Tell me the truth about defending your property
- Thread starter Dust_Devil
- Start date
Nope, you understand the law just fine... but you seem to have missed the principle...
Here, try again...
I would like to see this attitude adopted for every criminal...
My brother-in-law owned a Porshe... Car thieves stalked him and then six of them attacked him inside the building on the stairway to his office... beat him into submission, broke his ankle, took his carkeys and ran off... his car was found in a container off-loading in Kuala Lumpur... he learned that the same ones had kidnapped another owner who had a fingerprint ID device in his car and they cut off his finger so they could use it to take the car... the injured victim was found wandering naked on the road...
My brother in law now drives a mini-van because he is afraid to drive another Porsche...
He is still a victim and will continue to be so...
I really like the idea of killing criminals, before, during, or after the fact...
Last edited:
OK. I'll wade into this sea of contention.
Many state constitutions have a clause similar to Idaho:
The question I always ask it how do I protect my property, when it is in the process of being stolen?
The simplest of answers is, with whatever I have on hand. Leathal force included. IMO, that should be the law. It would send a clear and concise message to crooks. Steal something and you risk getting killed.
I really believe that this, if enforced by the common citizen, would do a lot to curb crime.
Idaho has a statute that says I can use leathal force to stop a felony in progress. BUT. The courts have ruled that I may not use leathal force to effect the arrest of a felon... Unless the usual circumstances apply - the crook threatened serious bodily harm in the commission of his crime. So as it stands, you become the criminal for the simple remedy of protecting what's yours. Despite what the law says, it's what court precedence says.
Call me old fashioned. But I really believe that a crook has no rights, even to his own life, when they commit crime. If he gets caught and placed under arrest, then and only then does due process and "rights" come into play. Can't take the heat, then stay out of my kitchen.
Now I realize that my ideas are backwards to many of you, both libral and conservative (and I'm a moderate! go figure). That's tough. It's the way I believe it should be.
Is that a good enough of an explanation for you Handy?
Many state constitutions have a clause similar to Idaho:
Then the legiscritters go on to pass laws that make it almost impossible to actually protect that property!
The question I always ask it how do I protect my property, when it is in the process of being stolen?
The simplest of answers is, with whatever I have on hand. Leathal force included. IMO, that should be the law. It would send a clear and concise message to crooks. Steal something and you risk getting killed.
I really believe that this, if enforced by the common citizen, would do a lot to curb crime.
Idaho has a statute that says I can use leathal force to stop a felony in progress. BUT. The courts have ruled that I may not use leathal force to effect the arrest of a felon... Unless the usual circumstances apply - the crook threatened serious bodily harm in the commission of his crime. So as it stands, you become the criminal for the simple remedy of protecting what's yours. Despite what the law says, it's what court precedence says.
Call me old fashioned. But I really believe that a crook has no rights, even to his own life, when they commit crime. If he gets caught and placed under arrest, then and only then does due process and "rights" come into play. Can't take the heat, then stay out of my kitchen.
Now I realize that my ideas are backwards to many of you, both libral and conservative (and I'm a moderate! go figure). That's tough. It's the way I believe it should be.
Is that a good enough of an explanation for you Handy?
Those of you willing to shoot someone for a mere material possession are going to end up in prison. You know there will be a trial, where will your possessions be when you're spending 100 times the value of that stolen possession on legal fees trying to get out of it. A Grand Jury isn't going to see things your way and good firearms protection lawyers are expensive. And you'll probably contribute to the anti-gunners reasons for more gun control legislation.
If the material possessions are so valuable that loss of it will adversely affect your life, insure that heck out of it. What if it were destroyed in a flood, fire or accident, how would you replace it then?
Best thing to do is cooperate with the cops and hope he gets caught.
If the material possessions are so valuable that loss of it will adversely affect your life, insure that heck out of it. What if it were destroyed in a flood, fire or accident, how would you replace it then?
Best thing to do is cooperate with the cops and hope he gets caught.
