Stopping theft with deadly force

[Makiaveli]

Read what I said, again.

Have you been in that situation?

I'm reminded that this is the internet, once again. We don't know each other. Why would I want you to visit me in prison?

A court has to take into consideration my statements defending my action. I certainly do have the right to defend my family,

property and even an innocent bystander with necessary force, if available and the situation warrants, especially on my

property. You need to understand that I wouldn't go out of my way to get in a scuffle, either.

I think we've had this discussion in the past. If I ever had to use self defense as a reason for my action, I would do so in

a heartbeat. You wouldn't? That thing around your waist isn't a boat anchor, ya know?

Before you go and put words in my mouth!

We are going in circles. What you quoted from me wasn't in response to what you quoted here.

@TMF I understand what you are saying, and I definitely feel your frustration as I have had things stolen. However, killing over pocket change isn't something I agree with. I can understand the argument about losing the tools you use to make a living with, yet I can also see the insurance argument.

I know that last part wasn't directed at me, but I don't think everybody here who doesn't like the idea of shooting over stuff is a coward. I don't recall anyone saying they wouldn't attempt to protect what's theirs, I think the disconnect comes when the bad guy refuses to surrender himself or the objects being stolen. Not wanting to kill a man doesn't make you a coward. I don't want to kill a human being period. I would given sufficient cause, but I hope never to have that cause arise again.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I quoted what I hoped you would re-read. Evidently it didn't work. The circle part is your inability to understand

someone else's point of view. I never said I wanted to kill anyone, and what's this coward crap? I'm trying one

more time "A court has to take into consideration my statements defending my action. I certainly do have the right to defend my family, property and even an innocent bystander with necessary force, if available and the situation warrants, especially on my property. You need to understand that I wouldn't go out of my way to get in a scuffle, either."

[TMF]

I know that last part wasn't directed at me, but I don't think everybody here who doesn't like the idea of shooting over stuff is a coward. I don't recall anyone saying they wouldn't attempt to protect what's theirs, I think the disconnect comes when the bad guy refuses to surrender himself or the objects being stolen. Not wanting to kill a man doesn't make you a coward. I don't want to kill a human being period. I would given sufficient cause, but I hope never to have that cause arise again.

I didn't say that. I was referring to specifically to posts which reference insurance as a reason not to intervene at all. The law says I can't shoot someone for stealing my stuff. But that doesn't mean I have to stand by and allow it to be stolen, insurance or not. Insurance is not an argument, period. I've heard this in regards to intervening into a burglar stealing your car: "a car ain't worth getting killed over... blah blah". Well, perhaps to some who are complicit in being victimized that's okay. And you know what? It's okay to me too when those folks are victimized. If they aren't willing to fight to keep what is theirs, well I don't feel bad when they lose it. To me, it has little to do with what is being stolen and more to do with my refusal to be a victim. Folks who seem to think that is just silly can think that, and I'll go on thinking they are a yellow coward.

[sigmtnman]

How about we split the differences. Perhaps a short piece of rope and a tall tree would be better than shooting?

Edited September 19, 2012 by sigmtnman

[sigmtnman]

...

Edited September 19, 2012 by sigmtnman

[RobertNashville]

I've raised the issue of insurance; maybe someone else has.

The question is pretty simple and for me, that answer is simple; I place a much higher value on human life than I do on inanimate objects; therefor, I'm not going to kill someone just over a piece of property.

This whole discussion sort of reminds me of some of the auto repossession "reality" shows with people going wacko just because the vehicle they didn't pay for and know they didn't pay for is getting taken away...I know much of that is staged and/or they use the most outrageous incidents for their show but I mean some of these people act like their whole world is over just because they lose a stupid car or truck.

I carry arms to protect my life and possible, the life of some other innocent person; that's what my weapon is for.

I have insurance to protect me from loss of property...that's what insurance for.

If someone's insurance isn't adequate to replace what they have then maybe they need more or better insurance...that's a hell of alot better option than killing another human being.

A single shot fired to protect your flat screen or truck from being stolen could easily change your life forever and have far, far more negative impact on you AND your family than replacing a TV or a vehicle ever could.

