Stopping theft with deadly force

[daddyo]

We all know that deadly force is not justified to protect personal property according to the law.

So, here's the question: If the law allowed you to protect either your property or that of someone else with deadly force, would you?

Edited September 13, 2012 by DaddyO

[TMF]

Yes, absolutely.

[Spots]

Yes, I would. I have worked my ass for everything I have ever had, and noone has any right to take it away from me. They used to hang horse thiefs, and you can be sure someone would think twice if they knew getting caught stealing might mean death.

[piercedan]

Theft of property is bad. I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that. But to take the life of another person is a monumental decision. In my opinion, simple theft is not a justification for killing. Stuff is replaceable and ultimately irrelevant. The only thing that matters is life, because in the end, that is all you truly have. If you take someone's life, you take away their ability to be reformed, to change their ways, seek forgiveness, and become useful and productive members of society. Stealing is selfish, lazy, and cowardice. Killing someone over a truck is stupid. That's what police, courts, and insurance are for.

Edited September 13, 2012 by piercedan

[TMF]

If you take someone's life, you take away their ability to be reformed, to change their ways, seek forgiveness, and become useful and productive members of society.

Ya, none of that is my responsibility or my problem. This isn't about judging someone it is about protecting what is yours. Property may be meaningless in comparison to life, but MY property and money is what I use to support and protect my family, therefore, that property is elevated to a higher status than the person trying to steal it at the time it is being stolen.

[Jonnin]

I put down yes, but I will qualify that as leaning toward circumstances. I doubt I would shoot a 10 year old kid stealing some other kids bike, for example, without some seriously good reason. They call it petty theft for a reason.... not going to waste a bum for snagging a sammitch and running out of the walmart deli either.

I will qualify again. I consider deadly force drawing a firearm and forcing the person to surrender and submit or die. At that point the person can choose to enter the state reform institution or die.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Jonnin

[gjohnsoniv]

I think it would stop a lot of theft no doubt if people were being shot on the spot, but how far reaching would it go? Would petty theft of something like a candy bar be within the scope of being shot, or are we strictly speaking personal property and neighbors?

Edited September 13, 2012 by gjohnsoniv

[gun sane]

I voted yes, absolutely, but only because we can't leave a bunch of loopholes in the law. "Depends upon the circumstances" is difficult for a jury to validate. You might use deadly force if a BG was stealing a car, but how about a hubcap....a woman's purse or a six-pack from your cooler? Should it be based upon the dollar amount, sentimental value or hard-to-get items on Ebay? I believe the thief should be stopped by drawing a weapon, but whether I fire would depend upon what he does afterwards.

[piercedan]

Ya, none of that is my responsibility or my problem. This isn't about judging someone it is about protecting what is yours. Property may be meaningless in comparison to life, but MY property and money is what I use to support and protect my family, therefore, that property is elevated to a higher status than the person trying to steal it at the time it is being stolen.

I definitely understand your reasoning. The thought of busting my a-- to earn my way and provide for my family only to have some lowlife take it away enrages me. If we were in a different situation, as in food being scarce and jeopardizing my families survival, I would have a different opinion. Being that I can just go buy more stuff, I don't think I would end someones life over a material object. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to say "here you go". I'll beat an a-- if I have to, but then the cops will take him away.

Besides the fact that theft is NOT an authorized use of force scenario.

[piercedan]

Opportunity

Capability

Intent

Three preconditions for the use of deadly force. You military guys will recognize this.

[Jonnin]

I definitely understand your reasoning. The thought of busting my a-- to earn my way and provide for my family only to have some lowlife take it away enrages me. If we were in a different situation, as in food being scarce and jeopardizing my families survival, I would have a different opinion. Being that I can just go buy more stuff, I don't think I would end someones life over a material object. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to say "here you go". I'll beat an a-- if I have to, but then the cops will take him away.

Besides the fact that theft is NOT an authorized use of force scenario.

Beating him IS deadly force. You never know, people just up and die from seemingly minor injury, due to whatever cause. Heck a few kids die every year from minor sports injury, for example.

[piercedan]

Beating him IS deadly force. You never know, people just up and die from seemingly minor injury, due to whatever cause. Heck a few kids die every year from minor sports injury, for example.

Yea, got carried away. I meant to say I would restrain them. :0)

[TMF]

Eh, if a jury wants to throw a law abiding citizen like myself into the slammer for beating the piss out of some thieving punk, so be it. I'm a man and I won't have my things taken from me with the expectation that it is someone else's responsibility to recover them.

[maroonandwhite]

Theft of property is bad. I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that. But to take the life of another person is a monumental decision. In my opinion, simple theft is not a justification for killing. Stuff is replaceable and ultimately irrelevant. The only thing that matters is life, because in the end, that is all you truly have. If you take someone's life, you take away their ability to be reformed, to change their ways, seek forgiveness, and become useful and productive members of society. Stealing is selfish, lazy, and cowardice. Killing someone over a truck is stupid. That's what police, courts, and insurance are for.

This pretty well sums up my opinion. I just have to think that the thief's life might be more important to someone else than my things (a mother, father or spouse). But as with most everything else regarding deadly force it's all about the circumstances.

[Oh Shoot]

Few things in real life are completely black or white.

The punk grabbing my pink flamingo from front yard probably shouldn't be shot as many times as the punk who takes my pink car.

- OS

[gjohnsoniv]

Few things in real life are completely black or white.

