Should you be legally allowed to shoot someone over property?

[gc70]

Of course, if it's over my property. If it's over your property... not so much.

(Yes, I am just joking.)

As previously stated, my answer would be "it depends."

 

[leadcounsel]

I said "other" because it depends on the property.

Anything of inherent danger "firearms" or of significant value (car, jewels, bonds, etc.) you should be able to use deadly force to stop a thief.

I think the authorized use of deadly force for felony type thefts would lower the crime rate in America. Our policy of "just give in to the bad guy" is a nobel idea that just encourages crime.

 

[45Badger]

I voted no. No thing in my house is worth taking a life over. Safety of my family is a different matter.

Threaten a hair on their head and I will drop you without a second thought.

 

[Bazooka Joe71]

Good question...But what happens when those thieves are FBI agents and they just walk in and take it?

 

[Dorryn]

I would deeply regret shooting someone over property.

I still might shoot them.

I voted yes. Initially I had a very firm answer, but the more I considered it... the more id have to say it is completely situationally based.

 

[mekender]

it would be a damn shame if it were legal... i mean imagine how quickly the act of thieving would become extinct?

sooner or later, this society will figure out that its menial punishments for crime do not work... and when that happens, i would imagine that the life spans of criminals will get drastically shorter

 

[SageMonkey]

I voted yes, but I think it really depends on the situation.

Is the thief committing a felony? That makes it more appropriate, imho. Shooting someone for petty theft or low value shoplifting wouldn't be right.

Shooting someone stealing, say, your life savings, the tools of your trade, etc, which would be difficult or impossible for you to replace... I suppose I'd say you should really try to stop them without firing.

 

[rhubarb]

At what point can you determine that the thief is simply a thief and doesn't have ill intentions toward you or your family? When he says, "Don't shoot!"? When he runs for the door? Ten minutes after he's gone? When he pulls a gun? When he shoots you?

I was reading something by some philosopher dude a while back where he said to be morally right, one must consider before committing to an action whether they would wish everyone to make the same action in the same situation every time. Not knowing the eventual outcome, would you wish every thief caught in flagrante delicto to be shot on sight?

 

[wheelgunslinger]

Bensdad wrote:

We started out with a criminal breaking into someone's home... blah blah blah...

Yeesh. If you want to start a flamewar with me, at least be intelligent and educated enough to not have glaring gaps in your knowledge of the world and yourself.

Take it to PM or tell it to Ben. I'm not here to entertain you when you're bored.

Back to topic:
Mekender wrote:

it would be a damn shame if it were legal... i mean imagine how quickly the act of thieving would become extinct?

sooner or later, this society will figure out that its menial punishments for crime do not work... and when that happens, i would imagine that the life spans of criminals will get drastically shorter

Sure, that would be super easy. But, what happens when you come to my house and I decide that I don't like you and shoot you because you tried to steal my wallet?
Seriously. Don't you think that would open the door for a lot of heinous acts, all for the sake of allowing people to exact instant capital punishment for petty crimes?

 

[Dallas239]

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.

Given perfect information, I would not take a life purely over property (absent extraordinary circumstances). But I voted that it should be legal. I think that in any case where the decedent was killed during the commission of a felony, all of the legal presumptions should be on the side of the defender.

In reality (for most of us) there is no such thing as perfect information. And there is no real good way to put the jury in the shoes and mind of the defender at the time of the shooting. So when there's a clear GG and BG (I'd probably settle for a clear BG and shades of GG), I'm in favor of heavliy tilting the scales in favor of the GG.

 

[.38 Special]

But, what happens when you come to my house and I decide that I don't like you and shoot you because you tried to steal my wallet?

Heck, what happens when someone's 14 year old son tries to boost a candy bar from the Stop 'N Go and the store owner kills him?

Somehow I think the righteous indignation and tough guy fantasizing would lose some of its appeal.

 

[JWarren]

But, what happens when you come to my house and I decide that I don't like you and shoot you because you tried to steal my wallet?

I think more value would come from a discussion of the ethics, risks, and consequences of stealing wallets.

I often wonder... if you were in a job interview and were told that you would get decent pay, but statistically you WOULD be dead from doing the job in say... 5 years, would you take it?

I wonder if criminals were CERTAIN that they WOULD get killed as a result of their criminal activity SOON, there may be less tendency to look at this career path. However, a first-time offender can likely expect nothing more than probation if caught.


-- John

 

[22-rimfire]

Personally I feel it depends. It depends on the crime, the circumstances, and the law. If the law supported protecting property as vigorously as it does for protecting life and limb in your home, then crime would be reduced over night. No criminal could know for sure who would be carrying a firearm concealed. I don't have much sympathy for criminals. The circumstances would dictate for me how I would react should someone be taking my property. I don't mean to suggest that citizens would become essentially law enforcement personel without training. The citizen would be limited to their own property or fear for your life. Not everyone would be willing to use a firearm to attempt to stop a robbery, but if the law was changed, you could make up your own mind. The citizen would still be responsible for collateral damage.