[TMF]

A single shot fired to protect your flat screen or truck from being stolen could easily change your life forever and have far, far more negative impact on you AND your family than replacing a TV or a vehicle ever could.

Oh, I guess I just keep misreading the OPs question. Apparently he was asking if someone would use deadly force regardless of the law. I must be taking his question literal and not interpreting it to mean something completely different than what he asked. My mistake.

[RobertNashville]

Oh, I guess I just keep misreading the OPs question. Apparently he was asking if someone would use deadly force regardless of the law. I must be taking his question literal and not interpreting it to mean something completely different than what he asked. My mistake.

Yes...regardless of the law...that's the question I'm answering because my opinion about taking a human life to protect property isn't going to change just because Tennessee's law might change or if it were different than it currently is.

[TMF]

Yes...regardless of the law...that's the question I'm answering because my opinion about taking a human life to protect property isn't going to change just because Tennessee's law might change or if it were different than it currently is.

Yes, and not far back you crowned yourself morally superior to those that would use deadly force to defend what is theirs. You missed the point completely regarding the defense of property and the choice not to be a victim. Insurance is not in the decision matrix. Value of the property is not in the decision matrix. The only thing that is in the decision matrix is the legality of the force used. If that was taken away, some of us would sleep fine killing a thief to protect their property. You may not have it in you to do the same, but spare me the lecture on your moral superiority.

[daddyo]

Yes, and not far back you crowned yourself morally superior to those that would use deadly force to defend what is theirs. You missed the point completely regarding the defense of property and the choice not to be a victim. Insurance is not in the decision matrix. Value of the property is not in the decision matrix. The only thing that is in the decision matrix is the legality of the force used. If that was taken away, some of us would sleep fine killing a thief to protect their property. You may not have it in you to do the same, but spare me the lecture on your moral superiority.

[RobertNashville]

Yes, and not far back you crowned yourself morally superior to those that would use deadly force to defend what is theirs. You missed the point completely regarding the defense of property and the choice not to be a victim. Insurance is not in the decision matrix. Value of the property is not in the decision matrix. The only thing that is in the decision matrix is the legality of the force used. If that was taken away, some of us would sleep fine killing a thief to protect their property. You may not have it in you to do the same, but spare me the lecture on your moral superiority.

Crowned about moral superiority? Really???

Pray tell; how can the only thing in the decision matrix be the legality of the force used when the question specifically removes legality from consideration - when there is no "legality" involved, the issue left in the decision matrix IS each person's individual morals.

I sleep just fine with mine, too.

[TMF]

Crowned about moral superiority? Really???

Pray tell; how can the only thing in the decision matrix be the legality of the force used when the question specifically removes legality from consideration - when there is no "legality" involved, the issue left in the decision matrix IS each person's individual morals.

I sleep just fine with mine, too.

Meh.

[jtmaze]

Here are a couple of things. Texas was mentioned earlier and it is a felony in Texas to trespass on posted property while armed, so they are serious about their property rights. Just hypothetical. I come home from work and two guys have broken in and pried up my safe and are carrying it out the front door. First, my safe has irreplaceable family guns in it that are dear to me. The sheriff response time at my house is about 45 min. Do I help them load it or pull my sidearm and stop them. The safe contains weapons that will more than likely be used against honest folks like us. Would you shoot to potentially protect others in the future.

JTM

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RobertNashville]

Here are a couple of things. Texas was mentioned earlier and it is a felony in Texas to trespass on posted property while armed, so they are serious about their property rights. Just hypothetical. I come home from work and two guys have broken in and pried up my safe and are carrying it out the front door. First, my safe has irreplaceable family guns in it that are dear to me. The sheriff response time at my house is about 45 min. Do I help them load it or pull my sidearm and stop them. The safe contains weapons that will more than likely be used against honest folks like us. Would you shoot to potentially protect others in the future.

JTM

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Since the original question already eliminated the issue of legality from the matter; where (what state) someone is in doesn't really matter I don't think.

Anyway, the question is would you stop a theft with deadly force; for me, "what" is being stolen is not part of the decision matrix (to coin a phrase).

That doesn't mean I won't try to stop the theft if I think I can but am I going to use deadly force to do it? No; at least not except for extreme and unusual circumstances as I indicated a couple of pages ago.

