would you risk your life for someone else's property?

[SocialAnarchist]

The answer to this topic is amazingly simple for me. If I am not risking my life for my own property, I am certainly not risking my life for someone else's.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Dufus:

I would have to say that I would.

I have been the victim of theft.

Some say material things are replaceable.

They are if you have the money to replace them.

A lot of folks work hard for their possessions and probably are on a snug budget. There are not many Rockefellers in my neighborhood and most all are either retired or working class.

Let's say you have a $50,000 SUV in the driveway that is 4 years old.

How much do you think the insurance company will give you for it?

Certainly not the replacement value.

Dufus, would you really place a higher value on the monetary loss on taken property than on the loss of your life, an arm, an eye, your hearing , or your ability to walk?

I had a cousin that was murdered to get his money.

that's not really relevant here, but this is a good tim to point out to anyone who may not understand it that robbery and theft are sistincly different things.

 

[Dufus]

Dufus, would you really place a higher value on the monetary loss on taken property than on the loss of your life, an arm, an eye, your hearing , or your ability to walk?

Oldmarksman, I take it that you have never suffered a loss of any kind by your comment.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Dufus:

Oldmarksman, I take it that you have never suffered a loss of any kind by your comment.

You take it wrong.

But I have never incurred a property loss by theft that was worth my life.

 

[Dufus]

I never said anything about the loss of your life.

I have already lost about 75% of my hearing, I have macular degeneration, so my eyes ain't that good close up, due to various back injuries, I don't walk straight, so, I say I am par for the course, and I am not kidding or pulling your leg about these maladies.

I am not going to live forever. I am a patriot, and I will fight for my values. I have never had anything given to me, and have had things taken from me.

#1. I am a thief. I will come to your house knowing that you will do nothing. I take what I want. A day or two later, I have a companion on stake out to see when no one is home. Since you did nothing the first time, I will take what I want again, knowing that you will do nothing.

#2. I am a thief. I come to your house to take things from you. You come outside with a shotgun or handgun and ask me what I am doing. I leave and I will not come back because I do not want to be shot.

I am #2. I will not hesitate, but will do so with caution. Fire fights are not pleasant, but I will be dam ned if I sit and watch some filth take what I have worked hard to get.....again.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Dufus:

I never said anything about the loss of your life

No, you said you would risk yours.

Really?

"I am a thief. I come to your house to take things from you. You come outside with a shotgun or handgun and ask me what I am doing. I leave and I will not come back because I do not want to be shot."

How would the resident ever know that what you are is a thief? That you or someone with you will not shoot?

The fellow who was fiddling with the trailer at night in Texas some years ago did not leave when the resident came out. He attacked the resident who had come out with the shotgun and shot off his arm.

 

[Limnophile]

Frank,

It's also a better idea to do some research rather than relying on one's "impressions."

No real need to do research on a simple topic when one's impressions are so keen and you are willing to play unsolicited research assistant.

By the way, Gerlach's case was interesting. He was lucky to be found not guilty. As to the judge stiffing him one a third of his legal expenses, thanks for confirming my hypothesis.

You think? On what basis? Do you have any evidence, or is it just basically a guess?

You may wish to brush up on your reading comprehension, then read my post again. I clearly expressed my opinion.

In that case it would be best to refrain from commenting. Why should we be wasting time and bandwidth discussing the subject when we can't even be sure your information is accurate?

Yeah, we should let attorneys run the country by passing and interpreting laws, and laymen should just bow down to the whim of attorneys. After all, our lawyer dominated legislative and judicial classes have done such a great job of upholding the Anglo-American Enlightenment that is imbued in our founding documents.[/sarc]

 

[orionengnr]

Never Mind...

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Limnophile:

Yeah, we should let attorneys run the country by passing and interpreting laws, and laymen should just bow down to the whim of attorneys. After all, our lawyer dominated legislative and judicial classes have done such a great job of upholding the Anglo-American Enlightenment that is imbued in our founding documents.

That learned judges interpret the laws, instruct the triers of fact, and act as gate-keepers regarding the admissibility of evidence dates back centuries before our "founding documents" were put on paper, and that long tradition was embodied in them.

