Right to Defend Property?

[Entice]

The discussion over the right to bear arms and self defense has been done to death here. But what are your thoughts about the right to defend property? In Texas (where I live) it's not uncommon to hear of cases where fleeing thieves are shot in the back and the shooter is not prosecuted because he "has the right to use lethal force to defend his property". There's some more bizarre ones, where teenagers have been legally shot for trespassing or vandalism. I'm not familiar with how these laws work anywhere else, but...

I simply see this as putting property over human life; I don't see how a running, unarmed thief is an immediate threat to anyone. It's essential the death penalty, for minor crimes such as stealing or trespassing. The only difference is that the execution is being carried out by individuals instead of the government. What are your thoughts on the matter?

[NikeThanatos]

The practice of protecting ones house and home dates back millennia. We shouldn't we be allowed to protect ourselves in our own home in the 21st century? Protection doesn't necessarily mean we have to kill, but if the thief 'walks away' with broken legs or a good beating, he should consider himself lucky.

Also, I'd like to see you say stealing is a minor crime when someone breaks into your house and steals your computer, gaming console, money and other valuables.

[NikeThanatos]

At 6/19/11 04:04 AM, NikeThanatos wrote: WHY shouldn't we...

Fixed. Might have confused some otherwise.

[Entice]

I should have said "the right to use lethal force to defend property" as that's what I was referring to.

[Entice]

At 6/19/11 04:52 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: Think of it like this. If you are a burglar who lives in Texas, and you're fully aware that there could be a guy in that house with a shotgun, what are the odds that you're gonna be stupid enough to go in there?

Yeah! That's probably why there are no burglars in Texas, and why there's haven't been any problems recently with cases like the ones described in this thread. People will never commit crimes if there's some kind of risk involved!

Firing a gun isn't even necessary to deter criminals. In most (not all) cases, you merely need the THREAT of a gun to send them running.

So why authorize the use of lethal force?

[SadisticMonkey]

It's sure as shit better than Australia, where burglars can sue those from whom they were stealing if they hurt themselves during the burgalry, such as falling through a roof or cutting oneself on razor-wire (which was put there to deter theft).

But no, I don't think it should be defensible to shoot an unarmed person who poses no threat immediate threat to yours or another person's safety.

[fatape]

If a burglar is crawling through your window into your home and has a gun/knives/otherwise I have no problem with you protecting yourself by shooting the guy. I just ask you fire a warning shot first if in no immediate danger to your or other persons.

If a someone is running away with your property I do not support your right to shoot them in the back. That's ridiculous people are far more important then property and in this economy especially it's not like some people aren't forced into stealing to survive.

It reminds of a case a couple of years ago where a couple of unarmed kids robbed a guy who forced them down on there hands and knee's where they were harmless and then executed one of them and got away with it.

[Korriken]

At 6/19/11 10:01 AM, fatape wrote: If a burglar is crawling through your window into your home and has a gun/knives/otherwise I have no problem with you protecting yourself by shooting the guy. I just ask you fire a warning shot first if in no immediate danger to your or other persons.

blow a hole in your wall or roof to scare someone who is crawling through your window? meh screw that.

Personally though, I'm a huge fan less lethal weaponry. you break into my home and you will probably feel the wrath of my steel baton if you make the mistake of walking around the corner I'm waiting at. I also have a pellet pistol with flat head pellets to unload on you... though that might actually kill someone.

I also like the pepper gel, but not pepper spray. the gel sticks and burns like hell and isnt as affected by wind and such. Of course, if i see you kick open my door and are wielding a weapon, It's gonna be a .38 special cartridge smith and wesson revolver you will be going against.

Problem is, few people have a practical home defense plan. most people either go after the criminal with a gun, or lock themselves in the bathroom and hope they don't come after them

If a someone is running away with your property I do not support your right to shoot them in the back. That's ridiculous people are far more important then property and in this economy especially it's not like some people aren't forced into stealing to survive.

There is no acceptable excuse for stealing to survive, except for sheer laziness, which is slightly ironic because being a thief takes more effort than getting on welfare. Most thieves are either illegals that can't get government assistance, drug addicts who are robbing you to feed their addiction, or thrill seeking punks.

