Should you be legally allowed to shoot someone over property?

[Ed Ames]

I said no because that's the best answer to the question as posed. However, there is more to it:

There are many times when property is a significant part of life. For each of us there is some threshold, some amount of money or property, where losses beyond that threshold will cause risk to life and/or safety. Maybe it is $100 to someone barely able to pay the bills and feed her family. Maybe it's $10,000,000,000,000 to a nation. Whatever the amount, there is always that line beyond which defense of property becomes defense of life. Even government "Safety nets" in the form of welfare can't completely eradicate that line -- only shift it slightly in some cases. The line moves as our health (physical, mental, and financial) and responsibilities (to family or to self) change throughout life but it is always there. Sometimes it the line is crystal clear. If you are sailing across an ocean and someone tries to steal your boat, well... it's not like a carjacking where they can leave you standing on a street corner. That property is immediately essential to life. Other times it is more vague.... taking $100 from someone who is is struggling to pay for blood pressure medication may cause them to forgo that medication this month, and that may contribute to them having a heart attack, but there are many other factors in that chain of causality.

So the answer is that lethal force is never justified to protect property... but theft of property can itself be a threat to life.

 

[bensdad]

start busting caps and killing another human being.

Maybe I'm getting soft in my old age, or maybe I've just been in too many situations where I was cold, hungry, broke, or lost in a place where I didn't speak the language. Not everyone who steals something deserves death, or a gunshot wound.

I've done both, and prefer the taste of mercy to the bitter draught of malice

We started out with a criminal breaking into someone's home... now we are describing a possible reaction to the invasion with emotional, inflamatory phrases and buzz-words. "Busting caps" is meant to elicit a negative feeling or reaction. I would never "bust a cap" in someone. I would shoot them. The second quote was meant to draw sympathy for an aggressor. Sorry none here... no matter how you phrase it. The third quote was meant to put its author on a pedastal, tacitly inviting the reader to join. Again, sorry, only room for one up there.

 

[proud2deviate]

Yes, I think it should be legal. Of course, just because it's legal doesn't always make it right.

 

[JWarren]

Harley Quinn wrote:

Sure I am, just like the others who read a report and give an opinion. See now you are showing yourself again. Not a pretty picture if you ask me.

Taking away lives, and rights Hmmm

There is a dramatic difference between reading something and living it. We are in a free country. You are free to give your opinion-- even if you have no idea what you are talking about and are utterly unqualified to give such an opinion. I have opinions on a number of issues that are outside of my realm of experience. I may be wrong on a number of them... as you are if you wish to make blanket statements regarding Katrina. If you do a search on "Katrina" here, you'll find that there are a number here that have a stronger basis to critique that event.

See now you are showing yourself again. Not a pretty picture if you ask me.

Whatever that means... sure. I assume that is an insinuation that I have proved your internal views. OK... whatever you say. I suspect that it isn't a "pretty picture" to you. I would imagine that contrary views are displeasing to some. I'm getting a pretty good picture here as well.

After realizing that your in CA and retired from LEO, I sincerly hope you aren't retired from CHP. That would explain a LOT about views on Katrina.


Regardless, I fear that this thread now has the potential to become something very un-THR. If you want to continue this, feel free to take it to PM's.

-- John

 

[bensdad]

So the answer is that lethal force is never justified to protect property... but theft of property can itself be a threat to life.

Since a universal line between "worth killing over" and "not worth killing over" cannot be drawn, I'd be curious to know which posters can accept the "all or nothing" nature of the question, and, subsequently, answer it - without caveat or qualification.

I say, "yes". Property is worth killing over. I have no right to judge how important that property was to you. Maybe it's the boat you're sailing in, maybe it's the car you are driving to work. Maybe it's the car you are driving to pick up your son who is having a life-threatening medical emergency. They thief didn't know - or care. The thief started this ball rolling. Let's keep that in perspective.

 

[Ed Ames]

...thief didn't know - or care. The thief started this ball rolling.

That statement is illogical in this context or at best irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the thief knew or cared. Thief isn't doing the shooting in this discussion. The victim should know how important an item is to their survival when they decide how to respond to the theft.

If the victim can articulate a reason why theft of this property at this time was a threat to life then the victim wasn't shooting to defend property. If they can't, then they shouldn't have been shooting. You as a third party don't need to know whether the property is important. If you want to play hypothetical juror what you need to know is whether the articulated reason is reasonable.