FMUStewart
New member
Why does everyone always break it down into a "mere material posession"?? This isn't just about "mere material possessions." Its about my and YOUR "mere right to indulge in your inalienable rights (including owning property)"
I can see it now. "Ban guns so the bad guy's don't get killed!"
Insure the heck out of it? And spread the cost to the other insured members of society? This I can see for a group of willing participants in case of flood, fire, or accident. I cannot see this simply for the protection of one's goods against being stolen (A concious, thought out decision made by another human being). Furthermore, if I can deal with the loss of something arising out of my use, an act of god, and such, why should I spend the $$ to insure it against OTHER PEOPLE'S CRIMINAL ACTS? (Yes I realize we ARE in a society where this is probably a SMART thing to do - but it should not be neccessary.)
Yes, reliance on the government to solve something that you could have solved yourself. So much dependency...
Stew
Selfish? Nope. It's a realistic and responsible view. I live in MA. If I use deadly force to protect my property I WILL GO TO JAIL, quite possibly for the rest of my life. Many states have similar laws regarding the use of deadly force.
You may or may not agree with that law. If you disagree with the law, feel free to try to get it changed (but I'm not holding my breath). I have a responsibility to protect and provide for my family and I can't do that from inside a jail cell.
I'm a 45-year-old 160 lb software engineer. I'm not trained in arresting suspects. I don't wear body armor. And I can't call for backup on the radio. I'm not a police officer.
FMUStewart
New member
Yes you probably will go to jail. The almost automatic jail time that would come with the defence of one's property with lethal force is the only thing that would keep me from exercising it unless the SOB was IN my house.
My entire point for those who missed it, was that we've gotten to the point where even drawing a gun and covering someone with the muzzle is a crime in a lot of situations...brandishing a weapon. WELL OF COURSE SOMEONES GOING TO BRANDISH A WEAPON AT A CRIMINAL! LE DOES IT ALL THE TIME!
Its Crazy!
Stew
Same here.FMUStewart said:
What many are failing to realize, is that the option of shooting the criminal for committing a felony, is crime control at its basest level. And isn't that what all the criminal laws are supposed to be about? To deter crime? Do you suppose that being able to shoot criminals who steal, let's say anything valued at $500 or more, wouldn't deter crime?
As it stands now they certainly have no compunction about shooting you, and leaving no witnesses, for a $20 stop & rob heist!
This is not about lowering to their level. It's about my right to protect what I own. It's about true criminal deterrence. It's also about having the means to make deterrence a real threat to criminals.
Stew, quite aside from whether brandishing is legal or not, it is not a good idea to pull a gun that you aren't fully prepared to use. You obviously are, but most people aren't so quick to cross that bridge.
The problem comes when the dirtbag with your television goes from worrying about arrest and 3 months in county to wondering if he's going to be killed. Now he's fighting for his life and the risk to YOU has escalated.
Now, everyone I know who owns a gun is a crack shot, utterly rock steady under pressure and can shoot while diving through the air for cover.
But some gun owners aren't all that good, and they've just turned petty theft into a life or death fight for themselves. Are they going to win? If they do, was it worth it? How about if they don't?
Violence is a two way street. Uncork the genie and it may not be you left standing. Self defense is a life saving strategy. Property defense is a life risking conceit.
What starts as a missing TV may end up being a missing father. Making realistic judgements of risk vs. reward isn't living your life in fear. Discretion is the better part of valor, and there is little of either using deadly force to recover goods.
You may be on moral high ground with this (though I personally disagree), but the reality of the situation is that you risk everything for what should be your least important possessions. Your life, your liberty and the life of anyone you mistakenly kill are more valuable than anything you could ever put in a box.
The problem comes when the dirtbag with your television goes from worrying about arrest and 3 months in county to wondering if he's going to be killed. Now he's fighting for his life and the risk to YOU has escalated.
Now, everyone I know who owns a gun is a crack shot, utterly rock steady under pressure and can shoot while diving through the air for cover.
But some gun owners aren't all that good, and they've just turned petty theft into a life or death fight for themselves. Are they going to win? If they do, was it worth it? How about if they don't?Violence is a two way street. Uncork the genie and it may not be you left standing. Self defense is a life saving strategy. Property defense is a life risking conceit.