Personally, I would like to see an increase in the availability of rubber bullets and beanbag shot. a few rubber bullets to the back would stop someone fleeing with your jewelry box without killing them.

It reminds of a case a couple of years ago where a couple of unarmed kids robbed a guy who forced them down on there hands and knee's where they were harmless and then executed one of them and got away with it.

I remember hearing about that. Never knew he got away with it.

[satanbrain]

A thief cannot be killed for his crime of theft, you can wound him to stop him but if he cannot be stopped without killing him you shouldn't kill him. It is the duty of the police to arrest thieves, not the citizens. Of course if he is armed or attacks it is self-defense but lurking and shooting unarmed thief is simply assassination.

[Camarohusky]

I like the totality of the circumstances approach.

It is OK to use force to defend one's property if there is a reasonable and subjective belief that the person posed a threat to the shooter and/or the shooter's family. Beyond that any lethal force or substantial injury is criminal. That being said, mild assaultive force, used to subdue even an unarmed intruder should be considered OK, if it for the purpose of detaining them until the police arrive.

The Draconian "If they're on your property uninvited, you can torture them immensly" type statutes are nothing but a shameful remnant of a time (in Texas) where there was no law.

[Korriken]

At 6/19/11 11:18 AM, satanbrain wrote: A thief cannot be killed for his crime of theft..

anyone can die at any time for any reason. Killing a home invader in most states is legal, with the exception of a few places that give all the protection to the criminals.

It is the duty of the police to arrest thieves, not the citizens. Of course if he is armed or attacks it is self-defense but lurking and shooting unarmed thief is simply assassination.

Wrong again. Citizen's arrest if you witness a person committing a crime you have the legal right to detain that person. someone breaking into your house is indeed a crime.

[All-American-Badass]

Well depending on the case, lethal force can be necessary when defending your property, all though it should be a last resort no matter what. However I believe the thief and/or vandal should at least be incapacitated but still alive before you get law enforcement involved or if you want to play it safe call the cops when you're about to incapacitate him like this case here.

[Entice]

At 6/19/11 05:17 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 6/19/11 05:09 AM, bgraybr wrote:

At 6/19/11 04:52 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: Think of it like this. If you are a burglar who lives in Texas, and you're fully aware that there could be a guy in that house with a shotgun, what are the odds that you're gonna be stupid enough to go in there?

Yeah! That's probably why there are no burglars in Texas, and why there's haven't been any problems recently with cases like the ones described in this thread. People will never commit crimes if there's some kind of risk involved!

What I meant is that it's a great deterrent. There's still gonna be some retards who think they're bulletproof.

I still have a problem with killing people to deter crime. It's just an attempt to keep those kinds of people suppressed without ever having to address the source of the problem (the social and economic problems that cause crime).

Firing a gun isn't even necessary to deter criminals. In most (not all) cases, you merely need the THREAT of a gun to send them running.

So why authorize the use of lethal force?

Yeah, that gun you're not allowed to fire is so scary. Honestly, do you even believe what you write?

If you merely need the threat of a gun to send someone running, why do need the authority to shoot an unarmed criminal? No one's going to stop and think about self-defense laws when they have a 12-gauge shotgun pointed at their face. If they do try to do something threatening afterwards then you would actually have a legitimate reason to kill them.

Besides, if someone breaks into your house and you've got an opportunity to shoot him and get your stuff back, I say go for it.

My problem with this is that it's still placing the value of your stereo or television over a human life.
I wouldn't shoot someone that wasn't a clear threat to me or someone else.

[Astronesthes]

I think it is entirely up to circumstance. Say a group of armed teenagers breaks into your home and threatens your life, then yeah, do whatever you need to do. But, is it right for you to shoot an unarmed fleeing burglar? Don't think so. Only problem is, we live in a bullshit system where circumstance has been forgotten. Good luck injecting reason into our court systems.

[Entice]

At 6/19/11 11:14 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 6/19/11 10:59 PM, bgraybr wrote: My problem with this is that it's still placing the value of your stereo or television over a human life.
I wouldn't shoot someone that wasn't a clear threat to me or someone else.

