Stopping theft with deadly force

[jtmaze]

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

^^^^This

[personDJ]

No it isn't. You're implying that using deadly force is punitive, and done after passing judgement. It isn't. It's about protecting what is yours. If you weren't able to protect your home using violence (as you point out that theft is non-violent) then you should open your doors to me and standby while I take your valuables while you wait on the police. If you are willing to stand there and allow that to happen without intervening you aren't some kind of moral example, you would just be a fool or a coward. I choose to be neither. What is mine belongs to me and my family. I don't care if it's my truck, or my kid's toy truck. It doesn't matter. I won't allow it to happen so long as I have the ability to stop it.

What he said.

[Jesse]

would you guys trust a jury to find you doing the right thing after shooting and killing a person for stealing your lawmower out of your yard?

I wouldnt want to take that chance. I rather call the police and buy a new lawmower if i had to. I just dont think it's worth the legal trouble unless you and your family is in danger of harm.

[glowdotGlock]

would you guys trust a jury to find you doing the right thing after shooting and killing a person for stealing your lawmower out of your yard?

I wouldnt want to take that chance. I rather call the police and buy a new lawmower if i had to. I just dont think it's worth the legal trouble unless you and your family is in danger of harm.

Exactly.

[TMF]

would you guys trust a jury to find you doing the right thing after shooting and killing a person for stealing your lawmower out of your yard?

I wouldnt want to take that chance. I rather call the police and buy a new lawmower if i had to. I just dont think it's worth the legal trouble unless you and your family is in danger of harm.

Nobody is shooting anybody. The question posed was a "what if".

[Caster]

Nobody is shooting anybody. The question posed was a "what if".

THANK YOU!!!!!

[Guest 270win]

But has it ever been legal in the past fifty to sixty years in Tennessee to use deadly force against say NONVIOLENT fleeing felons?

[Chucktshoes]

But has it ever been legal in the past fifty to sixty years in Tennessee to use deadly force against say NONVIOLENT fleeing felons?

There is a cat that used to frequent these parts that had a sig line that I think is pertinent to this conversation.

"What's right ain't always legal and what's legal ain't always right."

[TMF]

But has it ever been legal in the past fifty to sixty years in Tennessee to use deadly force against say NONVIOLENT fleeing felons?

No. I'm not seeing how that is relevant to the OP.

[Guest 270win]

I think it is something to look into because at one time fleeing nonviolent felons in some states could be stopped with deadly force based on the fact that they were running with property over a certain dollar amount. Such as you could not shoot someone running with a candy bar (misdemeanor theft), but you could shoot someone running with a TV because that was felony theft.

Of course Texas has a law (and probably other western states) that you can use deadly force to stop nightime theft IF there is no other way to recover your property. I don't think Texas places a dollar amount on the property, such as felony or misdemeanor theft at night.

Edited September 17, 2012 by 270win

[RobertNashville]

There simply is no property worth killing someone over - the only possible exception I could see to that would be if taking that "property" truly puts your life in grave/imminent danger (and I would suggest such occasions would be extremely rare at most).

Yes, thieves are dirtbags and I'd like to see them punished a lot more than they usually are these days but to take a life just because someone is steeling something as inconsequential as money or a flatscreen or a vehicle is ridiculous.

[Makiaveli]

razorback2003, on 16 September 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

But has it ever been legal in the past fifty to sixty years in Tennessee to use deadly force against say NONVIOLENT fleeing felons?

No. I'm not seeing how that is relevant to the OP.

Really? Considering theft isn't, in and of itself, a violent act, how is it not relevant?

[JAB]

There simply is no property worth killing someone over

I disagree. The table that I inherited from my grandmother - her kitchen table around which I enjoyed so many dinners and of which I have so many fond memories - isn't worth a whole lot of money, I am sure. However, it is worth a damn sight more, to me, than the life of some jackass who would break into my home and steal it.

Again, my microwave, my stereo or even some cash probably would not be 'worth' taking a life (although the fact that, as someone else said, they crossed my threshold to do so would) but there is some property that is worth more, to me, than some random thief's life. Some kid lifting a candy bar or some guy grabbing a few bucks from a cash register (without threatening violence) is a lot different, to me, than stealing property of significant monetary or sentimental value from a person's residence (with the sentimental value being of even greater importance, to me.)

As I said, I will comply with the law and would only use deadly force when legal, i.e. when I honestly believe there is a threat of death or serious, bodily injury to myself or someone I care about. However, I would fully support a change in the law to allow deadly force to be used in the protection of property.

Edited September 17, 2012 by JAB

[JAB]

Your just not killing the person stealing you are also ruining their loved ones lives.

Perhaps the thief should consider their 'loved ones' before he starts doing things that are likely to get him killed in a fairly ignoble manner. His 'loved ones' are no responsibility of mine.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

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.

I do recall a teenager on Ussery Road in Clarksville, while playing "pranks" on another's property, got shot in the knee.

The DA decided not to prosecute. I think a grand jury told him no bill.

[daddyo]

Perhaps the thief should consider their 'loved ones' before he starts doing things that are likely to get him killed in a fairly ignoble manner. His 'loved ones' are no responsibility of mine.

Exactly this. Trying to evoke sympathy for the creep's family is simply a veiled attempt at shifting the blame away from the one who is responsible, the creep who decides to take something from someone else without their consent.

[RobertNashville]

I disagree. The table that I inherited from my grandmother - her kitchen table around which I enjoyed so many dinners and of which I have so many fond memories - isn't worth a whole lot of money, I am sure. However, it is worth a damn sight more, to me, than the life of some jackass who would break into my home and steal it.

