Using Deadly Force

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a right to my property, which I guess is natural rights philosophy. I consider my vehicle my property. I will defend my property by any means necessary. Even when the BG is driving my vehicle, it is still my property. Once he is gone, there is no guarantee that I will regain possession of my vehicle and its contents. If I can stop the guy from fleeing the scene (by shooting him), I will most likely do it, being careful about what is behind my target, so as not to cause harm to a bystander. I would certainly hope that I would not have to resort to this horrible, traumatizing scenario, but I must, however, protect my rights, otherwise, what do I have?
 
BuckHammer said:
...but I must, however, protect my rights, otherwise, what do I have?
Click to expand...
In the situation as you describe it, you have either aggravated assault or manslaughter (depending on whether the person you shoot survives), a prison sentence and the loss of your guns.
 
From BuckHammer:
I will defend my property by any means necessary. Even when the BG is driving my vehicle, it is still my property. Once he is gone, there is no guarantee that I will regain possession of my vehicle and its contents. If I can stop the guy from fleeing the scene (by shooting him), I will most likely do it, being careful about what is behind my target, so as not to cause harm to a bystander.
Click to expand...

BuckHammer, I don't know where you got the erroneous idea that it is legally permissible to use deadly force in the defense of property, but I suggest that you follow the same advice I gave to finity, and study the same information.

That is, if you are serious.

Should you choose that course to "protect" your rights, you will end up giving them (rights to have firearms, rights to personal freedom, in addition to the right to use your car) up.
 
First of all, I never said that what I would do would be legal. Also, I'm not talking about a 100 yard shot at him, I'm talking about when he just starts driving away, like still four or five feet away. I just don't think I would have it in me to watch a guy drive off in my truck while I have the means to stop him. No, I'm not saying it's legal, and I'm not advocating that action, I'm just saying what I would probably do in that situation, and why I would do that. Although I might shoot out a tire or something else, but really there's no telling because every carjacking is different, and I've never been carjacked. Also, there is no guarantee that you will regain possession of your vehicle at any point. And no, I do not like the idea of killing someone just to kill someone. If this would happen to me, I would probably not comply with his orders, even at gunpoint, at which point I would draw my weapon because I would rather die defending my property than live and watch the guy take it.
 
I would just be protecting my rights and my freedom. Aren't we glad that the Founders weren't afraid to go to prison by doing the same thing?
 
once again that goes back to the "would you stand there and watch as someone finished raping yr wife" scenario im sure that if i had the means to put an end to an armed carjacking i would use deadly force
 
I just ran off the 'new' Arizona revised statutes on using force. Arizona specifically recognized a 'vehicle' as home and the Castle Doctrine applies. In speaking to the Cochise County Attorney. (his daughter was on my Mock Trial team, she played a defense attorney) there have been too many innocent people killed because they didn't resist and the Perp drove them away and usually raped the women and killed all in the car anyway. I have a nephew I think I told Fiddletown about who is spending 12 years in the slammer for 52 carjackings. He got violent at least half the times, pulling an elderly woman out of the drivers side window once. This was in front of witnesses who did absolutely nothing.
 
BuckHammer said:
I would just be protecting my rights and my freedom. Aren't we glad that the Founders weren't afraid to go to prison by doing the same thing?
Click to expand...
You're not protecting your freedom, because you would be losing your freedom. You would also be abdicating your responsibilities to your family, friends and co-workers -- all those who care for you and who may depend on you for either actual or emotional support. You would be throwing away your freedom and your future over a mere thing, that should be insured and could be replaced.

That's not by any stretch of the imagination what the Founders did and what they risked their futures for. To compare using violence against a mere thief of property to the risks and sacrifices made by the Founders is an insult to their memories.
 
they risked their lives for wat they believed was their property rite? or were they fighting for something else that no one has ever heard of?
 
Fiddletown, I simply do not agree. I believe that the Founders risked their lives to form a Union in which you're property and rights cannot be taken for no reason. If some thug decides to try to deprive me of my rights, I will, in response, exercise my second amendment right to protect my other rights. I don't see any difference between some thug and a redcoat. But I guess the "Shot Heard 'Round the World" was just an unsolicited shooting upon poor, defenseless redcoats. I hope that guy got jailed for manslaughter.
 
Threefeathers, the difference is whether you are in physical danger or only losing property. If you can articulate why a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances and knowing what you know would conclude that the use of lethal force is necessary to prevent immediate and otherwise unavoidable death or grave bodily injury to the innocent, the use of lethal force would of course be appropriate. But in several of the examples outline, the threat has either passed or is otherwise not present. In that event, the use of lethal force would not be appropriate.
 
BuckHammer said:
...If some thug decides to try to deprive me of my rights, I will, in response, exercise my second amendment right to protect my other rights. I don't see any difference between some thug and a redcoat....
Click to expand...
If you truly can't see the difference, I pity you.
 
The revolutionaries were fighting to protect themselves from an unfair legal system in which they had no rights against the British regime and any property could be seized on a whim and troops could be quartered in homes whenever it was deemed necessary. All of this was legal. To oppose this was illegal. When the law didn't protect Americans from these actions, they got together and did something about it. When the law doesn't protect me from my property getting seized by some punk, then I'll do something about it. My action my have questionable legality (even though I would shoot him in the face without exiting my vehicle, which if he had a weapon pointed at me, would be legal), and so did the revolutionaries' actions. Overall, it is what they did scaled down to an individual level.
 
BuckHammer said:
The revolutionaries were fighting to protect themselves from an unfair legal system in which they had no rights against the British regime and any property could be seized on a whim and troops could be quartered in homes whenever it was deemed necessary. All of this was legal. To oppose this was illegal. When the law didn't protect Americans from these actions, they got together and did something about it. When the law doesn't protect me from my property getting seized by some punk, then I'll do something about it. My action my have questionable legality (even though I would shoot him in the face without exiting my vehicle, which if he had a weapon pointed at me, would be legal), and so did the revolutionaries' actions....
Click to expand...
Shooting a thief making off with your truck is the same as founding a new nation with a government based on new principles! Really, I don't think that I've ever heard such nonsense in my life. Illegally shooting a car thief doesn't make you a revolutionary or a patriot. It merely makes you a common criminal.
 
Alright, so we disagree. I have made my argument, and like I said quite a few posts ago, I'm not advocating that action, I'm just saying what I would do. And before you call me a "common criminal", don't forget that it's my truck, registered in my name, regardless of who's just stolen it.
 
calling someone a common criminal because they choose to defend their property instead of watching it be taken from them is really sad and shows that most Americans really dnt believe in the right to property any more
 
onthejon55 said:
...calling someone a common criminal because they choose to defend their property instead of watching it be taken from them...
Click to expand...
Well under the law, shooting a thief running off with your property, when you are not personally in mortal danger, is not justified, and it is, in fact, a crime. It will be aggravated assault (or something similar, depending on the terminology in the particular jurisdiction), if the thief survives. It will be manslaughter if he doesn't. Committing such a crime makes one a common criminal in my book.

onthejon55 said:
...most Americans really dnt believe in the right to property any more...
Click to expand...
And that's an absurd statement. We believe in and respect private property. But I suspect that most of us have better sense than to throw away our freedom and future, and abdicate our responsibilities to those who depend on us, for the sake of some mere thing that is replaceable.
 
people like you are the reason the "right to property" is treated more like a privilege every day. rather that stand up for whats yours you wud rather see it stolen than attempt to defend it. so what happens when someone makes off with your dog? your niece? your child? your wife? are you telling me that its okay to let the BG get away because there is a chance you may face charges for defending wat is yours?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top