 

[JohnKSa]

Then don't print PART of what I said, without including THE REST of what I said:

My response was exclusively about what Texas law said and that's why I only quoted the part of your post relating to Texas law.

The rest of what you said had zero bearing on Texas law, it related specifically to what a jury is or isn't likely to do. Juries may or may not follow the law specifically in their rulings. In fact, that's precisely why we have juries instead of just letting judges decide anything to do with the law. The juries can (within some limits) "make their own law" if they feel like the circumstances of the case warrant it.

#2. I am a thief. I come to your house to take things from you. You come outside with a shotgun or handgun and ask me what I am doing. I leave and I will not come back because I do not want to be shot.

I find a couple of things interesting.

First of all, a number of people seem to think that they can predict the future. They believe that an armed confrontation with a thief will go their way. They believe that they know what a thief will do when confronted, or when not confronted.

Second, no one seems to want to talk about ways to prevent property loss other than confronting the thief. Given the risk (physical, financial, etc.) incurred by such a confrontation, doesn't it make sense to take some relatively low cost precautions? Video surveillance is cheap and simple these days. It provides a good chance of preventing a recurrence by providing sufficient evidence to apprehend the thief without any of the risk incurred by chancing an armed confrontation. Besides, what guarantee is there that you'll be present to have the confrontation. Thieves are pretty good about not stealing with witnesses around--it's how they stay in business.

As I said in my previous post, it's funny how so many people who are absolutely rabid about protecting their property once a criminal is trying to take it are so laid back about protecting their property the rest of the time.

 

[Kosh75287]

it's funny how so many people who are absolutely rabid about protecting their property once a criminal is trying to take it are so laid back about protecting their property the rest of the time.

I am not among the "absolutely rabid" nor the "laid back". And "funny" may be the the most inappropriate adjective available. "Sad", "shameful" or "tragic", perhaps, but not "funny". Not in ANY context of the word. It is neither humorous for someone to unjustly lose their possessions, nor is it ironic. It is, in fact, an entirely too prevalent form of complacency that pervades the uninformed and the unskilled in our society.

 

[Frank Ettin]

You think? On what basis? Do you have any evidence, or is it just basically a guess?

You may wish to brush up on your reading comprehension, then read my post again. I clearly expressed my opinion....

All opinions aren't equal. An educated opinion based on data and evidence can actually mean something. An unsupported opinion pulled out of the air (i. e., a guess) isn't worth paying attention to.

In that case it would be best to refrain from commenting. Why should we be wasting time and bandwidth discussing the subject when we can't even be sure your information is accurate?

Yeah, we should let attorneys run the country by passing and interpreting laws, and laymen should just bow down to the whim of attorneys. After all, our lawyer dominated legislative and judicial classes have done such a great job of upholding the Anglo-American Enlightenment that is imbued in our founding documents.[/sarc]

• The post of mine you quoted was in response to the following:

  ...I'm not an attorney, and I haven't read those statutes in a number of years...

  In other words, the poster was commenting on a legal issue (1) without actual training in law; and (2) without even recently reading the statute he was commenting on. In other words, he was guessing. One's uneducated guesses on important and technical topics tend to be pretty worthless. Certainly people who actually know about the subject matter won't be paying attention.
  
  
• The reality is that people who are educated and experienced in the law know more about what the law is and how it works in the real world than people who aren't. It might please your vanity to believe that you know something about the law. But someone who has actually practiced law has had his knowledge and understanding of the law tested pretty much every day of his working life for real stakes for real clients in the real world, under the scrutiny of judges, regulators and other lawyers -- some of whom are our adversaries or competitors.

 

[JohnKSa]

I am not among the "absolutely rabid" nor the "laid back".

You may note that the quote I was responding to at that point was not from one of your posts.

And "funny" may be the the most inappropriate adjective available. "Sad", "shameful" or "tragic", perhaps, but not "funny". Not in ANY context of the word. It is neither humorous for someone to unjustly lose their possessions, nor is it ironic. It is, in fact, an entirely too prevalent form of complacency that pervades the uninformed and the unskilled in our society.

