Killing People Over "Stuff"

[Fast Frank]

I was rooting around on another forum, and I bumped into an old thread about riding motorcycles while armed. (It's a motorcycle forum)

In this thread, there was discussion about holsters and such, and what works and what doesn't.

Quite naturally, some of the forum members came into the thread to express their Anti attitudes.

And the strongest argument they produced was "I don't think it's right to kill a man because he wants to take my stuff".

After re-reading my post in response to that, I noticed that not only was their no argument about what I said... but the "Stuff" never got mentioned again either.

So, just in case this comes up for any of you, Here's what I said.

Feel free to quote or alter as you see fit.(edited- the language requirements are more lax on the motorcycle board)

Wow again.

Man, have you got it all wrong or what?

Nobody is condoning the shooting of live persons over "Stuff".

I'm not sure if you've ever thought this through, but in a robbery the bad guys don't point their guns at the "Stuff".

They don't say "Give me all your money or the stuff gets it" either.

Never have I heard of a robber holding "Stuff" with a knife to it's neck.

Nope, it's not the stuff I'm interested in defending at all.

In the event of an armed confrontation, the bad guys invariably shoot/cut/beat the VICTIM. (That would be a live person, or in my case, ME)

I'm just not too cool with the idea of having <removed> point guns at me, or threaten to cut on me, regardless of what their reason might be.

It shouldn't take a rocket surgeon think his way through this. There is one thing and one thing only that can stop a bad man with a weapon. That one thing is a good man with a weapon.

"But if you give them the "STUFF", they will go away and leave you alone"

<removed>. They MIGHT go away. But if it's a gang initiation they might shoot you to prove they are sufficiently evil to their little <removed> gangster buddies.

Or, if it's just a robber kind of dude his success at getting your stuff will encourage him to point his weapons at more good folks and rob them as well. Maybe your wife or daughter next time.

And what's to stop our poor socially deprived robber from deciding he wants some of that <removed> while he's got your daughter at gunpoint?

No. It's not about the stuff. At All.

Using a weapon on me is NOT OK.

I will NOT Take it lightly. I will submit only to gain advantage.

I will defend myself to the best of my ability, and I hope to be found sufficient to the task.

 

[Archaic Weapon]

And it's almost never over just stuff. It's my prescription money, my rent, my grandmothers necklace, my perceived disrespect, their need to feed an addiction. Just "stuff" is a video game, media, book concept, with no context.

 

[brickeyee]

They failed to notice that the lethal threat is against YOU to give them your "stuff."

 

[mljdeckard]

It depends on a couple of things. Remember, the ethic to work with is not; "Under what circumstances do I GET to shoot someone?", the ethic is; "What do I have to do to NOT GET SHOT?"

There are legal circumstances under which I am allowed to shoot someone when I might have another choice, and get away with it. My state has Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground, but that doesn't mean I HAVE to use them.

If I am in my house in the middle of the night, and I hear something strange, and I come out to find a guy halfway out my door with my flat-screen. In my state, legally, I am allowed to kill him. He entered my home either by violence or by stealth, with the intent to commit a felony. (Burglary.) That's it. Green light. The law covers me. BUT, my life isn't in danger. I can confront him and he might drop my TV, but as long as he runs AWAY from me, I'm not killing someone over my TV.

Same thing with the SYG law. If I CAN successfully **** instead of shooting, I will. Just because these laws exist to protect you doesn't mean that you will be off the hook. All it takes is a rookie DA trying to make a name for himself and a judge who has been sleeping on the couch for a couple of weeks, and you will be putting your lawyer's kids through school instead of your own. I don't want to put myself in the position where the DA and jury have to DECIDE whether or not the law applies to me if I don't have to.

Being involved in a defensive shooting is the SECOND worst thing that can ever happen to you. Avoid it accordingly.

 

[Gallstones]

Interesting POV I had not considered before.
Thanks.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

In TX unlike other areas of our Nation we can and many have killed thieves and such over personal property. I grew up hard scramble and we worked and bleed for the things we ate and brought so I got no issues over dispatching thieves and such day or night. Nothing worse to me than a theif.

 

[TNboy]

Legally no, ethically I think that if you catch someone stealing your stuff you should be able to kill them on the spot no questions asked. I ride too and I've always noticed around here anyway that motorcycle people have a strong tendency to be gun people as well. Most all of my friends own guns and bikes.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

Yep it ain't about "Stuff" it's about stopping a threat.

I may not feel the need to kill someone over my stuff .... but what if they feel the need to kill me over my stuff.

 

[stumpers]

I would never shoot someone unless I was certain my own death was imminent if I did not shoot.

