SocialAnarchist
Moderator
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.
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 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.
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.I had a cousin that was murdered to get his money.
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?
You take it wrong.Oldmarksman, I take it that you have never suffered a loss of any kind by your comment.
No, you said you would risk yours.I never said anything about the loss of your life
It's also a better idea to do some research rather than relying on one's "impressions."
You think? On what basis? Do you have any evidence, or is it just basically a guess?
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?
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.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.
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.Then don't print PART of what I said, without including THE REST of what I said:
I find a couple of things interesting.#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.
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.
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.Limnophile said: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....
Limnophile said: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]
...I'm not an attorney, and I haven't read those statutes in a number of years...
You may note that the quote I was responding to at that point was not from one of your posts.I am not among the "absolutely rabid" nor the "laid back".
A poor and transparent attempt at righteous indignation.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.
No one on any forum or anywhere else can speak about cases involving incidents that have not yet occurred.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.
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?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 ....
A lot of things can influence how a jury will react--demographics among them.....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".
If you were to be injured after going outside and confronting them, would that then be seen 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.
Several important points there.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.
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.
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,Absolutely.If you were to be injured after going outside and confronting them, would that then be seen as "reasonable"?
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.Most good trainers don't live in my neighborhood.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.
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.I understand there is an extreme longshot chance they won't flee.
So, just how do you prepare for an ambush?I am prepared for that chance.