A poor and transparent attempt at righteous indignation.

It is, in fact, "funny" in the sense of "difficult to explain" or "peculiar" because persons who do fit the definition are exhibiting radically contradictory behaviors and attitudes about the same items.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/funny

1. a : affording light mirth and laughter : amusing
b : seeking or intended to amuse : facetious
2: differing from the ordinary in a suspicious, perplexing, quaint, or eccentric way : peculiar —often used as a sentence modifier <funny, things didn't turn out the way we planned>
3: involving trickery or deception <told his prisoner not to try anything funny>​

 

[adamBomb]

my goal is a SD scenario is to be safe. If I could leave the house, I would - even my own. The gun is there to help me if I cannot leave. Forget property. Call the cops. Safety is #1.

 

[TimSr]

What is funny is that only lawyers can have qualified legal opinions, because their interpretation of the law is final, and yet there are always at least two of them with opposing points of view in every court case.

Truth is most of these type defense shooting cases will be handled in local county courts on behalf of the state, and the "legal experts" on this forum are so far removed from the reality of the attitudes and perspectives of the judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement in Wayne County, Ohio that I have to laugh at the implication that they are more knowledgeable of how cases will be handled than the people who live here. What you might think is a "reasonable" reaction in your domain would be viewed as kooky somewhere else.

This forum is labeled "tactics and training" and this is not a legal discussion. I would suggets that the appropriate and most effective "tactics" for dealing with conservative, rural and small towns' auto, shed, and garage burglars and how those tactics are viewed in the eyes of the local legal system might be different than the way they are seen and dealt with when the players are in a liberal urban setting, and in the eyes of what the courts in each region view as "reasonable". Bottom line, where I live, if an able bodied man watched a couple of kids steal or vandalize his property through his window without doing anything, that would be seen as far more unreasonable than going out and confronting them. 99% of the time, yelling through an open door will save your property, and send them fleeing, and the impression of pursuing them will ensure they don't come back again. Getting them caught and apprehended is icing on the cake.

 

[stagpanther]

I think it's impossible to generalize and arrive at a concise answer--it depends too much on the variables of the situation. In my OPINION it mostly comes down to determining whether or not the intruders are simply intending on a robbery--or at what point that becomes a perceived threat to you personally--and that's were most of the ambiguity lies. Most burglars attempt to plan around nobody being home, but in some situations they MIGHT be fully prepared to subdue, kidnap or even kill anyone if they happen to be at home and confront them. I always assume that's a possibility when there is a deliberate trespass on my properties (which are posted). When someone breaks into a home that escalates the possibility of a bad outcome if someone is at home. Bailing out of the home might make sense in some cases--but if it is dark you are potentially abandoning cover into an unfamiliar situation outside the home.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by TimSr::

Truth is most of these type defense shooting cases will be handled in local county courts on behalf of the state, and the "legal experts" on this forum are so far removed from the reality of the attitudes and perspectives of the judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement in Wayne County, Ohio that I have to laugh at the implication that they are more knowledgeable of how cases will be handled than the people who live here. What you might think is a "reasonable" reaction in your domain would be viewed as kooky somewhere else.

No one on any forum or anywhere else can speak about cases involving incidents that have not yet occurred.

However, here are a lot of people who can speak very authoritatively about how use of force cases will be handled. And yes, the are one variations in procedure among jurisdictions.

Varying attitudes among law enforcement can have some influence on how things unfold. Varying attitudes among prosecutors, even between one prosecutor and his or her successor, can certainly make a difference in what an actor may face. Judges? Not so much--everything they do is subject to review.

I would suggets that the appropriate and most effective "tactics" for dealing with conservative, rural and small towns' auto, shed, and garage burglars ...might be different ....

Do you really think that how "liberal" or conservative" an area may be would really be a good gauge of how dangerous unknown people on the property uninvited may turn out to be?

....and how those tactics are viewed in the eyes of the local legal system might be different than the way they are seen and dealt with when the players are in a liberal urban setting, and in the eyes of what the courts in each region view as "reasonable".