[Guest 270win]

Dave,

"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."

Thanks for that information. I have heard the same thing from older people in Arkansas that they could legally shoot car thieves running from LEO's because car theft was a felony. I also know in Texas it is still legal to shoot night time thieves that are running and you can't recover the property. That is why I asked if Tennessee ever had a similar law at one time.

[Makiaveli]

I quoted what I hoped you would re-read. Evidently it didn't work. The circle part is your inability to understand

someone else's point of view. I never said I wanted to kill anyone, and what's this coward crap? I'm trying one

more time "A court has to take into consideration my statements defending my action. I certainly do have the right to defend my family, property and even an innocent bystander with necessary force, if available and the situation warrants, especially on my property. You need to understand that I wouldn't go out of my way to get in a scuffle, either."

**edit**

I am shutting up before I get in trouble. Have a nice day.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Makiaveli

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Oh, I guess I just keep misreading the OPs question. Apparently he was asking if someone would use deadly force regardless of the law. I must be taking his question literal and not interpreting it to mean something completely different than what he asked. My mistake.

No. You read it just fine.

[Guest twpayne75]

I voted no. My reasons are not for what I have read here a few times. It not because life is precious, not because I think they may be reformed later on, not because I think their life is more important than my stuff.

I do agree with what has been said here in that my stuff is mine. I have worked very hard for it. And that is why I said no.

My reasoning is that statisticly speaking, a "good shoot", costs an average of $10,000 for court associated fees. Anything I own that is even remotely close to being worth that much, carries it's own insurance. So in my case, why would I risk $10,000 out of my pocket (which you will not find any there anyway but I would have no insurance to cover the loss), to stop someone from stealing anything that would be covered by my insurance that I pay plenty for to begin with.

Just my .

[RobertNashville]

I voted no. My reasons are not for what I have read here a few times. It not because life is precious, not because I think they may be reformed later on, not because I think their life is more important than my stuff.

I do agree with what has been said here in that my stuff is mine. I have worked very hard for it. And that is why I said no.

My reasoning is that statisticly speaking, a "good shoot", costs an average of $10,000 for court associated fees. Anything I own that is even remotely close to being worth that much, carries it's own insurance. So in my case, why would I risk $10,000 out of my pocket (which you will not find any there anyway but I would have no insurance to cover the loss), to stop someone from stealing anything that would be covered by my insurance that I pay plenty for to begin with.

Just my .

A pretty practical view.

The "cost", financial and otherwise, of killing (or perhaps worse, wounding) a bad guy will almost certainly be substantial whether or not the shooting was legally justified and of course, especially substantial if the shooting is eventually ruled to not have been justified. Protecting my life is worth all of that that cost and then some; protecting my stuff...not so much.

(I will say, anyone that comes after my hound or my cat will be have some very large caliber hell rain down on them - the "state" may consider them "property" but for me, they are family. )

Edited September 21, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Makiaveli]

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?

Oh, I guess I just keep misreading the OPs question. Apparently he was asking if someone would use deadly force regardless of the law. I must be taking his question literal and not interpreting it to mean something completely different than what he asked. My mistake.

No. You read it just fine.

Please note the bold, underlined portion of the OP.

[jonlisha]

I might fire a warning shot or two at the ground, see if I can't hit them with some splash off the ground or something. I wouldn't use deadly force though, of course if I ever hear something outside I take my Remington model 10 12ga and S&W686, my 12 is loaded with one bean bag round, two rubber buckshots, and three slugs, when you take one of these beanbag rounds to the back you are probably gonna drop everything you have or maybe even fall down and give up, these things look like a shot to the leg would break the bone.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Okay. You found something to continue this

argument. It still doesn't change what I wrote.

Please note the bold, underlined portion of the OP.

[Makiaveli]

I wasn't trying to "continue this argument", I was replying to the comment TMF made that you seconded. However, since it seems obvious that we will not agree even on what it is we are talking about, how about we just drop it and move on to a different topic?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

He may have misunderstood one point but he made his point quite well.

That's fine with me. I've already addressed what I considered pertinent, also.

[TMF]

I misunderstood nothing. I've just given up explaining simple concepts that should be self evident if one reads and understands context.