Property and Revenge II - Dennis is back

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
We are closer than you think.

I make two basic points - I see taking a life as only having utilitarian value to prevent grievous bodily harm. While I might act to stop property theft and if that causes a deadly threat to me and mine act accordingly.

However, if the resolution of the property crime can be done with killing that is to the good. I have seen folks say that since TX law enables them to use deadly force in TX for property, they will without hesitation. I disagree with that. Both practically and morally. I'm not saying that my values are better than one's but they are mine.

As far as seeing all violent death and wasted life as tragic - that is my belief.

There is no joy in killing. Even it is justified, it is a bad thing.

For those of you who want to denounce my profession and attack my personal motives - well, you are irrelevant to me. Grrr - yourself.

Did I say we should not deal effectively with criminals? Did not.

Do I think that horrible environments break some people - Yes, I do. And I feel sorry for them.

Should we let them out - NO. Unless we have effective treatment.

A philosophical conundrum. Let's take my tabasco tortured monster. Perhaps in 100 years or so, we will be able to convincingly and with very very very low risk rehabilitate this sort of guy. Would you let him out?

Another one - let's say technology develops reliable and efficient phaser set on stun, would you prefer to kill instead?

What I see is rage in some over a sense of territorial violation or some people who fantasize over the opportunity to use deadly force. I know pro trainers who throw the latter out of classes. I am not saying that about all who argue with me but it's there in some responses.

So you stop the guy with the VCR. You say:
Don't Move! He says - Sorry Guy, I'm going to
walk out the door and I won't be back.

So who's going to shoot him? Let's say you don't kill him. Don't give me stopping power crap and your marksmanship - I know too much about shooting to buy it. Do you go finish him off?
 
Glenn,
Rage "... over a sense of territorial violation." That's part of it.
(Well said, BTW!)

But most of it is:
- rage that anyone would dare steal for less than survival reasons,
- the knowledge that the thief preys upon those who can not (or will not) defend themselves, and
- my perceived need to prevent the apparently inevitable escalation of the BG's level of violence from stealing for pleasure to harming people for pleasure.

Revenge is but a small part of the matter. The offense itself and the continuing (probably *increasing*) threat seem to be my motivations.
---

At one time, I would have shot someone stealing my car. Setting aside the question of taking a life, that would have damaged the car! (Holes, blood stains, etc. ;))

As I grasped the legal and financial consequences of my attitude, I decided the danged thing's insured.

As you know, in Texas the threat of deadly force is not the same as the use of deadly force. I'd still try to stop the thief. I would be willing to use force; but if *he* did not resort to deadly force, I believe I'd rely on my insurance.

So he may deprive me of the pen, the pink flamingo, the lawn sprinkler, probably even my car, but he better not threaten my house. One false move with a Molotov cocktail and he dies immediately. I definitely *will* use whatever force is necessary to prevent destruction of my home - even if my family is NOT in it!
 
Whether the law allows me to use force or not, I am the final judgement. since I live in the world "as it is", there are things to take into account besides "my druthers".

So, in this real world, it's pointless, really, to use deadly force in the absence of a clear-cut and obvious deadly threat to you and yours; or a clear-cut and obvious deadly threat to third parties.

So, the issues of insurance and legal hassles are just part of the real-world equation.

It is appropriate to discuss, plan and prepare for self-defense. But if Dr. Kleck is right--that there are as many as two million events per year where a gun makes a self-defense difference--then my odds are one in 135 against anything happening in any one year.

Since this is still not a zero-probablility, I do indeed give it consideration. However, it is not something I feel I need to dwell on on a daily basis. Condition Yellow has been sufficient for a long, long time.

Regards, Art

FWIW, Art
 
Is Deadly Force justified to protect property? In my humble opinion--no.

Is NonDeadly Force justified to protect my property? Again, in my humble opinion--probably.

As Dennis has pointed out, the Threat of Deadly Force is not considered to be Deadly Force in Texas.

Most of us rely on our vehicles for our livelihood. If we wish to earn a living, we must have transportation. Someone taking that transportation, and thus our livelihood, is robbing us of our living.

This, for me, justifies my using vocal commands to cease and desist. Since I am a mildly paranoid individual, those verbal commands and command presence will be backed up with a weapon.

Should the critter offer me Death or Serious Bodily Injury while I am going about the business of preventing the theft of my lawful property while on my curtilage, I will respond as the tactical situation demands.

Do note, however, that Deadly Force will only be used to protect myself or an innocent third person. That is the only moral justification for killing any mother's son.

Those who cite the Deadly Force in Protection of Property Statute of the Texas Penal Code should understand that there is more to the law than what was quoted.
http://www.cowtown.net/Cop_Shop/chapter_9.html
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.[/quote]

I've highlighted the part that will rise up and bite you on the butt.