Lemme put it like this:

You've got a gun, he's got your XBOX, what do you do?

I can honestly say that if he was running from me I wouldn't shoot him.

[Yorik]

At 6/19/11 05:09 AM, bgraybr wrote:

At 6/19/11 04:52 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: Think of it like this. If you are a burglar who lives in Texas, and you're fully aware that there could be a guy in that house with a shotgun, what are the odds that you're gonna be stupid enough to go in there?

Yeah! That's probably why there are no burglars in Texas, and why there's haven't been any problems recently with cases like the ones described in this thread. People will never commit crimes if there's some kind of risk involved!

So what's your point? Of course there is always going to be crime no matter what, but that doesn't mean it is acceptable to stop people from defending themselves. If the police, justice system and so on aren't deterrent enough that should tell you we need all the help we can get. At the very least, allowing people to use firearms to defend themselves saves the cops some time, not to mention possibly saving your life if they can't come to your aid in time.

Firing a gun isn't even necessary to deter criminals. In most (not all) cases, you merely need the THREAT of a gun to send them running.

So why authorize the use of lethal force?

Because if you need a firearm to protect yourself you should have the right to do so and that right should be protected.

[Entice]

At 6/19/11 11:34 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Why not? Get your XBOX back and send a clear message that burglars aren't welcome.

Besides, if you let him go, it pretty much says that you don't have the cajones to use that gun of yours, so you may as well build a dedicated "burglar door", because you clearly don't value your stuff.

I don't value my XBOX enough to kill someone else over it. I doubt that he's going to be brave enough to rob my house again since he clearly saw that I had a weapon. If he was still in my house and I confronted him directly it might end differently, but there's no one that I'm going to kill a fleeing man.

Also, if he takes your XBOX, then he takes your XBOX live account, which contains your credit card number, which means he takes whatever the fuck he pleases under your dime.

What's even worse is that I can't report my card stolen.

[All-American-Badass]

At 6/19/11 11:46 PM, bgraybr wrote: I don't value my XBOX enough to kill someone else over it.

Well you don't have to kill the burglar, but if you shoot him in the legs it will limit his mobility and then you can incapacitate him and surely you must value your x-box enough to do that to him.

[Yorik]

At 6/19/11 11:53 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:

At 6/19/11 11:46 PM, bgraybr wrote: I don't value my XBOX enough to kill someone else over it.

Well you don't have to kill the burglar, but if you shoot him in the legs it will limit his mobility and then you can incapacitate him and surely you must value your x-box enough to do that to him.

No, don't do this. If you ever have to shoot someone for any reason you shoot to kill. If you cripple someone, especially intentionally, they actually have a legal case against you and can press charges, even if they weren't supposed to be on your property.

[Entice]

At 6/19/11 11:53 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:

At 6/19/11 11:46 PM, bgraybr wrote: I don't value my XBOX enough to kill someone else over it.

Well you don't have to kill the burglar, but if you shoot him in the legs it will limit his mobility and then you can incapacitate him and surely you must value your x-box enough to do that to him.

I never said that I wouldn't do that, but even then I would think twice if he was far enough away for me to easily kill him and I'd prefer a less dangerous method of incapacitation if it was available.

[Proteas]

At 6/19/11 10:01 AM, fatape wrote: If a someone is running away with your property I do not support your right to shoot them in the back. That's ridiculous people are far more important then property and in this economy especially it's not like some people aren't forced into stealing to survive.

What about how the bad economy is effecting me, hm?

If somebody is trying to steal my car, I'm going to shoot them. I'm a lower-middle-class blue collar worker with bad credit, I can't afford to go out and get a new car. My car is my ability to get a paycheck, so yeah, I'm going to but a bullet in you for trying to make off with it. Keying it and slashing a tire? I'll aim at your shins so it's aggravated assault instead of attempted murder if I get the chance.

