Tell me the truth about defending your property

D

Dust_Devil

New member
Scenerio.... You walk out of the store to see someone, who just broken into your vehicle and managed to get it started, driving off in it. The suspect just happens to be driving in your direction where you have a moment to confront the suspect for a brief moment. You are legally carrying a CCW. The suspect shows no signs of having a weapon.
What are you're true legal options?

A. You can shoot at your vehicle and suspect, even using deadly force, if necessary, to stop him from taking your property.

B. You can raise your weapon at the suspect to scare him to stop, but you cannot actually fire.

C. You can fire your weapon in a safe direction to scare the suspect to stop, but you cannot actually shoot the suspect.

D. You can yell at him to stop and hopefully get a description of the suspect to report to the police.

E. You can be suicidal or risk your own life and step in front of the path of the suspect stealing your
car or attempt to physically stop him though he may be physically stronger than you
and committ bodily harm to you. You can also try to provoke him to attack you to gain a reason to use deadly force.

While options D or even E is probably the only legal choice(s) though option E wouldn't be recommended, it kinds of bothers me that I can't use my full capabilties to protect my own property. It should not matter if my life is in danger or not. In a sense, my property is my life. If my property costs me large amounts of money which I worked very hard for that cannot be easily replaced and is important to me to get to my job to make a living where it gives me the food and home that I need to survive, then I think I should be able to use deadly force, because, in a way, my life is being threatened as now I may be in the risk of not being able to go to work for a brief time, or have the risk of paying more money to replace my vehicle, the cost of getting to work or the rise in insurance costs. For some people on a lmited income or where good paying employment is hard to obtain, being in physical danger may actually be a better option to losing something of monetary value.

Where a law says that a victim cannot use deadly force, a criminal will be tempted to commit the crime and even try to try again, even after getting out of jail since there is no threat to the criminal except for the risk of being caught and sent to jail.

Where a law says that a victim can use deadly force, a criminal will more likely think twice before committing the crime in the first place as now the criminal faces a greater personal threat to himself.
 
Property is replaceable

Your life and others' are not replaceable. Bodily injury could drastically change the rest of your life by disabling you, how you function physically or shortening your life, so that should be protected. Property: Money, jewelry, cars, clothes... is replaceable. That's probably how the law looks at it. More or less, I do too.

I choose -
F. Call 911, get as detailed a description as you can. Have auto insurance.
 
I can appreciate the view that your stuff is 'your life'. The right to own property is the right of a free man, and to have it taken is a deprivation of your rights.

But personally, I'm not going to use leathal force to protect my car or to prevent it from being taken. If YOU want to do so, well, that's your decision.

But I would just have to laugh at the stupidity of anyone dumb enough to steal a car. That's a losers game, and they'll get what's coming to them, eventually. I can get another car. But the car thief, he'll always be a s**thead, he'll always be a loser, and he will get what he deserves in the end, and I'm not getting caught up in his drama by drawing on him.
 
Better be sure your payments are caught up. If you shoot someone repossessing your car you will (in most states) go to prison. I can't tell you how many times (1000's) I have heard from one party in a marriage "we are not behind in our payments" turns out the spouse had failed to make the payments or notify their spouse of the default.

I only mention this because I repossess 1,000 cars per year. Every day I hear "I need that car to go to work, take the kids to school, get groceries, etc., etc., ------->etc... I see these people days, months, years later and guess what...they are still alive. A judge, jury, or your state statutes will not agree that deprivation from your car = death, sorry.

If I see a crime committed on my property or anywhere else, if my LIFE is not in danger, I will be the best witness. I will not point my gun at another person unless I am in grave physical danger.
 
There are people in the world that risk a loss of life if their property is stolen, as it is all that keeps them from starving.


But your junk is just the bonus material of life in a rich society, and is totally replaceable in every important way. The life of your victim is not, and I'll be damned if we'll ever salute a man who says "I once killed a man for this TV."


Aside from that, you never know who you're shooting at and what their story is. Killing a father commandeering a car to get to the hospital on time is bad Karma. So is shooting your son's friend who was told to grab the TV for the clubhouse. The point is that defending property is nothing more than vigilante justice, but without most of the facts.

If you kill someone over a car, I hope you spend your life in prison. If you discharge a firearm in the air and hurt someone, I hope you're sued.


A CCW is a life preserver, nothing more.
 
B&C are just silly.
For C, that bullet lands somewhere. Seen the footage of that paralyzed girl in Boston who publicly said she forgave the shooter? The shooter had shot into the air. You own the bullet and what it does. I have no idea what endangering somebody who has nothing to do with this will resolve anything.
Try and explain that to a jury.