Also worth reading is this part under PC 19.01:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
[/quote]

I have, Ladies and Gentlemen, highlighted the minimum elements necessary to prove a Charge of Murder to be True.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited April 12, 2000).]
 
Some people have already done the thinking and have decided under which circumstances they will kill.
In my case, as an individual, I would not kill for property unless it was property necessary to preserve or sustain my life or the life of someone I was responsible for.
If someone broke into my house I couldnt count on having the time to interview him in depth to determine if he was there to kill, rape, pillage, burn or steal. So there is a little leeway.
I would not kill someone who had stolen my TV and was hotfooting it out my back door, but I would rely heavily on the fact that he wouldnt know that when he hears the gun go off.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
This is topical here currently because of two separate incidents. The West Australian newspaper has a complete page on the incident(s) and the law, including the judge's findings:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>(shortened for brevity and to make a point, but not for content)
"Fine for driveway shooting"
$3500 penalty enough deterrent and punishment: judge
By Mairi Barton

A panic-stricken hairdresser should not have reached for a loaded (sic -- by admission, he loaded the gun after his son woke him up) gun to confront a trespasser, a District Court judge said yesterday.

Judge Roger Macknay said the action had the potential for disaster and there was no place for loaded firearms in those circumstances in the suburbs of Perth. (Emphasis added)

Judge Macknay criticised 57-year-old Bentley hairdresser Nazzareno Niciforo because he failed to explore other options and went outside with his shotgun.

This was despite the fact that police had been called.

He said the crown had not called for jail and it was not needed because Niciforo was a businessman and a family man of good character who was not likely to reoffend (emphasis added).

He fined Niciforo $3500. He said a substantial fine would be enough to punish him and deter others.

Judge Macknay was less than sympathetic to the 24-year-old victim (emphasis added), Jason Worthington, who was shot in the hip when Nicifero's gun discharged just half a metre from him during the confontation on May 4, 1998.

He said Mr Worthington, who admitted being affected by beer, cannabis and paint fumes (emphasis added) that night, was a deliberate trespasser and and had acted in a foolish and provocative way.

By his own admission, Mr Worthington might have handled the gun barrel and it was possible his actions caused the weapon to fire (emphasis added).

Judge Macknay said Niciforo was panicking and his wife was hysterical before the gun discharged because Mr Worthington had come onto the family's property ... (at night, waking the son, who in turn woke Mr Niciforo)

On Monday night, a jury found Mr Niciforo not guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, but guilty of the lesser charge of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm. Judge Macknay found the gun went off while Niciforo was pushing his distressed wife back towards the house with his elbow and the stock (sic) of the gun.

Mr Worthington was intoxicated, agitated and deliberately walked up the driveway to Niciforo saying: 'Shoot me' after Niciforo asked him to get off the property.

The judge was satisfied the safety catch of the gun was not on, despite Niciforo's claim he had put it on when he loaded the gun.

He said the jury obviously was satisfied Niciforo's actions amounted to criminal negligence. He ordered Niciforo to forfeit the gun.[/quote]

On the same page:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>BACKGROUND: THE LAW AND YOU
* A person may arrest without a warrant any person who commits a breach of the peace, e.g. attempts to steal a car.

* If the culprit escapes, a person may give chase immediately to make a citizen's arrest.

* It is lawful for a person who witnesses a breach of the peace to use reasonable force to protect themselves or their property from a trespasser.

* The force must be in proportion to the danger posed.[/quote]

Strangely, they don't give a reference as to where they obtained the information for the "Background", because it differs substantially from what police tell the public. "Citizen's arrest" is fraught with danger because you lay yourself open to charges of "wrongful arrest" and subsequent court cases.

We are also told we may NOT use "force" (no matter how "reasonable") to protect property. I'm not sure if the damn newspaper isn't just trying to provoke another incident with a citizen trying to protect his/her property.

B


[This message has been edited by Bruce in West Oz (edited April 12, 2000).]
 
Not all of us can take the loss of a $25,000 car in stride. A terribly elitist attitude, though unintentional, I know. I'll probably never own a $25,000 car until inflation makes $25,000 the equivalent of something like $5-10,000 in today's dollars.
If I did own such a vehicle, I would have a hell of a time replacing it if it were lost.

If you go back and read my last post, you'll notice that my position is exactly the same as Lawdog's, which I take as a sign that I did something right. I also notice that the argument was ignored when I put it forward; maybe someone will respond to Lawdog?
 
I guess I'm a hopeless Neanderthal, a knuckle-dragging, chest-beating throwback who exists on a lower moral plane than my more evolved betters...

Nah!

To hell with $25,000 cars. A dusty, broken eight-track tape bought with my hard-earned 1968 dollars is worth more than the life of scum who would take it by force.