Someone can do whatever they want and take whatever they want as long as I am not physically threatened.

 

[Archaic Weapon]

I would make the argument that everything I own helps in my survival, in some manner. Therefore, any theft is threatening the life and livelihood of my family.

 

[stumpers]

I would make the argument that everything I own helps in my survival, in some manner. Therefore, any theft is threatening the life and livelihood of my family.

'Helps' is not the same as necessary.

I would love for someone here to articulate why killing in defense of property is the moral right, but without using some cockamamie religious explanation that is legally irrelevant.

 

[0to60]

I would never shoot someone unless I was certain my own death was imminent if I did not shoot.

Someone can do whatever they want and take whatever they want as long as I am not physically threatened.

To each his own, and I can understand if you're concerned about legality. That aside, if you allowed someone to ransack your home in the middle of the night, you wouldn't be doing society any favors by letting him leave in one piece.

 

[TCB in TN]

Would I shoot someone over "stuff" ? Well honestly it depends on the situation, AND what the "stuff" is. Even ignoring the fact that a thief often threatens ones life, reality is that while I have no real attachment to most things I own, there are a few things that are far more important to me than a thief's life.

Further more stating that it is unethical to shoot over "stuff" is absurd. Many people cannot afford to replace a lot of the stuff that they have. (Just a couple of examples) I know many seniors who could not afford to replace medicine if it was stolen, and many thieves go straight for the med cabinet. I know a lot of people who could not afford to replace a vehicle, which is something else that many thieves go after. Not to mention the fact that I work for what I have, and from a philosophical standpoint a thief is in fact stealing a part of my life when he steals from me. The argument that it is just stuff doesn't really work for me.

Personally I don't honestly have that much random stuff a thief could take, and again most of what I do have isn't that important to me, but there are a few items that are not replaceable, and so it is probably best for a thief if he doesn't put us in the position to find out whether it is or not.

 

[Robert]

Maybe I am just really tired but I am not really liking the undertone I see here. Nothing I own is worth enough to me to take the life of another person. If that makes me weak, or an anti that is fine. We are done here.

 

[Sam1911]

I would make the argument that everything I own helps in my survival, in some manner. Therefore, any theft is threatening the life and livelihood of my family.

But our system of law, based on quite ancient systems of law "western" society has treasured for many centuries, does not view your "helps" (noun, plural) as being the equivalent of death or grievous bodily injury.

And so, our system of law does not give you any justification for killing another person because he took some of your "helps" or property of any kind.

For your claim to hold any water, you'd have to be able to show that his theft of a specific "help" was going to cause your death RIGHT THEN. (So, perhaps a case could be made if someone was trying to steal your oxygen ventilator you needed to breathe...maybe. But we're really grasping at this point.)

(Yeah, yeah, except in one or two states, under very specific circumstances.)

You may FEEL that witnessing a crime, even a crime against you, gives you the right of judge, jury, and executioner -- but it does NOT.

if you allowed someone to ransack your home in the middle of the night, you wouldn't be doing society any favors by letting him leave in one piece.

However, our SOCIETY, which has established a solid system of LAWS to deal with such matters, does not authorize you to execute someone.

Here's the thing that really seems to boggle many people: It doesn't matter what crime you may have witnessed. Even if you were to see someone killed outright by another, the law does not give you the right to KILL them. The law recognizes only that you may be FORCED to shoot them in order to save your own life, or that of another, or prevent one of a very few specific violent felonies such as rape or arson of an occupied structure.

The law is NOT authorizing you to end someone's life or to act in any way at all in retribution. The law simply says that there are times when you had NO CHOICE but to act in a way that caused the death of the criminal.

If some thief ransacks your house and you decide you'll help society by not "letting him leave in one piece," you are a MURDERER.

 

[Kleanbore]

Let me add that that undertone is very much counter to our purposes here on THR.

Should anyone choose to employ deadly force simply to prevent the taking of "stuff", he or she will find himself or herself in a world of hurt. It is possible that in one state, under some circumstances, one may avoid criminal liability, but it will likely turn out to have been a very bad decision nonetheless.

There are three things that I think people really, really need to understand here:

1. There is a distinct and very critical difference between theft and robbery.
2. What someone may do later, if not stopped, does not enter into the equation at all.
3. Those who insist on stating on a public forum that they would promote unlawful acts may, in a case in which the evidence available after the fact turns out to be ambiguous, find to their everlasting regret that they have created damning evidence pertaining to state of mind that could be determinative in terms of the outcome.

And with that, this remains closed. I hope this proves helpful to someone.