For B, if you are legally entitled to defend yourself, you are entitled to draw. You are not entitled to draw before then.

In a sense, my name is my life too. So I guess insults are reasons to shoot too. Great, we have dueling back.

If your property is of such import that it is your life, they are things that can be insured.
I think threat of deadly force works only in one direction. Just because criminals may be disinclined to commit a crime because of the potential of deadly force, I don't think they are inclined to commit a crime because of the lack of deadly force.
Further, not everything is worth the taking of a life. Where do we draw the line? iPods are damned expensive, hard for some to replace. Do we look at cost of replacement or the cost of replacement versus yearly income? Factor sentimental value in?
 
Don't ever fire your weapon to "scare" someone. If you draw, be ready to fire; don't do it just to scare. If you fire, you better be aiming at COM.
 
That's what infuriated me about the looters and the folks who chose to stay in NOLA to protect their property; wrong set of priorities. There are no material things that are worth your life.
Let him take the car and call the cops.
 
I hope the bad guys read this fourm and take notes of who is willing to give things up freely. I for one will not at any cost be a willing victim and turn into a [Edited, don't do this again - LawDog]. Its just not all about the property being lost.
At that point there would be a shopping cart heading twords the front window of the car with hopes of him stopping or crashing. If I was lucky enough to get him to stop he would be held for police. If he displayed a weapon he would be shot in self defense. My weapon would never be pulled until that time. Its really hard for me to understand this passive display eveyone has, with a fear of getting hurt or in trouble defending yourself, doesn't anyone have any self respect for themselves anymore.

kenny b
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hope the bad guys read this fourm and take notes of who is willing to give things up freely.
Click to expand...
Wishing bad things on others because they disagree with you? Yet you talk about self respect later?
It certainly doesn't look like you know much about respect. Or 'agreeing to disagree'.
If you were lucky enough to hold a criminal instead of a death occuring. Go to prison knowing that in your mind you were morally and ethically right to kill over something with little meaning.
 
Aside from killing a fellow human being for a vehicle...

Or thinking he is not really human and, as scum, should be dispensed with...

You must decide if it is a capital offense. :rolleyes:
 
Your kidding right, I wished harm on another in the above thread. :rolleyes:
Actually I was trying to keep the bad guys from getting hurt. Why would they want to confront someone like me when someone like you is so willing to look the other way while giving up your posessions. Thank you for making my point.

kenny b
 
I realize the law in most places would put me in trouble for defending my mere property with deadly force.

But the truth is, it's my property, and any dung head who steals it deserves to pay the ultimate price. And I'm bound to remark that society is surely better off if a thief is buried before breeding.

I don't care what the dollar value is in terms of market value: it's what the thing is worth to me that counts.

If you don't want to kill to defend your property, that's fine with me. If I can see a way to avoid legal trouble and still pop the thief, well, I trust you won't interfere.

ADDED IN AN EDIT: And I would never draw a weapon just as a bluff - if you produce a piece, you had better be prepared to use it and justify the use later. There are times where merely producing a piece resolves the threat, but only a fool would count on it.
 
Aside from killing a fellow human being for a vehicle...
Click to expand...

Umm, I clearly state I would try to stop him, not kill him for stealing the vehicle, now in stopping him if he threatens my life in any way, I would react to protect myself. There is a difference, That is what I said above.

I didn't ask the question, I just answered it like many others above. Some don't like my answer and will comment on it. Well I don't like theirs but I'm not allowed to comment? :confused:

kenny b
 
Quote:
someone like you is so willing to look the other way while giving up your posessions. Thank you for making my point.


Who was this intended for?

What point are you speaking of?
Click to expand...

"croyance" "Wishing bad things on others because they disagree with you?"

Pointer the statement was not for you, sorry if I wasn't clear.

kenny b
 
I collect cars. I have one I would probably kill the SOB for. My gramps bought it new, shortly before he died. They brought me home from the hospital in it when I was born. First car I ever drove, drag raced(first win/first loss), first date, first real property I ever owned, drove it at both weddings...

Some property really can't be replaced, or at least the memories that are a part of it, and the SOB that tries to steal it is either taking me too or getting his ass kicked... So I guess the point is, it depends. The wife's 'Burb? Hey, knock yourself out. That old Caddy? We're going to have a fight on our hands... Would apply for most things I'd guess.
 
'Twas only about 120 years ago when hanging a horse thief was the socially acceptable thing to do. Course that was then, this is now and shooting ain't hanging... but it usually did stop that particular horse thief from stealing anymore horses.

Ah, we've come a long way baby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top