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

[JohnKSa]

Taken to the extreme--you can be advocating gun control.

Putting forth the idea that people who own guns for self-defense need to understand the law to avoid running afoul of it and that they need to be aware of the possible/likely repercussions of using deadly force isn't the same thing as saying that their access to guns or their ability to carry/use them should be restricted by law.

There's a huge difference between pointing out existing legal pitfalls of firearms usage and endorsing current legislation or advocating new legislation that restricts the ownership/possession/use/carry of firearms.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Taken to the extreme--you can be advocating gun control.

I am, as always, advocating education, training, knowledge and self control. Training is important because in a critical incident your focus should be on assessing the situation and deciding what to do. You have only an instant in which to do that, so you can't also be wasting any time figuring out how to make your gun work if you need to use it. Education and knowledge are the foundations for your assessment and decision making.

If you decide you must threaten or use force, you need to do so decisively and skillfully. But if you have made the wrong decision, your long term outcome will be very unsatisfactory.

 

[Blackbook]

My question is to what degree you would defend property in a house sitting situation, and what changes in strategy you may adopt?

I would go as far as making sure nothing was left on, the doors were locked, the fish are fed, etc.

I'm not a cop, I'm not going to act like one. If there's a burglary my plan is to escape, then observe & report and be a good witness.

 

[OldMarksman]

Going back to "I understand there is an extreme longshot chance they won't flee. I am prepared for that chance, I posted this on another site some years ago:

Several years ago, an airline mechanic in Texas went outside with a shotgun at night to confront someone who was doing something to his trailer.

He was ambushed, stabbed, disarmed, and shot with his own gun. He lost an arm.

It was not a Good Idea.

The television station link is no longer live, but here is an excerpt from the report:

Doctors had to amputate the arm of a Watauga, Texas homeowner Wednesday morning after he was injured in a fight with a crook. The man interrupted a robbery attempt in front of his house and ended up getting stabbed and then shot with his own gun, reports CBS station KTVT-TV in Dallas.
...

According to reports, the homeowner heard some noise near his portable trailer parked outside his house in the 6000 block of Sundown Drive and went outside. His wife called 911 and woke a friend who had stayed the night at the house.

The robber, who was armed with a knife, struggled with the homeowner and his guest in the driveway. During the scuffle the homeowner dropped his gun and as the men clamored for the weapon, it went off and hit the homeowner in the arm. The house guest was also stabbed during the altercation.

Officials later said doctors amputated the man's arm because his injuries were so severe. The injury is a detrimental loss for the victim, who works as a mechanic for American Airlines and was also a part-time contractor.

As someone else put it, the man took a gun to a knife fight and lost.

In that jurisdiction, the law allows for the use of deadly force to protect tangible, moveable property under certain conditions of immediate necessity. I would guess based the reports that this was one of them.

The resident was undone by the tactical outcome.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

In San Antonio, a young man went out to confront two guys messing with his car. He took his hunting bow. They shot Green Arrow - oops.

Anyway, I shall give my two cents and it might offend some - so be it.

People work on two bases - one is emotional and instinctive and the other is rational, slow and deliberative.

What I'm hearing from some is system one. The idea that one's territory is violated. It is challenge to your self-image, defender of land, etc. You lose face in the dominance hierarchy if someone violates your marked domain (no, you don't have to pee around it - but you get the idea).

This violation overwhelms a rational calculation of the risks and costs of getting into a fight over property.

The view that if you don't stop him or her - they will go on to do more crime is called reciprocal altruism - you see yourself as defending society in general - you are a protector.

Maybe you see yourself getting praise and you will move up the dominance hierachy.

OK - it is your choice to go that way but understand what drives you.