Stopping theft with deadly force

[Garufa]

I hate thieves. Maybe we should be allowed to just shoot'em in the ass or something, based on value of goods being stolen.

Lawnmower in the front yard, garden gnomes and other random yard art...shot in the ass.

Car, purse, wallet or anything from inside a garage or similar....well I'll let ya'll figure that out.

[mikegideon]

Well... deadly force is a legal term. Would I use a gun to keep somebody from stealing my truck, and get them to stick around for the cops? Absolutely. Would I put 5 in the chest? Probably not, if I wasn't forced to.

[mikegideon]

I hate thieves. Maybe we should be allowed to just shoot'em in the ass or something, based on value of goods being stolen.

Lawnmower in the front yard, garden gnomes and other random yard art...shot in the ass.

Car, purse, wallet or anything from inside a garage or similar....well I'll let ya'll figure that out.

Shooting somebody in the ass with bird shot is old school. I would vote for that.

[piercedan]

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

Now you are getting to the meat of the argument. If my family's survival depended on it, yes. If it was just going to be an inconvenience, but nobody would be at risk, probably not. Odds are, if I was to be witnessing the theft, I would be able to stop it without killing them. If it is a survival situation, then the rules of the game have changed. WROL? Yes, they are going to drop. I'd have me some regulating to do.

[Chucktshoes]

I have stated many times that I view defense of property as a valid reason for the use of deadly force. When you steal from me you don't just steal a physical item, you have stolen the time of my life I spent earning the money pay for that item. If it takes a bullet to protect my property, so be it.

[bronco302]

I know the law and understand the question, but I was raised old fashion. If they are stealing your property on your property then they are attacking your safe place (home). If they get away with it the next time they may be standing over your bed when you wake up.

The adage that your stuff is not worth their life is true, nothing I have is worth a thief's life. On the other hand the fact that they are stealing it is worth their life. Given the law allowed it that is. As for kids stealing the kids toys, it should be legal to leave your boot print on the little thief's butt.

Joe W.

[Makiaveli]

I think the law should more broadly reflect the reality that if you encounter a thief, there is a reasonable chance he will attempt violence against you to prevent his arrest and imprisonment. Therefore, a thief would be presumed to present a threat to your person and thus justify self-defense.

[Wyldk2]

I think you should have the right to defend your property Period. You worked hard for your stuff, if someone else comes along and tries to take your stuff, you should have the right to defend it. Take Alabama for example: if you're tresspassingon someone's property in Alabama, they have the right to shoot the intruder to protect their property. You don't have to be in their home or building, just on the property. So a person could be on the property, trying to steal a truck and the owner would be justified in shooting him. ( in Alabama).

Everyone should have the right to defend his/her life though, Property can be replaced, lives cannot.

But the feeling you get once someone has stole from you( My truck has been broken into) you never feel the same afterward even if you were to get your stuff back.

The main thing a thief will do is run, maybe fight you if he/she is cornered. But most thieves are cowardly, they run like cockroaches from the light.

[greyofk]

The question is not about value of the stolen property. The question is about a judgement and punishment done by single person. More general, it is a question about violent reaction to non violent action. Mahathma Ghandy wrote a huge book about it. I made short observation.

Many years ago I've been to Uzbekistan - Muslim Central Asian country. A car theft was everyday reality. Nearly everybody in capital Tashkent lost at least one vehicle. Recently I told to my friend there. There is absolutely no car theft anymore. The leader of the country dictator Karimov implements Shariat law. The punishment for a car theft can be up to 15 years in forced labour camp. With all disrespect of locals to any law, somehow this works. There is no need to shoot thieves.

[Guest bkelm18]

My truck is about the only thing of value I own. My education and livelihood depend on it, so I suppose that's the only thing I would consider using deadly force on. And my cat. I'll kill a mofo who touches my cat.

[piercedan]

And my cat. I'll kill a mofo who touches my cat.

I instantly like you.

[personDJ]

If it were lawful I would kill any adult for taking anything of mine. A thief is a thief. Kill them. It matters not what they take.

[piercedan]

[glowdotGlock]

I would only fire on someone AFTER drawing my weapon on them and they do not conform to my demands. If they comply, they will get a free ride to the SO. If they advance on me then that is a decision to made on the spot.

[Guest Ken]

Oh Shoot,

If someone planted some more pink Flamingos in your yaard whould you shoot???

Ken

[Guest bkelm18]

If it were lawful I would kill any adult for taking anything of mine. A thief is a thief. Kill them. It matters not what they take.

Bloodlust anyone?

[Oh Shoot]

Oh Shoot,

If someone planted some more pink Flamingos in your yaard whould you shoot???

Ken

Nah. Trashy retro kitsch is coming back.

- OS

[QuietDan]

Texas apparently has a law involving the use of deadly force against "Theft in the Night."

Also, apparently, the law is based at least in part on scripture:

“If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft†: Exodus 22:2-3.

[strickj]

And my cat. I'll kill a mofo who touches my cat.

I've been wondering where Punisher84 has been lately...

[gjohnsoniv]

Nah. Trashy retro kitsch is coming back.

- OS

Want some? I can get them in pink, orange, yellow, skeletons... LOL

[Oh Shoot]

Want some? I can get them in pink, orange, yellow, skeletons... LOL

Thanks, but they can come back without me involved.

On second thought, if they're cheap enough they come with built in target stands, eh?

- OS

[TMF]

The question is not about value of the stolen property. The question is about a judgement and punishment done by single person.

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. Edited September 14, 2012 by TMF

[gjohnsoniv]

Thanks, but they can come back without me involved.

On second thought, if they're cheap enough they come with built in target stands, eh?

- OS

Yeah they do, prob pretty fun if filled with tannerite.

[Guest MilitiaMan]

If it were lawful I would kill any adult for taking anything of mine. A thief is a thief. Kill them. It matters not what they take.

Exactly right.

[Guest bkelm18]

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.

So you would be willing to kill a person over a toy truck?