Philosophically speaking of course. Defense of property with deadly force is illegal where I live.
 
I can't really buy into this argument because our laws are quite explicit:

However:

A friend once said to me:

"Look at it this way. My car cost me (let's say) $40 000. (An ordinary car in Oz.) I earn $50 000 a year. Of that, I can only put $5 000 a year aside for a car purchase or repayments. That person, then, has for all intents and purposes stolen eight years of my life. Think I'm going to stop him any way I can???? Bloody oath I am!!!"

Just a thought.

B
 
LawDog,

I sure love it when you quote the law! That sure narrows the area for
“opinions”! ;)

The funny part is the many factors not covered by the law.
- If BG stole MY car, I’d let him. It has potentially expensive mechanical
problems. I’d just as soon have the insurance money.
- If BG tried to steal my wife’s car, I’d try to stop him. Her car is fairly new,
low mileage, etc.

Like you, my attempt would be to stop theft and damage.
- If he ran away, I’d let him go.
- If I could hold him for our friendly Deputies, I would.
- If he made me fear imminent serious bodily or death, I’d respond “... as
the tactical situation demands.” (Thanks, Ian!)

But I refuse to let him steal my car because of his Tabasco enemas. (Yuck!)

BTW, I don’t have a curtilage. No fence. (Durned police mumbo jumbo! :D)
-----

Don,

No offense, but what’s the question again?
-----

Jeffelkins,

Philosophically speaking, of course, thanks for joining Canis and me down
here below our “betters”! Hmm. Does that make us “worsers”? ;)
-----

Bruce,

Using your formula, I would say our government steals about half our lives
on a regular basis!
Add another bloody oath to yours! :D

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Dennis, was I supposed to have a question? I thought I was just rambling.......
Oh yeah! Now I remember! If you confront the thief with a deadly weapon, and he turns on you, and you kill him, how can anyone claim you killed him over stealing your property?
You HELD him (albeit at gunpoint) for the police for stealing your property; you KILLED him to stop him from killling you. If he had tried to steal the car, but followed your commands and never attacked you, he'd still be alive.
 
Why did they use to hang horse thieves?

What i don't understand in this era of rampant technology, is why more of us don't have travel limiters on our vehicles

Without toggling the hidden switch the car goes only one mile then powers down

On star & Low jack also present some interesting solutions to modern horse thievry.

dZ
 
I guess what I should have said is that I would only consider that someone used deadly force to stop a theft if he simply went outside and shot the thief where he stood rather than trying to hold him for police. That's USE of deadly force, and it's in response to the theft.
Lots of people here arguing against "use of deadly force to stop a theft" seem to be arguing about a situation other than what I just outlined; I submit that they're mistaken about what use of deadly force to stop a theft actually would be.
 
Don,

If you are holdiong an intruder at gunpoint for the police in your own home and he advances upon you with the apparent intent to do harm you would be justified in shooting him. You have no obligation to retreat in your home. The fact that an uanarmed intruder is seeking to arm himself by taking your weapon is an explicit threat of immediate harm to yourself or others in your home. He's also so stupid that it boggles the mind. If he wants to leave, it's probably safest for you and yours to let him. If you decide to hold him and he agrees to stay, have him put himself in the felony prone position. Do not approach for any reason, even to search. Maintain as much distance as possible while keeping a clear field of fire.
 
This reminds me of an incident that occured in Arlington, TX, I believe, in 1996. Three young men (street gang types??) decided to dress a guys car (steal wheels, etc.) Anyway the owner heard the goings on, and came out, guns a-blazsin'. If I recall correctly he killed two of the three, and severely disabled the third.

At the time, I thought it was an extreme case of rage, and uncontrolled anger at play. I still so. They obviously didn't get away, and his property was totally recovered, on the scene.
If I recall right, there were no charged filed againdt the property owner, because it was ruled self-defense. I'm not in total agreeance with that finding however. It seems that one of the boys (young men) was running away from the owner, and was shot in the back. I fail to see the connection with self-defense in that action.
Oh, it was found, if I remember correctly, that none of the theives were armed...

Does this case properly define the actions based on the premise of self-defense?
I know, I know, without the factual info in front of you, it would be impossible to make an intelligent conviction based upon what I simply say, heresay testimony.

Slight shift in topic. Remember the death of the 6 year old boy in Independence, MO? The car-jacking thing. I heard from more than one here, that they'd probably extract justice in their own way. Is that revenge, or Biblical morality.
A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye...
I tend to think it is morality at work.
Simply put the guy just get's out of prison and what does he do, steal a car. A result of which, he kills an innocent passenger of the vehicle.
Personally speaking, that BG would definitely be on the endangered species list...

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited April 12, 2000).]
 
I experienced the sense of violation/guilt/embarrassment attached to 1) having my vehicle broken in to, and 2) having a weapon (Ruger SP101)stolen from it.