A lot of things can influence how a jury will react--demographics among them.

But if it gets that far, things haven't gone well except for the defense attorneys billing their hours.

The laws, relevant appellate decisions, jury instructions reflecting those decisions, rules of evidence, and so forth are all there for the knowledgeable to evaluate.

The jurors will judge on the basis of the evidence that they are shown. Even all of the evidence that might be brought forth to be considered for admissibility will be extremely incomplete. These things do not take place on a sound stage.

If one of the persons is hurt, whether the jury is instructed to rule on self defense will depend upon the evidence.

As has been discussed, if self defense is not at issue, use of deadly force is pretty well ruled out just about everywhere.

Bottom line, where I live, if an able bodied man watched a couple of kids steal or vandalize his property through his window without doing anything, that would be seen as far more unreasonable than going out and confronting them.

If you were to be injured after going outside and confronting them, would that then be seen as "reasonable"?

You become aware of someone outside fooling around with property. You step outside--coming from just where your emergence will have been predicted and can be seen. You approach the perp for the purpose of "confronting" them.

But you are now out in the great outdoors. How many are they? Where are they? Do any of them have firearms? Those are the reasons why most good trainers do not advise going outside to confront anyone in the first place.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by stagpanther:

I think it's impossible to generalize and arrive at a concise answer--it depends too much on the variables of the situation. In my OPINION it mostly comes down to determining whether or not the intruders are simply intending on a robbery--or at what point that becomes a perceived threat to you personally--and that's were most of the ambiguity lies. Most burglars attempt to plan around nobody being home, but in some situations they MIGHT be fully prepared to subdue, kidnap or even kill anyone if they happen to be at home and confront them. I always assume that's a possibility when there is a deliberate trespass on my properties (which are posted). When someone breaks into a home that escalates the possibility of a bad outcome if someone is at home. Bailing out of the home might make sense in some cases--but if it is dark you are potentially abandoning cover into an unfamiliar situation outside the home.

Several important points there.

First, you are correct in point out that robbery is a horse of a different color. It is not a property crime. The laws of self defense apply.

Burglary is extremely serious, and if the house is occupied, the safety of the occupants becomes the issue. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction in which one would be expected to leave the home, and to do so may well be fraught with danger.

Be very careful what dealing with trespass. People have served time for confronting trespassers while armed (in "conservative" states, by the way). Laws really do vary from state to state, and by a fair amount if my impression is correct, and it would be a very good idea to speak to a knowledgeable local attorney about yours.

 

[TimSr]

If you were to be injured after going outside and confronting them, would that then be seen as "reasonable"?

Absolutely.

You become aware of someone outside fooling around with property. You step outside--coming from just where your emergence will have been predicted and can be seen. You approach the perp for the purpose of "confronting" them.

But you are now out in the great outdoors. How many are they? Where are they? Do any of them have firearms? Those are the reasons why most good trainers do not advise going outside to confront anyone in the first place.

Most good trainers don't live in my neighborhood. I understand there is an extreme longshot chance they won't flee. I am prepared for that chance.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by TimSr::

If you were to be injured after going outside and confronting them, would that then be seen as "reasonable"?

Absolutely.

Either I do not understand your answer or I do not understand your perspectives and mindset. I am very confident that no one else here does, either,

But you are now out in the great outdoors. How many are they? Where are they? Do any of them have firearms? Those are the reasons why most good trainers do not advise going outside to confront anyone in the first place.

Most good trainers don't live in my neighborhood.

What can that have to do with it? Massad Ayoob does not liven my neighborhood, either, and neither do Michael Janich, Rob Pincus, or Mike Seeklander, but I do put a lot of stock in their advice.

I understand there is an extreme longshot chance they won't flee.

Yes, the likelihood is probably less than remote that they will not flee. The probability that a lookout will not attack you may be low, but if you are carrying a shotgun he may not hesitate.

The severity of the potential consequences is very high.

I am prepared for that chance.

So, just how do you prepare for an ambush?