, you can still be prosecuted in a civil suit. So, ask yourself, is the property really worth it.

The threat of civil suit ended in Texas ! September 2007 if the shoot was a "good" one. That was part of the Castle/no retreat bill.

​

 

[TexasRifleman]

The threat of civil suit ended in Texas ! September 2007 if the shoot was a "good" one. That was part of the Castle/no retreat bill.

It's still sort of convoluted in how it would protect a shoot in defense of property only. I'm not sure how that one would play out in court.

Texas Civil Remedy code 83.001 is amended to say that any use of deadly force covered by the Penal Code as lawful would be protected from civil suits.
But, that same chapter 83 is titled "CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON".

So, though it says any use of deadly force under penal code 9 would be covered (including property defense) the civil immunity portion is only worded with defense of persons in mind.

That one is gonna have to be sorted out in court, and I don't want to be the test case...... I think it's just vague enough that it might not hold up in a shooting defending only property.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB00284I.htm

 

[rb8941]

Deadlly Force to Protect Property?

In a word, no. Property is just "stuff". You can replace "stuff". You don't kill over it.

 

[TexasRifleman]

In a word, no. Property is just "stuff". You can replace "stuff". You don't kill over it.

OK I'll play Devil's Advocate for you, with some of what the Texas Code had in mind.

Let's say you are in the middle of nowhere camping. You have diabetes. Your insulin is in your backpack. You've walked in to your campsite from miles away. Someone is stealing your backpack. You need your insulin, you need it before you could walk back out of wherever you are.

Do you shoot? Are you now only shooting to protect property or are you shooting to protect your life?

It's not always so cut and dried now huh?

What about a situation involving tools. Someone is stealing a workmans' tools. These tools are how he makes his living. Without these tools he can't work to feed his family. Is shooting the tool thief now shooting over property or is there some defense of life in there?

I'm in the middle of nowhere again and someone wants to steal my car. I'm going to die in Brewster County in August if I have to try to walk to town without water. If I shoot someone stealing my car am I shooting in defense of property or life?

These can go on....... point is it's not so easy to say "it's just stuff"..

Sometimes "stuff" can keep you alive.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I don't always like the way the real world works, but I have no choice but to live in it.

Well ... in strict terms, you do have a couple of choices. However, I wouldn't fault you for rejecting the most obvious out of hand.

 

[Prince Yamato]

I still say things like tools are replaceable. Even the agricultural equipment. You most likely have insurance on it to cover it in the event something happens to it. But things like rare art, etc. though insurance may cover them, are truly irreplaceable.

 

[brerrabbit]

Prince Yamoto

Why should I carry insurance to protect against thieves. That creates a default situation that no matter what, you are agreeing to lose property because of thieves.

Yup, all things are replaceable. Including the thieves.

I have already said it before, I am not trigger happy. I have no wish to kill anyone. But I am willing to protect my property at the point of a gun.

 

[La Pistoletta]

Property isn't separate from life in the way most people think of it. Property is the result of one's rational thinking, effort and time, which is nothing less than a direct, measured portion of one's life.

There is only one issue here. Do you have a right to your property, or do you not? Upon answering that question, you will know whether you are permitted to defend it or not.

If you cannot defend it, you don't have a right to it. The government is in error if it assigns to criminals rights that supercede those of victims. The very act of becoming a perpetrator is deliberately stepping outside the arena of rights to begin with. You cannot claim that which you denounce.

 

[W.E.G.]

Originally posted by Half Fast -- "Lights Out" page 197

I see what you mean, Gunny, but there has to be better solution than shooting an unarmed man.

Well, Karate Man, maybe you can train the guards in some of that Kung fu stuff and we might could ‘corporate it into our gate trainin’. But, I say a guy who will climb over a gate when he’s got a couple of rifles trained on him has got nuttin’ to lose. An’ you don’t want to get in no fight with a guy that gots nuttin’ to lose.

 

[Fburgtx]

Even in states where it is legal to shoot people for stealing property, you can still be prosecuted in a civil suit. So, ask yourself, is the property really worth it.

In the case of a firearm- well, the person could be using the gun to commit a violent crime later, so I'd say yes. For everything else- unless they're stealing an irreplaceable work of art, a slave quilt that your great great grandmother gave you, or your vintage Fokker Eindecker, then probably not.

Pretend the perpetrator of the crime was your wayward child. After your emotions subsided, could you honestly forgive someone for shooting your kid over the theft of a lawnmower? If it were my child, I'd say, "no". If my kid were trying to steal your grandmother's slave quilt, which had your family's entire history etched out on it, I would obviously be enraged, but I could probably understand your actions in context. It was more than fabric, it was your entire family history. Or in the case he was trying to steal your Jan van Eyck original, yes, I could understand.

So now we really ARE supposed to put a price on someone's life??? I can just hear the jury now. "Well, I could see shooting him if he stole a Snap-On tool box, but come on, it was just a Craftsman!" How many people really HAVE to steal these days just to eat?? They're not feeding their kids (more likely, they are feeding a drug habit). If you are in a state that allows deadly force to protect property like I am (Texas), then it should be understood that making an attempt to steal something is putting their life in danger. Therefore, by stealing, THEY are making the decision that this material item is worth THEIR life. I, on the other hand, would merely be using the most effective way possible of preventing the theft. Otherwise, I have to hope that the police will catch these guys somewhere down the line (which does not happen in most simple theft cases). Am I supposed to go out of my way to confront them and escalate the situation to the point that deadly force is necessary to protect not only my property, but my LIFE??

This is how we end up with so many bureaucracies. At work, in government, everywhere we go someone wants to come up with thousands of different rules, instead of merely subscribing to the most simple of rules. Don't steal, and you don't run the risk of getting shot for stealing!!

 

[kentucky_Dave]

I still say things like tools are replaceable. Even the agricultural equipment. You most likely have insurance on it to cover it in the event something happens to it. But things like rare art, etc. though insurance may cover them, are truly irreplaceable.

Wait a second...
Are you implying that shooting somebody for art is justified over the tools used to feed one's family?
Most people who work with their hands have VERY expensive tools, and many are not easily replaceable at the home depot, which are typically low end models of big name brands, designed with inferior parts and less durability... deliberately.
They lose their tools, they don't work, they don't eat.

I think that protecting your means of self sufficiency should be justified, no questions asked.

Maybe I am wrong...:banghead:

 

[Jeff White]

Ok, this thread has drifted from discussion of what the laws are, to a philosophical discussion of what the laws should be and everyone's personal moral code. A good discussion, but it's not on topic here. You might start a thread on is it should be right to shoot a thief at our sister site, http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/

Jeff