What starts as a missing TV may end up being a missing father. Making realistic judgements of risk vs. reward isn't living your life in fear. Discretion is the better part of valor, and there is little of either using deadly force to recover goods.
You may be on moral high ground with this (though I personally disagree), but the reality of the situation is that you risk everything for what should be your least important possessions. Your life, your liberty and the life of anyone you mistakenly kill are more valuable than anything you could ever put in a box.
Yes, but they do it through law, part of the justice system that involves evidence, a judge, a jury of peers and punishment fitting the crime.
What you're talking about bears no relation to the philosophy or rule of law, except possibly martial law.
You seem to be greatly confusing ends and means. There are many ways of detering crime, only some are civilized.
Scott Conklin
New member
Handy, going by your post count and other recent threads, you just like reading your own words a lot more than those of others, dontcha?
You steal my Gramp's old Caddy and I'll put you in your grave and spend however much is necessary on attorneys and buying off the local small-time prosecutor because some things have too much history attached to them to sit idly by and watch some usually stoned, dirty, mean-spirited and small-minded bastard walk/run/drive away with it. Insurance can't replace it. "Letting it go" is asking too much. I'll make that decision at the time and depending on the item in question.
If you disagree then we'll simply have to disagree. If you ant to argue the motivation I really could not possibly care less. If it '"offends" you, well, that's not even a consideration to me.
Clear as mud?
You steal my Gramp's old Caddy and I'll put you in your grave and spend however much is necessary on attorneys and buying off the local small-time prosecutor because some things have too much history attached to them to sit idly by and watch some usually stoned, dirty, mean-spirited and small-minded bastard walk/run/drive away with it. Insurance can't replace it. "Letting it go" is asking too much. I'll make that decision at the time and depending on the item in question.
If you disagree then we'll simply have to disagree. If you ant to argue the motivation I really could not possibly care less. If it '"offends" you, well, that's not even a consideration to me.
Clear as mud?
Yes, finally. You hadn't said in your previous "clear" posts whether you'd use lethal force or not.
BTW: If I really wanted to hear myself drone on, I'd spend as much energy as you do making off topic commentary on other members as a way of forestalling actual debate. Its weak; move on.
BTW: If I really wanted to hear myself drone on, I'd spend as much energy as you do making off topic commentary on other members as a way of forestalling actual debate. Its weak; move on.
Antipitas
It can't be up to the individual to decide when to use deadly force. That would be Anarchy. The laws are there to set a standard of how far you can go. Would a shop owner be justified in shooting a shoplifter? Why would the individual have the right to create his own law. Felonies and misdemeanor are classifications set up by legislature. Those that make laws. If you are willing to break the set laws and become a criminal by shooting someone where deadly force is not justified, by law, then you're going to jail. The law says the thief can't steal, the law also says you can't use deadly force in that circumstance.
Maybe you are fortunate to be able to forgive thefts of less than $500. Why wouldn't someone decide that $50 is enough. Are you suggesting that the amount be set by legislation? Make a law to abide by?
It can't be up to the individual to decide when to use deadly force. That would be Anarchy. The laws are there to set a standard of how far you can go. Would a shop owner be justified in shooting a shoplifter? Why would the individual have the right to create his own law. Felonies and misdemeanor are classifications set up by legislature. Those that make laws. If you are willing to break the set laws and become a criminal by shooting someone where deadly force is not justified, by law, then you're going to jail. The law says the thief can't steal, the law also says you can't use deadly force in that circumstance.
Maybe you are fortunate to be able to forgive thefts of less than $500. Why wouldn't someone decide that $50 is enough. Are you suggesting that the amount be set by legislation? Make a law to abide by?
OneInTheChamber
New member
kenny,
No, but you want to pursue a situation that will lead to a lethal encounter. What do you think is going to happen when you "subdue him for law enforcement"? You think he will go willingly? Chances are your weapon will be drawn. That brings a lot of consequences.