Examples:

"I shot'em because they were stealing $5 as I sat on my front porch and I needed that to buy beer... if I don't get my beer life ain't worth living."

"I shot'em because they were stealing my jeep in the middle of the Mojave desert and I needed that to get out of the desert alive... without a jeep I would've died of dehydration within 3 days."

In either case the shooter/victim decides. In either case the justification may be true and reasonable to them. In some cases the decision may not be acceptable in a civilized society. I'd be pretty uncomfortable about neighbors who honestly argued that beer money was life to them.

 

[3 gun]

Pay x Hrs/worked = stuff i bought. Stuff I bought by trading hours of my life away for money. When someone steals my property they are in effect stealing the hours of my life I used to buy that property. Shoot them for stealing property? Hell yes.

I do not make a lot of money. Most of the things I own is not and could not be insured. You steal from me it will either not be replaced or will take a loooonnng time to replace.

Someone stealing from you is in effect saying your time/life is less valuable, less important than his. He should have what it took you days, weeks, or years of your life to earn because he wants it and is willing to use some kind of force against you to get it. Shoot someone over stealing your property? HELL YES!

 

[Harley Quinn]

All things being equal about money and property, look at it this way you are going to lose big when killing someone. Either way you are a loser, just don't add to your problem by killing someone, unless it is truly warranted.

The laws are in motion and we are regulated by them. Simple, some are morally offended and will hire an attorney, that will look at it from a dollar standpoint, and you will pay his bill I figure.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=328636

As far as taking it to PM, I'll pass JWarren.

Regards

 

[bensdad]

Ed Ames,

Sorry sir. We'll just have to agree to be on opposite sides of the fence.

According to your analysis, if you get carjacked on your way to a friend's house to play cards, you should let them have your car.

Let's say two burglars break into your home. You catch them. They say, "We're just here to take stuff." You go for the phone, but one of them gets in the way. He doesn't threaten you, but he's big... really big. You ain't getting past. The other guy keeps right on taking stuff. First, it's a T.V., then your wife's jewelry. Then it's your dog. Then it's your daughter's medication (not the one that keeps her alive, just the one that keeps her from being depressed). Now, it's your wife's medication, the one that keeps her alive. Now, they want your wallet. It's in your pocket. They don't want to hurt you, they just want your wallet. Now they start taking your guns from the safe. They demanded the keys, so you handed them over.

You have a gun in your belt this whole time. Medicine can be replaced. Dogs can be replaced. Wedding rings can be replaced.

Still, I'd shoot. I guess I just hope you're not on my jury. Would you want me on yours?

 

[cbsbyte]

Voted other since the question posed by the OP is too vague. In most circumstance I don't feel it morally right to use deadly force to protect property. Personal property can be replaced a life can not. Though in extreme cases, such in a natural disaster I would use force to protect my property. Other than that I would not use deadly force unless in self defense. Anyway the question of using deadly force in Massachusetts is not a factor since it is illegal here to use force to protect personal property.

 

[Ed Ames]

Bensdad... your examples make no sense.

Someone tries to carjack me without a gun or other credible weapon and I'm going to wave and drive off. I'm not going to shoot them.

Someone tries to carjack me with a gun (etc.) and they have directly threatened my life. I may very well shoot them but it won't be over the car. It'll be because they've presented a threat to my life.

Two people in my house without my permission and physically restraining me from using a phone (that has somehow magically appeared in my house... how did that thing get there and who has land lines any more??? why didn't I just dial 911 with the phone in my pocket???? So many questions!) are definitely a threat. If they are not responding to reasonable commands from the person legitimately in control of the property that is an implied threat of force and responding with force is reasonable.

Now let's try a more reasonable example... you wake up feeling something isn't right. A glance out the window shows someone in your car. You grab your gun and lean out the window shouting for him to stop. Or maybe you rush out and are standing on the lawn. He has the engine started and is backing out of the driveway. You have no chance of stopping him, no chance to run and catch up to him. You have a perfect chance to shoot the guy in the head as he drives away with your car. He makes it to the street and turns, driver's side window still facing you so you can still shoot, and starts driving away. The car was never aimed at you or moving in your direction and you had no reason to believe he would try to drive towards you.

That's what we are talking about. If you shoot you keep your (damaged) property. If you don't shoot the thief will give you the finger and drive off.

