Should you be legally allowed to shoot someone over property?

[snewbie]

Definatly Yes. My property is mine, and I should be able to protect it. Car thieves should be hanged just like horse thieves were.

That doesnt mean I would shoot in every instance, just that it should be legal.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

best description i've eard in a while with your permission i'm gonna use it
"There are some who get fairly autoerotic at the idea of opening fire on someone at the slightest provocation."

 

[Lichter]

Jayb - I assume that's Indiana Code? It's pretty broad but you still couldn't shoot the guy running out the door with the wallet.

 

[woodybrighton]

self defense yes property no
if they run away fine if they appear a threat yes
so depends really
if there stealing guns or cars or something dangerous then probably fair enough shoot

 

[doc2rn]

If you're hungry, ask and I'll feed you.
If you break in to feed yourself, hunger will not be your primary concern.

JayB nailed it

 

[woerm]

duh,

After dark here in LSR, we can use all necessary force against felonious conduct on our property to protect life, limb and said property.

I Love TEXAS.

r

 

[Regolith]

Generally, I wouldn't, but there are circumstances where I believe it would be necessary, particularly if the property is a necessity for life (medical supplies, irreplaceable food if in a possible famine situation, etc).

 

[Jayb]

Yes, Indiana code. Thanks.....

I wouldn't presume to shoot him on his way out. In order for me to shoot him at all, I would have to be there when he broke in...... my presence when he began illegal, and unauthorized entry would have precluded his gaining control of my wallet, or anything else.

Please, no offense to anyone, but many of us have spent many weeks in boot camp learning to face the enemy. None of us knew for certain what we would do when that time came. Some of us still don't know. Regardless of what any law says, you will not know what you're gonna do until the time comes. Hopefully none of you will be forced to find out what you will or will not do.

 

[.38 Special]

There are some who get fairly autoerotic at the idea of opening fire on someone at the slightest provocation. I am not one of them.

Do I think people should be allowed to use deadly force to defend their property? Yes. People should be given freedom and should be responsible for their choices.
Go ahead. Blow some poor slob away for stealing your wallet. Then explain to a jury or judge why you killed someone for taking stuff easily replaced. Better yet, explain it to your kids.

I think this might be the best post I've ever seen on the topic.

There's an awful lot of unreality spread around the topic of armed defense. I have enough faith in humanity, though, to believe that most of us, when confronted with a real-life choice of killing someone for stealing property, will realize that it isn't right to do -- nevermind any nonsense about how your life might someday depend on the twenty bucks in your wallet.

 

[Atticus]

Generally, no. But it would depend on the situation. Years ago, two acquaintances of mine shot and killed two teens breaking into their cars. Both of them claimed the teens turned on them and pointed (what they thought) were guns. Neither of them was convicted criminally, but both spent a lot of time and money on civil trials. I'm sure there were long term emotional issues as well, although that is only known to them. Having been a stupid teen once, and knowing several stupid teens now, I would tend to reserve the death penalty for very severe circumstances. Unfortunately, the details of the events and people involved are not known until the deed is done.

 

[bensdad]

Someone breaks into your home and steals... your wallet as you walk in. He's running out the back door

I've taken a little more offense at the OP than others. He/she poses a general question, then describes a situation that vilifies a "yes" answer.

You set the "yes" folks up to look bad. Others picked up that ball and ran with it:

"There are some who get fairly autoerotic at the idea of opening fire on someone at the slightest provocation."

Pardon me if I don't think of breaking into my home (where my wife and two children live) as "the slightest provocation."

Also, who gets to determine the meaning of "trivial" and "easily replaced"?

I would hold fire for trivial, easily replaced property whose absence would not imperil me.

This is a loaded question with an even more loaded scenario.

 

[JWarren]

Answering the question as an unqualified question and giving an unqualified answer:

Question:

Should you be legally allowed to shoot someone over property?


Answer:

Yes.



-- John

 

[Harley Quinn]

I believe those who voted with a bonifide yes set themselves up. If they answered it and explained it with a clairification that is better. But many states and countries do not allow a death penalty at all even in the most bizarre circumstances. So those who are willing to kill over a car theft. Set themselves up IMHO... It is nothing to do with right or wrong, in some minds, it is all about what they want to do, which is kill someone over it. Simple and sad. To kill is a very terrible thing and if it is necessary for ones own survival it is one thing, if you want to kill over it (personal problem for sure). Sleep will not come easy from that day forth, and if it does, you are socially messed up, as well as personally I think.

 

[tallpaul]

I believe yes- just because it was made legal- or should I say put back to the way it was for ions does not mean I would choose it every time but then again I do believe if it started to happen en mass that the criminals may finally "get it" and understand that we are tired of them and the doo gooders who feel it is their right to take others stuff just because they want too.

I believe a big reason we will NEVER see it so simplistic is that the lawyers have too much to loose if it is made universal law and LE would end up needing to be smaller and smaller...

 

[JWarren]

Harley Quinn wrote:

I believe those who voted with a bonifide yes set themselves up. If they answered it and explained it with a clairification that is better. But many states and countries do not allow a death penalty at all even in the most bizarre circumstances. So those who are willing to kill over a car theft. Set themselves up IMHO... It is nothing to do with right or wrong, in some minds, it is all about what they want to do, which is kill someone over it. Simple and sad. To kill is a very terrible thing and if it is necessary for ones own survival it is one thing, if you want to kill over it (personal problem for sure). Sleep will not come easy from that day forth, and if it does, you are socially messed up, as well as personally I think.

