SCKimberFan
Member
Yes, but he was commenting on TexasShyhawk. I am certain he is in Texas. 
Garland Business owner's son kills suspected copper thief
- Thread starter jaytex1969
- Start date
- Status
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Understood, just wanted to be real clear for other readers that the Texas statutes are quite unique in the US. I am not aware of any other state that specifically allows for the use of deadly force to protect only property.
Right, and the morally superior woman takes it spread eagle without complaint when being raped instead of fighting back.
Moral superiority wont bring back the work truck you need to put food on the table or the computer you use to run your business, or the gun safe full of goodies that you worked hard to pay for.
A shot to the back of burglar will certainly stop his career dead in its tracks and teach him a valuable lesson. The morally superior man whines a little and is content to let the burglar walk away with his loot and continue to rob people.
Someone give Joe Horn and this kid medals.
-T
CAPTAIN MIKE
Member
Is this "Justifiable Homicide"??
Where I come from, if the shooter or some other person is not in danger of imminent death or grave bodily injury, the use of deadly force is NOT justified.
Where I come from, if the shooter or some other person is not in danger of imminent death or grave bodily injury, the use of deadly force is NOT justified.
Cosmoline
Member
There's a wee spot of difference between having your stuff stolen and rape. The first, standing alone, is the loss of chattle property. The second is the most brutal form of assault short of actual murder.
If I can't stop him safely, yes. I let him go because mere junk is not equal to human life (including MY life).
Otherwise you've crossed the line from self defense to being your own judge, jury and executioner. The idea of stopping crime is noble, but what you suggest is a very, very, very dangerous road to go down. Morally, spiritually and legally. It's too much power for any one man to have. You've moved from defending your life in a righteous manner to deciding whether a thief should live or die for his crimes.
Debatable, and Subjective.
Evil Prevails when good men do nothing rings a bell.
I contend that the lack of people willing to stand to criminals emboldens and escalates them. Sometimes by doing nothing, you have done harm.
The entire study of Ethics delves into the question of morality. Many conflicting and compatible works exist and are debated by the greatest minds of our societies. Still, no consensus has been reached.
One man's self-proclaimed moral superiority means very little to me-- especially when it is juxtaposed to what I consider to be moral.
Moral Comfort is not the same thing as Moral Superiority.
-- John
Last edited:
3KillerBs
Member
As I said on a previous thread on the morality of using lethal force to defend property, ...
This scenario, which is law in the state where I live, comes very close to both declaring that the small, weak people are second-class citizens with less right to protect what they own than large, strong people have AND to declaring that those who are capable of physically overpowering someone have the right to take what they want.
When declaring noble ideals about the inherent worth of human life -- even guilty human life -- consider that you are also declaring that anyone who wants to take my stuff has a right to do so since I'm small and weak and unable to defend it, ...
unless I'm allowed to use a gun.
Joe Demko
Member
This thread could do without the high levels of both sanctimony and d***-waving if there is to be any actual discussion.
I think everyone is casting the net a bit too widely on this issue. In a matter of property theft or self defense, the scenario is very individual, and as such, should be judged solely on the very specific and individual details of each case.
In my state, it is illegal to kill in defense of property only. You must have a PERCEIVED level of bodily harm. That rule stops when someone illegally enters your home. At that point, you may use lethal force regardless of intent.
Where it gets interesting is that my state's law clearly leaves the level of threat assessment up to the individual. That is liberating in that it helps reduce fear of presenting a firearm when needed, but it is also a negative in that a jury may find your judgement lacking.
The real issue is that unless a scenario is happening to you directly, how can you possibly understand the true motives of the shooter? Everyone's fear factor is different. The level of threat is very fluid and has to be assessed and acted upon in a very abbreviated time window...sometimes even a fraction of a second.
Had this happened before? Did the robber become aggressive? Did the robber have anything that could be used to threaten the shooter? Did past crimes lead the shooter to believe this might be a dangerous assailant? Had there been any violent robbery's similar to this one in the area? You MUST consider EVERY detail of this scenario before passing judgement! Failing to do so doesn't put anyone on morally superior ground, it just makes them ignorantly judgemental.
In my state, it is illegal to kill in defense of property only. You must have a PERCEIVED level of bodily harm. That rule stops when someone illegally enters your home. At that point, you may use lethal force regardless of intent.
Where it gets interesting is that my state's law clearly leaves the level of threat assessment up to the individual. That is liberating in that it helps reduce fear of presenting a firearm when needed, but it is also a negative in that a jury may find your judgement lacking.
The real issue is that unless a scenario is happening to you directly, how can you possibly understand the true motives of the shooter? Everyone's fear factor is different. The level of threat is very fluid and has to be assessed and acted upon in a very abbreviated time window...sometimes even a fraction of a second.
Had this happened before? Did the robber become aggressive? Did the robber have anything that could be used to threaten the shooter? Did past crimes lead the shooter to believe this might be a dangerous assailant? Had there been any violent robbery's similar to this one in the area? You MUST consider EVERY detail of this scenario before passing judgement! Failing to do so doesn't put anyone on morally superior ground, it just makes them ignorantly judgemental.
MinnMooney
Member
It happened at 1:30 A.M. so if what others are saying about property can be protected by the use of deadly force at night then I guess this fits.
TexasSkyhawk
Internet SEAL
Joe, I seem to remember asking you where you were in '69 when you were wailing away against Nugent and Charlie Daniels, et al. (speaking of sanctimony and johnson-waving).