Do you shoot?

In that context, no, I don't. I call the cops, give a description, file a report, rent a car, drive to work, and hope I get the car back. Life has risks and theft is no worse than idiot drivers on the freeway. A lot of people can cause you financial harm but you can't go shooting people just because they run into you in a parking lot... or steal the car out of your driveway.

Move the exact same scenario to a more hostile environment... a campsite in the middle of the Mojave maybe... and suddenly shooting becomes justifiable. Not to protect the property, but because losing the property will directly start a chain of events that will almost certainly leave you dead.

 

[single action]

Yes.
I get tired of hearing people say:" you shouldnt shoot anyone if they are only stealing something,Only if your life is threatened". Everything I own takes part of my life to pay for it. Example: the t.v. costs $350.00. lets say I earn 8.50/hr at my job. $350.00 Divided by $8.50 = 41 hours. One work week, 41 hours of MY LIFE has been taken. Time I would much rather spend with my family, friends ect other than working to replace a t.v. I already own, that some scumbag thinks he has a right to. Do I have the right to defend my property? heck yeah, let the scumbag work 41 hours for one if he wants it.
Is someone elses life worth taking for 41 hours of work? I guess you have to make the decision yourself, But if you were in a diagnosed with a terminal disease and some one tried to kill you, would you defend yourself or just let them kill you because you only have 41 hours left? Would that last 41 hours be precious to you and your family? Or something you would just throw away
as worthless?
Many posters have stated that in their area shooting to save property is not legal. It should be. Work to change it. What makes your productive life less valuable than a thiefs?

 

[.38 Special]

Since a universal line between "worth killing over" and "not worth killing over" cannot be drawn, I'd be curious to know which posters can accept the "all or nothing" nature of the question, and, subsequently, answer it - without caveat or qualification.

I say, "yes". Property is worth killing over. I have no right to judge how important that property was to you. Maybe it's the boat you're sailing in, maybe it's the car you are driving to work. Maybe it's the car you are driving to pick up your son who is having a life-threatening medical emergency. They thief didn't know - or care. The thief started this ball rolling. Let's keep that in perspective.

The problem with that line of thought is that the logical conclusion allows me to shoot you for stealing a pencil from the cup on my desk at work. And my defense can be "The pencil was really, really important to me. Who are you to judge?"

 

[.38 Special]

Everything I own takes part of my life to pay for it. Example: the t.v. costs $350.00. lets say I earn 8.50/hr at my job. $350.00 Divided by $8.50 = 41 hours. One work week, 41 hours of MY LIFE has been taken. Time I would much rather spend with my family, friends ect other than working to replace a t.v. I already own, that some scumbag thinks he has a right to. Do I have the right to defend my property? heck yeah, let the scumbag work 41 hours for one if he wants it.
Is someone elses life worth taking for 41 hours of work? I guess you have to make the decision yourself, But if you were in a diagnosed with a terminal disease and some one tried to kill you, would you defend yourself or just let them kill you because you only have 41 hours left? Would that last 41 hours be precious to you and your family? Or something you would just throw away
as worthless?

And the problem with this is that you are now free to shoot someone who's paying by check at the grocery store.

Although "That bitch tried to take 30 seconds of my precious life away from me!!!" would make an amusing defense in court.

 

[Ready2Defend]

Should you be legally allowed to shoot someone to defend your property?

Should: Yes, it "should" be law in all states/countries - but it is not.

Legally: Yes, you should have a legal defence to a shooting in which you defended property.

Allowed: Yes, it should be an option open to you if needed. It is not manditory to take life, but it is an option.

Defend: Yes, I myself am defending my property. I am not retaliating for property stolen in the past, I am not hanging horse thieves for the horses they stole last year. I am defending property near of me against a thief acting near me. The presumption I am making is that my life is in danger in actively defending property. A thief willing to steal while I am near is very likely a threat. My life may not always be in danger when defending property. That is the crux of the matter.

 

[Harley Quinn]

In a state that allows open carry and shooting to defend-ones-self...

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/

Just look at the bill's for his attorney fees, and now he is in jail for 10 years.

Nuff said.

 

[TwitchALot]

I haven't read a vast majority of the posts, but there seems to be some confusion, so let me clarify. The question is not asking you whether you would shoot in the scenario I gave (which is an example, and only that) or not. The question is not asking you whether you would shoot, in general.