 

[esq_stu]

1 if the law was clear and clearly allowed it; and
2 if they entered my home or car to steal but in a way that I could not tell whether they intended to harm me or not; then

I would assume they intended harm and use lethal force.

 

[orionengnr]

Whether it should or should not be legal is fodder for another discussion. The fact is, it is legal to defend yourself and your property in many jurisdictions.

I am blessed to live in Texas, where it is incumbent upon the criminal to determine in advance if he wishes to embark upon a potentially hazardous pursuit, to wit, invading another man's territory and stealing another man's possessions, thereby putting himself in jeopardy.

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

So who invited the Brady Bunch? Please spare me your SelfServingPsychoBabble(tm). I'm fresh out of barf bags.

 

[EdistoMic]

Quick Answer: No

Property crimes are not, for the most part, a life or death situation.
Many scenarios where deadly force is permitted is already allowable.
Of course it justified if robber is in an occupied house, or if bodily harm is threatened.
But, SHOULD I BE ALLOWED TO SHOOT SOMEONE OVER PROPERTY?

NO.

(Most of the things I own aren't as expensive as a lawyer for a sure-to-come trial) Spending thousands of dollars to defend myself against someone stealing a TV doesn't make much sense.

Now, I would be more than inclined to try to give him a good *** whoopin'!
But kill him, no.

 

[22-rimfire]

Now, I would be more than inclined to try to give him a good *** whoopin'!

Me too, but I don't want to fight hand to hand. What about the 70 year old vs a 19 year old thug..... officer, I was in fear of my life and I shot him....

 

[swingpress]

Yes. Though I may not choose to take advantage of it, anyone who would deprive another of their rightful property should have to reckon with the fact that they are in the wrong and it may cost them their life.

My state recognizes arson in this manner.

 

[gotarheels03]

absolutely. Whether it's legal or not to defend property with deadly force, we will still have armed thugs willing to steal property by force. What's to stop them if they know no one will shoot back?

Think about how sacred our founders considered property rights. They would be appalled at the notion that citizens can't defend their possessions with force when necessary, ESPECIALLY when it's the government taking property under things like drug forfeiture laws.

 

[RoadkingLarry]

The question is to simplistic. No, I wouldn't walk up and pop some BG because I saw him trying to carry off my TV. I would however confront said BG and demand he return my property (if he was still on my property/home/grounds). If at that time his/her resistance made me fear for my life then the circumstances have changed from a property issue to a life issue.

 

[dahermit]

Should you be legally allowed to shoot someone over property?

I'm very curious to see what you guys at THR think about this. 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. Almost all felons have many crimes under their belt. If you do not shoot a felon when attempting to rob you, you are perpetuating that person continuing to rob other people. And, at some point, it may turn into something more than just robbery. "...a robbery gone bad..."
If you terminate a felon who you have caught in the act, you have prevented that person from continuing his crime career, and possibly saved someone's life. Who is more valuable to society, a felon, or a future innocent victim?

Those of a religious bent, note the verse about someone digging under the walls of your house to rob you and what you are told to do.

 

[Autolycus]

You should be able to. Should you, not always.

It depends on the item being stolen. The thing is though, should you live in fear of someone taking your stuff always because it is not trivial? A car, a wallet, a watch, or jewelry are some quick examples? What if that watch is a sentimental one due it being your fathers? An heirloom perhaps?

It could not be replaced, and neither could your life. However is it worth defending.

I have only read the first page of replies, but I do agree with many people. It should be legal, but it is not always right.

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by Jeff Timm: 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!

Do you have a citation for that? Some sort of proof that it is legal for illegal aliens to do this?

And Ron Paul does.

 

[Autolycus]

Orginally posted by Roadking Larry: The question is to simplistic. No, I wouldn't walk up and pop some BG because I saw him trying to carry off my TV. I would however confront said BG and demand he return my property (if he was still on my property/home/grounds). If at that time his/her resistance made me fear for my life then the circumstances have changed from a property issue to a life issue.

What if he just said "Kiss my butt" and kept loading your things into his truck? He did not threaten you or make any threatening moves, just kept loading your things onto his truck. What then?

 

[mekender]

Sure, that would be super easy. But, what happens when you come to my house and I decide that I don't like you and shoot you because you tried to steal my wallet?
Seriously. Don't you think that would open the door for a lot of heinous acts, all for the sake of allowing people to exact instant capital punishment for petty crimes?

it all goes along with the thought that an armed society is a polite society... murders, rapists, and thugs shouldnt be allowed to live in society... remove them, and their influences and you start to remedy things...

i can gurantee that if we started hanging crack dealers from lamp posts along the streets where they are caught dealing, that crack dealing would almost completely disappear...

felons get caught, spend years and thousands of dollars in the court system and then get sent to a place that is often times more of a home to them than their residence on the outside...

murderers get sentenced and automatically get years and years of appeals... by the time most of them get executed, society has mostly forgotten anything about their crimes... that isnt a deterrent, its a travesty...

give the people back the right to decide what is right and wrong, and the right to enforce justice in some levels... and when a situation does happen, there are technologies out there that make it really obvious when someone is not portraying accurate information...