So basically, you have stated that if someone answers "yes" they are a sociopath. Ironically your post follows my "unqualified" response. I'd have to assume that, to you, I fall into the parameters of your post.


Oddly, I don't feel "set up."

I stated a view that property is worth defending. Period. And I do feel that it is. I suspect that your post stems from a position that you do not. We can respectfully disagree.

But I think you are very out of line suggesting that holding a belief where property is worth defending is a sociological problem.

You see, I can just as easily say that a view that enables criminals to this sort of behavior and instills a belief that they will get away with it unscathed is a sociological problem.

After all, the term "sociological problem" suggests that it is a problem affecting the direction of society. I contend that a view that respects criminals more than your possessions they are stealing IS a MAJOR part of the problem with our societal direction.


I think you are completely wrong in your suggestion that those that would defend property do so out of a desire to kill someone. If that were true, I have had far better reasons in my past to do so (attempted rape of my sister that I stopped) and yet, I didn't.

But you have your opinion, and I have mine. But I won't stand quietly against the suggestions you've made. I'll leave you to your opinion.


-- John

 

[Jeff Timm]

The question was posed: "Someone breaks into your home and steals... your wallet as you walk in. He's running out the back door. Should you be allowed to shoot him to retrieve your property? Why or why not?"

Yes, of course. We are talking ID theft here, one of the most heinous crimes possible. The long lasting effects of an ID theft last for years and years.

Now a judge has ruled that an illegal alien can steal your SSAN and use it, and it IS NOT A CRIME! But the IRS will come to you to get the Taxes the alien did not pay. Isn't this country wonderful?

Which presidential candidate wants to put the 1st Cav back on the border? NONE!

Geoff
Who assumes you either want to defend the nation or destroy it.

 

[Nitrogen]

Yes. You should LEGALLY be allowed to defend your property with deadly force. It's not always the best idea morally, but that's up to you.

If somone wnats to steal your stuff, by using force, and it's stuff you worked hard for, and espically if it's tools or other property you need to make a living, it's a no-brainer for me.

If it's just a car stereo or something, that insurance will cover, I'm all for using force to attempt to stop the crime, but not deadly force unless it becomes necessary to save your life.

i.e. you catch the guy inside your car, you draw on him and attempt to detain him. If he runs, let him go, for example.

 

[rbernie]

"There are some who get fairly autoerotic at the idea of opening fire on someone at the slightest provocation."

That's about as imflammatory a statement as I've read, and I believe it to be a grotesque and incorrect characterization of ANY of the comments made in this thread.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

best description i've eard in a while with your permission i'm gonna use it
"There are some who get fairly autoerotic at the idea of opening fire on someone at the slightest provocation."

Surely. Use it all you like.



Sudden escalation of force is a whole different ball o wax. Stealing my wallet with little or no cash, my id, and a few business cards I'd like to hang onto isn't yet a reason for me to 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.
In a competition between mercy and vengeance, I know I have a capacity for both -especially vengeance, but always default to mercy when I have the chance.

I've done both, and prefer the taste of mercy to the bitter draught of malice- even if you do have politicians agreeing with you and writing laws into books. You'll have to live with that action the rest of your life. And, for the contents of you wallet?

Sam Jackson, while playing the character Jules in the film Pulp Fiction, had a great monologue I often ponder when reading all the "Punisher" type chest beating like we see here.
"There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you. I been sayin' that **** for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a mother****er before you popped a cap in his ass. But I saw some **** this mornin' made me think twice. Now I'm thinkin': it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could be you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that **** ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd."

You're the guy with the gun. You can be the shepherd or the tyranny of evil men. Shooting someone because they stole your wallet off the counter? Where does that fall? Who does that make you?

 

[Harley Quinn]

That is fine, you have yours and I have mine, and others do also (opinions).

The situation is this we have laws to deal with theft and other crimes, CA has more people in jail than a lot of states have people who reside in it. But to kill over property alone, is not a good deal IMHO...LEO are not allowed, why should you be
Even the war over in Iraq has rules about killing looters that are just looting. Riots, don't allow killing looters, only if self defense is the issue.

So as you say we both have opinions and we both are standing by them...

One of the terrible things about Katrina is they killed looters, not self defense as a rule, so they took the firearms away, not a good deal. Looters in a riot or a catastrophy should be looked at differently some have mentioned. So you get to throw the first stone

 

[dahermit]

shoot and eat.

Not only should we be allowed legally to shoot to protect our property, we should be able to eat him also.

 

[Harley Quinn]

Not only should we be allowed legally to shoot to protect our property, we should be able to eat him also.
*******************

There you go, makes about as much sense All in fun I hope, unless you are from an Island in the Pacific. I think you are joking

 

[JWarren]

Yes, but I think it is VERY poor form to take this down the road of sociopathic behavior.

One of the terrible things about Katrina is they killed looters, not self defense as a rule, so they took the firearms away, not a good deal. Looters in a riot or a catastrophy should be looked at differently some have mentioned. So you get to throw the first stone

Don't Armchair-quarterback the events of Katrina. Unless you were there and lived it, you are not qualified to critique it.


-- John

 

[shadowalker]

I think legally you should be allowed to defend your property with whatever force necessary to prevent someone from unlawfully taking it from you, that said whether it is moral to do so depends on the person and the situation.

 

[Harley Quinn]

Don't Armchair-quaterback the events of Katrina. Unless you were there and lived it, you are not qualified to critique it.
*************
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

HQ