The question IS asking you whether you should be LEGALLY allowed to shoot someone over property, and I gave one scenario as an example.

It is NOT asking you whether you WOULD shoot, it is not asking you whether you SHOULD shoot, it is asking you whether you should be allowed to legally shoot. In the example I gave, some people said they wouldn't shoot (that's not the issue, again, for the record). However, if someone did decide to shoot, should that be legal or not? That's the question folks.

 

[bensdad]

TwitchAlot,

The problem remains. The pencil on my desk at work is my property. No, I should not be allowed to shoot someone for taking it.

The wedding ring on my dead wife's finger (you know, the wife the burglar just killed) is also property. If the burglar is running out of the house with the ring, posing no threat to me, should I be allowed to shoot him?

You see, between the two extreems, there are literally millions of examples we can all construct that only serve to illustrate the ambiguous nature of the question. There is no right answer. That's why I've said all along, I don't want to try and judge someone else's assessment of value.

Yes, it should be legal to defend property with lethal force. Someone will be along shortly to point out how wrong I am. That same someone will go on to define their own parameters of what should and should not justify using lethal force. Those parameters will involve defending some level of property. They will include something about "life-saving" property or some such.

 

[Harley Quinn]

The answer would still be the same No shooting, unless you are defending. Life or liberty, as far as the pursuit to happyness many would be happy to kill for the sake of killing. But they are not more than 10 percent according to the books I have read, some go slightly higher if you include the criminals

I believe if you were assured it would not kill many more would shoot to stop. But the law is clear on that (state I am in) that is not an option.

LA is an interesting state and it really is hard to believe the laws are like they are. Part of the confusion in LA. Safty for others and not concerned about the property is what it is about. This thread will only confuse more maybe. Since it is obvious they were concerned about the womans health and safety...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=159721&highlight=CHP+katrina

If there has been a killing by the person who is evading arrest, I say use the force necessary to make the arrest. But beware for you may go to jail also for manslaughter. Similar to H. Fish.

 

[Tokugawa]

To the best of my knowledge, shooting someone over property is only justifiable if the loss of the property would or could result in death- this is the reason horse thieves were hung- steal a mans horse, he is put on foot in hostile country, and in a severe situation. Same thing for another property crime, arson- it directly threatens life.

Ed Ames is right on with his comments on this.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If the burglar is running out of the house with the ring, posing no threat to me, should I be allowed to shoot him?

He is tactically repositioning, so as to gain an advantage in order to kill you.

 

[bensdad]

So what you are really asking for is opinions. Nothing else.

O.k.,

IS it legal to shoot someone over property? Varies.

SHOULD it be legal to shoot someone over property? Varies.

 

[rhweb32]

In Montana you could if you believed that person broke in your house with violent intentions. It all depends on whether or not you can articulate why you felt like your or your family's life was in imminent danger.

 

[Zoogster]

Legaly allowed and moraly would are very different things. The law does not do a good job of taking different situations into consideration. Shooting someone in your specific situation would be moraly reprehensible to most.

However I would not want the law making a hard and fast determination that one cannot defend property. Your dog is property for example. If someone at a distance was in the process of killing your dog while they are commiting another crime they made a decision to commit and you shot them that would be in defense of property.

If you are out in the desert/woods/tundra offroading and someone is trying to steal your vehicle, and you stop them that is defense of property. However if you do not you may be in some serious trouble without supplies, water or transportation.

If you are in an emergency situation like New Orleans during Katrina and someone comes to steal your fresh water, some of the only fresh water around, your food, or perhaps the fuel to run a generator you are using to power your refrigerator, water pump keeping sewage laden water out, heat, etc then shooting to stop them would be in defense of property.
During the L.A. riots looters would have taken everything from those asian shops if the owners had not defended them with firearms. They were defending property.

You can go on and on about unique situations.
It is a judgement call and brings into question an individual's moral standards. However I do not think that judgement call should be pre determined by a hard and fast legal rule.

So not necessy usualy, and shouldn't be someones choice in most situations. However it should be legal so one has the option if necessary.

Keep in mind the shooter would still be subject to lawsuits that would total more money than most property a person would be taking. So not only moraly reprehensible in many situations, but financialy devestating.
Yet the legal choice should be thier own.

 

[bensdad]

He is tactically repositioning, so as to gain an advantage in order to kill you.

Thanks Vern Humphrey. ILOL.