The punk grabbing my pink flamingo from front yard probably shouldn't be shot as many times as the punk who takes my pink car.

- OS

Personal experience?

[Guest MilitiaMan]

The question was "If the law allowed". I voted Yes, absolutely. Like others said or alluded to, common sense should come into play. I wouldn't shoot a kid for stealing my kids toy. I would shoot somone trying to steal my car or any other item of mine that I chose to protect. If the law allowed.

[Caster]

Yes. I can all but guarantee you that crime WILL go down as a result of such a law passing. Even dumb crooks will reason that if theft equals death it might be a good idea to seek another option.

There are no extenuating circumstances with theft. It's not like speeding where someone doesn't pay attention. You don't accidentally take Ohshoot's pink flamingo from his front yard. It's done with intent. 100% of the time. Start breaking some heads and people will stop it. It'll never stop it all, but I GUARANTEE you that cases of child molestation will go down if you start killing everyone of them that get a conviction.

There's too dang many people in this world and 90% of all the world's current problems are directly linked to over population. I don't care what kind of person ya'll think I am or how this makes me sound, it's the truth. One way to combat over population is to STOP tolerating this. If there was a law that says I can't cast bullets anymore, I wouldn't care. I'd still do it. If they started putting people down for it, I'm pretty certain I'd stop. That's extreme but it's to the point. THere's NEVER a time when stealing is acceptable. NEVER. I don't care if your kids are starving, it's not okay to steal from your neighbor because I bet you that if you tell people your kids are starving, someone like me will feed them.

[piercedan]

The question was "If the law allowed". I voted Yes, absolutely. Like others said or alluded to, common sense should come into play. I wouldn't shoot a kid for stealing my kids toy. I would shoot somone trying to steal my car or any other item of mine that I chose to protect. If the law allowed.

Yea, but you are accusing people of having common sense. :0) I think taking the time to make a value judgment before killing someone is flawed. What would the dollar value be? To some people the cutoff would be a $100 toy they bought their kid, others it would be a vehicle. What about ten bucks? Would it be okay to shoot someone because they stole $10?

Edited September 13, 2012 by piercedan

[gjohnsoniv]

I think if there were set limits that this would make for a better discussion. As an example, I work next door to a Family Dollar. Lots of sketchy people go in there since we're in South Knoxville. Lots of stuff also goes walking out of there with people of all ages. By the logic of use of deadly force for theft, would it be right to shoot the 8 year old that just walked out with a .75 Hershey's bar? Now some punk stealing my car out of my yard is an entirely different story.

[piercedan]

I think if there were set limits that this would make for a better discussion. As an example, I work next door to a Family Dollar. Lots of sketchy people go in there since we're in South Knoxville. Lots of stuff also goes walking out of there with people of all ages. By the logic of use of deadly force for theft, would it be right to shoot the 8 year old that just walked out with a .75 Hershey's bar? Now some punk stealing my car out of my yard is an entirely different story.

To carry that further, what if the limit was $500? You see someone stealing something that you estimate to be worth $$600, but come to find out it was selling now for $450. Are you justified because you thought the value was greater? Good people do bad things sometimes. Sometimes a person can reason something out and make a bad decision. Their logic can lead them astray. For example, their family could be hungry and to get some money, the guy could go up to walmart and steal a load of battery cores in order to sell and make some cash to feed his family. Yes, the guy probably has made some bad life decisions to get him there, but honestly, would killing him be okay? Over batteries? Life is the most precious thing we as humans have. I think that there should be a greater consideration to taking that life away from someone other than seeing them steal something.

[mikegideon]

Depends. I'm with Ohshoot. I'm not gonna pop some young kid for stealing firewood. Something of real value... absolutely.

[Guest MilitiaMan]

Yea, but you are accusing people of having common sense. :0) I think taking the time to make a value judgment before killing someone is flawed. What would the dollar value be? To some people the cutoff would be a $100 toy they bought their kid, others it would be a vehicle. What about ten bucks? Would it be okay to shoot someone because they stole $10?

If the law permitted, sure. Theft is theft. I have no tolerance for thieves. Lucky for them the law isn't the way I'd like it.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I would willing to kill if they were stealing something that my family or I needed to survive or prevent extreme harships. That is my litmus test for it. I don't care if it cost me nothing or every penny I have if the missing item is likely to cause someone to die or extreme hardship then it should be justified. I think it should not be a dollar amount but whether it was something needed to survive.

The tools to make a living to feed my family are something that would justify killing. Why should my family eat beans and rice or have to live in a shelter or on the streets because someone stole those tools. Yes if the thieves are caught they will be ordred to pay restitutution but that could take years and all the while my family suffers hardships. For those of you who think insurance will cover the loss of tools, better check again. Most policies require seperate policies on high value items bot for auto as well as homeowners insurance.

If they were stealing firewood it would depend. If we were in the middle of winter and they were taking all I had when I had no other means to stay warm then I would shoot them. Now if it were in the middle of the summer and they were taking a few piece then I wouldn't.

As I said I do not belive a dollar amount should be applied but the amount of hardship the loss of the item will cause.

Dolomite

[Guest 270win]

At one time I know for a fact it was legal in Arkansas to use deadly force to stop FELONY theft when that criminal was running.

If it was legal again for car and jewelry theft and the crook was running, you'd have to ask yourself if you would want to live with killing someone stealing your car.