I still feel irresponsible for losing the revolver (which could just as easily have been stolen from my apartment by a determined thief), and fearful that it might be an instrument of harm in the wrong hands.

I am a Texas CHL holder, preparing myself for circumstances in which I may need to employ deadly force or threat thereof (praying the day never comes!). I don't believe I would have killed to prevent theft of my vehicle. But theft of a firearm, in light of the consequences I still fear today, more than two years later? Probably.

While I share with Glenn and others hesitation to use an economic calculus for use of deadly force, I certainly feel that too many incident-specific variables obtain to have a black and white philosophy. What I say here, calmly and safely, may not support my actions in a particular scenario. Talk about conviction!

On a lighter note, I'm gladdened to see some passionate, articulate South Texans expressing themselves in spirited form. Howdy, Y'all! :D

SA Scott
 
One of the possible reasons why the TX guy was not charged with anyhting, even in shooting the guy in the back is that it is legal here. Based on what I remember, after dark it is legal for you to shoot someone fleeing if you believe that he/she will get away with property that you believe would not be recovered or something along those lines. This rather than self defense was the probale reason why he didnt get charged. As for the other 2, it could just have been self defense as the case states.

Why did they hang horse thieves? 1.Cause horses were the way most people made their living so the horse was essential to the livelyhood of the family. 2. Cause they wanted to make sure that the next guy who considered stealing a horse might have second thoughts. I dont know much about life in the west, but I doubt that horse jacking was a favorite pass time.

Would I shoot someone for property, NO. Would I hold someone at gun point if they were stealing my car. YES. Would I shoot them if they tried to attack me, YES. Would I shoot them if they just walked away? Depends on weather I felt they would come back later and harm my family. Would I shoot someone in my home. YES, I would not try to interview them to find out if they were just a misguided youth with improper role models or a serial rapist wanting to do my wife. If I felt that they posed a threat to me and my family they would be shot.

It seems to me that the more civilized we get the more rampant crime gets. Could it be that criminals know that the system protects them and they are willing to try their luck?? How often have we stated that it is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six? Dont you think that criminals think the same?? This is why victim disarmament and self defense weakening laws are stupid. I'd love to go back to having only minimal police and the citizens taking care of themselves and their property. Save a lot of tax $$

------------------
"Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes."
-R.A. Heinlein
 
Dennis, you're welcome. You still have a curtilage--a fence is not required to define it in Texas.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If you confront the thief with a deadly weapon, and he turns on you, and you kill him, how can anyone claim you killed him over stealing your property?[/quote]

I'll see if I can answer that one.
Don, remember, in Texas you may make a Citizens Arrest for any felony or misdemeanor Breach of the Peace. Last I checked Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle is still a Felony. If you are holding the critter for the Police, or are performing a Citizens Arrest, and he offers you Death or Serious Bodily Injury--according to how I read the Law--you are perfectly justified in using Force up to and including Deadly Force.

As you pointed out, up until the critter got stupid, you were not using Deadly Force (remember, in Texas, displaying a weapon is not considered to be Deadly Force). Once the critter got stupid, you were no longer using Deadly Force to prevent property theft, you were using Deadly Force to prevent the imminent commission of Deadly Force against yourself.

However, let's say you have a critter breaking into your vehicle, you go out with a weapon to stop this, and the critter announces, "You don't scare me, I'm taking this car" you are not justified in using Deadly Force to stop him.
You are justified, however, in using force of a level less then Deadly Force to prevent this.

Just my humble opinion, though. Hope that helps.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited April 12, 2000).]
 
Law Dog,

I think the car owner is in kind of a bind then. It would be kind of stupid to leave the weapon aside and then attempt to what, wrestle the would-be car thief away from the car? That's a good way to get killed or seriously injured isn't it? Especially if you don't know whether or not the guy is armed. Couldn't you reasonably believe that to do so would expose you to serious harm/death? (as you posted under section 3B of the Deadly Force to Protect Property statute). I guess otherwise you're reduced to chemical spray or just handing over the keys? :(

Now I'm not saying good or bad, but if I was a car thief reading this board, I don't think I'd try to steal jeffelkins' or Dennis' car! ;)
 
To quote a part of Glenn's original post:

-------------------------------------------
Another one - let's say technology develops reliable and efficient phaser set on stun, would you prefer to kill instead?
-------------------------------------------

If you're talking a Star Trek type phaser, then I'm leaving it on kill! Stun would just get you into hot water with the law. I can see the goblin's attorney telling the judge how I traumatized him by blasting him with stun. Setting my phaser to "kill" would actually vaporize the goblin along with all evidence. Dead men don't tell tales but they do leave evidence whereas vaporized men don't tell tales or leave evidence.

Am I a Trekkie? Yeah, I admit it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top