Again, my microwave, my stereo or even some cash probably would not be 'worth' taking a life (although the fact that, as someone else said, they crossed my threshold to do so would) but there is some property that is worth more, to me, than some random thief's life. Some kid lifting a candy bar or some guy grabbing a few bucks from a cash register (without threatening violence) is a lot different, to me, than stealing property of significant monetary or sentimental value from a person's residence (with the sentimental value being of even greater importance, to me.)

As I said, I will comply with the law and would only use deadly force when legal, i.e. when I honestly believe there is a threat of death or serious, bodily injury to myself or someone I care about. However, I would fully support a change in the law to allow deadly force to be used in the protection of property.

I can understand why you feel that way but I don't consider a piece of wood or steel (a kitchen table) worth taking a man's life for...things are just that; things. I have many things in my house that are part of my memories from childhood; my Dad's ruby ring...the rocking chair I had as a little boy, etc...as much as I would hate to lose them, I'm not going to kill anyone over them.

If a person isn't imminently threatening my life or the life of some other innocent then he as as much right to live as I do...maybe he needs to do some of his living in jail but that doesn't mean I have any right to take his life from him.

[TMF]

razorback2003, on 16 September 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

But has it ever been legal in the past fifty to sixty years in Tennessee to use deadly force against say NONVIOLENT fleeing felons?

Really? Considering theft isn't, in and of itself, a violent act, how is it not relevant?

I'd type out an explanation, but I'd rather you just read my previous post and the post of the OP before misinterpreting what I say.

[Makiaveli]

I'd type out an explanation, but I'd rather you just read my previous post and the post of the OP before misinterpreting what I say.

Ok just did and still don't get it. The OP is about shooting people over theft if it was legal. He asked if it was ever legal. Now as to misinterpreting what you say, I am getting the vibe that you think I am misrepresenting what you said, and trying to paint you in a less that stellar light. That wasn't and isn't my intention. I really don't get what you were getting at. I am assuming that you had a legitimate point. If I thought you were a blathering idiot, then I would either have ignored you or told you why I thought you were wrong.

So I asked. If it came off as some form of attack, my bad and sorry about that.

[TMF]

Ok just did and still don't get it. The OP is about shooting people over theft if it was legal. He asked if it was ever legal. Now as to misinterpreting what you say, I am getting the vibe that you think I am misrepresenting what you said, and trying to paint you in a less that stellar light. That wasn't and isn't my intention. I really don't get what you were getting at. I am assuming that you had a legitimate point. If I thought you were a blathering idiot, then I would either have ignored you or told you why I thought you were wrong.

So I asked. If it came off as some form of attack, my bad and sorry about that.

No, this is the original post:

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?

It is a question and a poll of "would you" if the law allowed.

For some reason folks seem to want to challenge the honest answers of folks with crap that has nothing to do with the OP, such as "well it ain't legal, and hasn't been for a long time" or "well let's see you go shoot folks for stealing your TV if you're so bad ass". The point is, that was not the OP and has nothing to do with the subject.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So, when I or my wife is taking out the garbage, in the middle of the night and witnesses a criminal breaking into

one of our cars, on our property, doesn't have the right to protect our property, whichever type it is, and being

in fear for our lives and shoots the criminal? That's happened to us on several occasions. The only reason

someone didn't get shot was because we weren't armed.

I would say it won't happen again, but if I'm armed, it won't happen the way it did the previous times.

Edited September 18, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[DaveTN]

Prior to the mid 80’s we could shoot fleeing burglars in Illinois under the Fleeing Forcible Felon Statute. And we should be able to today; but we can’t.

I remember when it changed for us, the Governor of either Alabama or Georgia said “You do what you want, but we are going to shoot burglars in … (whatever state it was)â€. Of course that’s now changed for them also, but it was a good idea.

But then I feel very strongly that at the point it can be proven in a court of law that you made a conscience decision to commit a felony; your rights end. You have no recourse for any actions after that from the Victims or the Police.

Of course I would never shoot someone today over property because I understand fully that our legislators put the life of a dirt bag criminal over the rights of innocent victims to protect their property.

I have the right to draw down on someone on my property stealing stuff. I have the right to use deadly force if the situation escalates to the point where a jury would believe I was in danger of death or great bodily harm. I do not have the right to shoot them if they run away. If I draw down on a meter reader, mailman or delivery person there is a very good chance I will be charged with aggravated assault.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, I understand your argument, DaveTN, Have to think about it. Aah, that old mitigating circumstances. While I agree

with your argument, that criminal has no right or reason to be on my property, other than to perform criminal activity. I

would reserve the right in any situation , on my property, to determine whether or not I am in fear for my life. I'm going to

be selfish like that, and do what needs to be done. I won't walk away from a criminal if I need to protect my family or property

assuming I am properly capable.

Thanks, it made me think.

[QuietDan]

If a burglar is breaking into your property, he is demonstrating a disregard for the law.

If you were to confront him in the act, it would be a reasonable fear that he would have a disregard for your life as well.

If he takes one step towards you, it would be reasonable to fear for your life or fear great bodily harm.

If you fear for your life or fear great bodily harm, you can use deadly force against him.

Edited September 18, 2012 by QuietDan

[Makiaveli]

No, this is the original post:

It is a question and a poll of "would you" if the law allowed.

For some reason folks seem to want to challenge the honest answers of folks with crap that has nothing to do with the OP, such as "well it ain't legal, and hasn't been for a long time" or "well let's see you go shoot folks for stealing your TV if you're so bad ass". The point is, that was not the OP and has nothing to do with the subject.

I think I see where you are coming from. To be fair, some of the Shoot on Sight people are being a bit overboard. I am especially bemused by the Christians who advocate killing over such minor theft. I would've expected some level of compassion and an attempt to help the person.