Thanks for reminding me to put you on my Ignore list.
Jeff
rbernie
Contributing Member
Two dimensional argument. I can think of many instances where having stuff stolen could be a far worse fate than rape, and represents a far more brutal assault. That may be a stetch for the case under discussion, but you are making sweeping generalizations where nuances are important.
The alternative view is that the THIEF chose that fate, when he/she elected to go a'thievin'.
Well I think that if somebody wanted to protect the material that helped him operate a buisness that provided him a life, ie. food and gas, then so be it. There are alot of people quick to scream foul when they have no idea how 6k in repairs fixing some dumb crooks action could change the course of some smalll buisness owners lives. It was his call he made it and it was legal.
telomerase
Member
"Mere" property is what keeps us all from starving, going without medical care, etc. Not to mention, if you tamely allow someone to develop a "career" out of using you as a domestic animal, who's to say they'll stop at your copper? They may eventually move on to take your children, your wife, even your beloved computer.
And that's just the Representatives, the unelected ones are even worse!
And that's just the Representatives, the unelected ones are even worse!
Joe Demko
Member
The idea that a thief steals some portion of your life when he steals your goods comes up in nearly all these threads.
If you say that a crackhead effectively stole a year of your life when he took your property, then in order to be made whole you are entitled to that year back in one form or another. If you kill him, you are not only taking "your year," you are also taking all of his years on which you had no claim. This, of course, assumes that you shot him when he was fleeing or otherwise not a physical threat to you. That now makes you the thief.
I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs of when you can shoot a thief, but the theft = taking lifespan argument doesn't hold up.
If we look back on Western history, there was the concept of weregelt, by some name, in most places. IOW, they did have a price on a life. Maybe it is a concept we need to re-examine.
If you say that a crackhead effectively stole a year of your life when he took your property, then in order to be made whole you are entitled to that year back in one form or another. If you kill him, you are not only taking "your year," you are also taking all of his years on which you had no claim. This, of course, assumes that you shot him when he was fleeing or otherwise not a physical threat to you. That now makes you the thief.
I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs of when you can shoot a thief, but the theft = taking lifespan argument doesn't hold up.
If we look back on Western history, there was the concept of weregelt, by some name, in most places. IOW, they did have a price on a life. Maybe it is a concept we need to re-examine.
Cosmoline
Member
That's what insurance is for. And are you suggesting that all small business owners should have a right to kill anyone who does damage to their business? So if a partner in that business screws up some investments and drives the outfit into debt, should the other partners have a right to kill him? What about the neighbor's kid who screws up and drops something heavy on a customer, creating a million dollar tort claim. Is he to die as well for costing money? Where do you draw the line? And what gives you or any one man the right to draw that line?
I confess I really don't understand Texas. You can't carry a firearm openly but you can slaughter people for taking your copper. Can you shoot a kid for stealing an apple pie from the window? Can you cut his spine in half with your bullet for that? Or is this only applicable to the darkies? Our firearms are enormously powerful tools. To take them up out of bitter hate in order to "get rid" of some people you don't like is a violation of your responsibility as a gun owner and as a citizen of the Republic.
These are very, very dangerous waters. If you don't understand why turn to any holy text you care to. All of them make a distinction between righteous defense of self and taking judgment into one's own hands. Shooting the midnight intruder is the former, but killing a fleeing thief to "teach a lesson" has most certainly crossed that ancient line. You are no longer acting in defense of yourself or your household, but as an agent of punishment in retribution. You have taken vengeance into your individual, mortal hands out of rage. And while that may be legal in Texas, it is neither good nor moral. Did Christ advocate murdering a fleeing thief? Did Buddha? Did any of the great philosophers advocate taking these matters into your own hands and being both victim and judge? I don't recall any making that suggestion, from Plato to Rousseau. If you want some more recent wisdom:
“Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgment.” JRR Tolkien
He was being robbed. If a partner makes some bad investments too bad. Last time I checked my insurance I have a deductable about half that 6k. I am suggesting that here in Texas if somebody is robbing you then you have the right to take their life to protect that property. This man chose to do so and that can be for hi,m to deal with or bear the rest of his life. I can say that I probably wouldn't have done it differently.
Joe Demko
Member
What if your accountant is embezzling money from your company to feed his drug/gambling/beanie baby habit? Is it okay to kill him? If not, why not? In the end, you're still protecting your property same as if you shot a tweaker for stealing copper, right?
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
That's a civil matter since he's a part owner of the company.
We are talking about criminal, not civil.
Has nothing at all to do with this.
Joe Demko
Member
See above where I changed the scenario slightly.
Embezzling is stealing. I am sure there alot of people that would have. If he has a drug problem and he is stealing from your buisness guess where he comes when that has been ran into the dirt. Thats right your house. Then what sit in the corner and hope he doesn't see you, or stand up and protect your things that you put the time effort and money into aqquiring.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
No you didn't change anything. Non physical monetary transaction crimes are not considered "property crimes".
If you're going to make up arguments you need to make sure they fit into the law the way it is today.
If the cash is in a box at your business and your accountant breaks in to steal it, that is a Criminal Property act.
If your accountant uses your banking information to conduct illegal transactions that is not a Property Crime, it's dealt with in a different manner so you could not shoot him for that crime.
The Texas Penal Code allowing for deadly force is clear on this:
- Status