Here is some great advice:
When packing a weapon, don't act any different than you normally would. If you were unarmed, would you confront the guy? Would a normal person (Jury member!) confront them? Drawing your weapon to get your vehicle back could get you put in jail. You threatened a person with a weapon before great bodily injury/death was presented to you. It's a hunk of metal, let it go. You can't replace yourself, an innocent bystander, or several years of your life wasted in prison.
No, but you want to pursue a situation that will lead to a lethal encounter. What do you think is going to happen when you "subdue him for law enforcement"? You think he will go willingly? Chances are your weapon will be drawn. That brings a lot of consequences.
Here is some great advice:
When packing a weapon, don't act any different than you normally would. If you were unarmed, would you confront the guy? Would a normal person (Jury member!) confront them? Drawing your weapon to get your vehicle back could get you put in jail. You threatened a person with a weapon before great bodily injury/death was presented to you. It's a hunk of metal, let it go. You can't replace yourself, an innocent bystander, or several years of your life wasted in prison.
FMUStewart
New member
Right. The decision to drop the hammer if needed is one that you make before you draw your weapon.
Yes, I agree with that, however I'm not talking about using deadly force to recover stolen goods, I'm talking about using deadly force to halt the process that's causing those goods to be considered stolen to begin with.
You're right, it may not be me left standing, that's where my own assessment of the situation comes into play. And if I misjudge, then I pay the price. But here is the advantage that I have. This criminal doesn't know if I'm "crazy" enough to try and stop him up and to the point of lethal force.
With the law the way it is however, he has a pretty damned good idea that I will not try to stop him by using lethal force, for fear of losing my own freedom. That is a HUGE advantage to the perp and a major boost to his confidence that he will get away with what he wants, unharmed/alive.
And if its my TV the goon is stealing, then he's in MY house and an immediate risk to my safety.
So you're saying that you'd put the time and energy in HUNTING this person down and killim him? And then spend the resources and time getting out of the legal bind? THAT is viglante justice, and has no place in today's society.
Catch him doing it, have the oppurtinty to prevent it, and taking that oppurtunity is one thing. Once its gone, its really out of your hands and into those of the state.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...
Stew
I think it strange that you make such a huge distinction about when you attack the thief. He is in possession of your property from the moment he picks it up to the moment he sells it. What is the essential difference between attacking him in the first 10 minutes or 10 hours? The crime is "in progress" until the goods are no longer in his possession.
FMUStewart
New member
Its easy. Once he's out of your immediate control, it is in the hands of the state. The option that we lack is not letting him get that far.
Still sound strange?
Stew
kennybs plbg
New member
Here in New York the law states one may use any type of physical force ( except deadly physical force) needed to subdue the person and stop such an act. If it escalates beyond that and I am threatend in a life and death situation I may then use deadly physical force. The choice will be made by the person commiting the crime. I will not roll over, I will not turn the other cheek, I will use the rights I have to defend myself and my property. I will be able to live with myself either way.
I have stated over and over again I would never pull my weapon unless it was necessary. Heck I don't always carry a weapon even though I'm licensed too, either way my reaction would be the same up to the point of deadly physical force. People here only hear what they want to hear, then twist and shape that to fit their agenda.
I hear my same words echo'd by others, yet others hear something else.
I have stated over and over again I would never pull my weapon unless it was necessary. Heck I don't always carry a weapon even though I'm licensed too, either way my reaction would be the same up to the point of deadly physical force. People here only hear what they want to hear, then twist and shape that to fit their agenda.
I hear my same words echo'd by others, yet others hear something else.
It still raises questions:
Do you give chase? To what extreme?
Do you switch to a longer range weapon if the shot is clear?
And in consideration of the goal of detering crime, do you give aid once you've "stopped" the crime, or since the goal is permanently stop the thief, would the rational thing be to let him bleed?
Do you give chase? To what extreme?
Do you switch to a longer range weapon if the shot is clear?
And in consideration of the goal of detering crime, do you give aid once you've "stopped" the crime, or since the goal is permanently stop the thief, would the rational thing be to let him bleed?