You break into my house? I'm putting a bullet in you regardless of what your intention was. Unlike some of the people in this topic, I actually believe in private property, and you have no business coming into my house uninvited. And when the cops show up, there will be a knife in your hand just to show that I was in fear of my life.

wether or not you actually came in with that knife is a different story.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/20/11 12:30 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 6/19/11 11:57 PM, Yorik wrote: No, don't do this. If you ever have to shoot someone for any reason you shoot to kill. If you cripple someone, especially intentionally, they actually have a legal case against you and can press charges, even if they weren't supposed to be on your property.

Yeah, Yorik's right. For some reason, killing in self-defense seems to be more legally acceptable than wounding in self-defense.

my guess is that it has something to do with whether or not they're around to sue.

I'm gonig to have give a negatory on both of these comments. Wounding is always better. Yorik's comment that you can be sued if you wound but not if you kill is an absolute fallacy. Furthermore, the more harm you inflict on an intruder the more likely you will not only be civilly liable you can be criminally liable.

Read my earlier post and you will that where the legal line rests. It is most definitely not in the distinction between wounding and killing.

[wwwyzzerdd]

At 6/19/11 04:52 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: Think of it like this. If you are a burglar who lives in Texas, and you're fully aware that there could be a guy in that house with a shotgun, what are the odds that you're gonna be stupid enough to go in there?

Well the numbers seem to not agree with you.
* Dallas ranks 13th highest in cases of burglary for major cities in 2009 (15.06 cases per 1,000 people).
* 3 of the top 5 major cities for larceny/theft are Texas cities in the same year (San Antonio, Austin, and Corpus Christi). I could go on with similar numbers for smaller cities, as well as a trend that states with "gun-friendly" laws are more prevalent towards the top of these lists.
* Texas is within the top 7 in terms of states with the highest incarceration rates.

I would like to argue the point that while a homeowner is possibly armed, there's always the possibility that they would be confronting a person who possibly is also armed and already desperate enough to steal from you. However, the logic with owning a gun seems to be that you have a gun, and therefore you're an expert shot under duress, so I'd rather avoid being told how dumb I am for doubting your ability.

I don't care to argue the historical significance of this either. For as long as we can remember, people have always defended their homesteads and property, and guns are a large part of US history. Of course, slavery, expansionism, prohibition, gender inequality, rural economic dependence, and the railroads were also large parts of our history that we've seemed to abandoned, so one would assume that it wouldn't be too much to ask that we add dependence to firearms to that list. A dog, alarm system, local taxes to fund a standing police force... A lot of that didn't exist in 1791.

[Yorik]

At 6/20/11 12:39 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I'm gonig to have give a negatory on both of these comments. Wounding is always better. Yorik's comment that you can be sued if you wound but not if you kill is an absolute fallacy.

Oh is it now? Then why have I read dozens of news articles where this exact thing happened? A quick google search will turn up results, even some where police officers/departments were sued by criminals and/or their families after they opened fire on them.

If the person trespassing on your property and threatening your life survives your self defense shooting they can claim that you used unnecessary force and take you to civil court. It's already hard enough as it is to endure the stress of trying to convince the law that your use of force was justified without the "victim" accusing you of unlawful use of force and suing you for damages, stress and whatever else they can cook up. Whether or not anyone will actually take their side is another matter (though that has definitely happened several times before) you are still going to go through a legal battle with this person and probably even their family.

If a situation comes to a point where it is worth it to shoot someone and you are legally justified to use deadly force then it is worth it to shoot to kill. I don't think there is any exception. Even police do this. That stuff about shooting to disable is movie bullshit. It's not a good idea to cripple or maim someone whether you look at it morally, legally, logically, common sensically or any other way you could think about it.

[frigi]

I would only use lethal force if the person was threatening my life. If they are just taking some of my property I would pin him down and tie him up and call the cops.

I don't think material items are worth killing for. I think anyone who does think it is worth killing for are too attached to their material items and should re-evaluate their life as none of their possessions will go with them after they die.

[SolInvictus]

At 6/20/11 02:11 AM, frigi wrote: I don't think material items are worth killing for.

money is a material item, without it we can't buy any materials such as food, shelter or water, without which, one dies.
makes materials seem pretty important to me.

[TheGuyAtYourWindow]

saying possessions dont go with you after you die is disagreeing with a whole lot of ancient cultures... but thats for a different thread.

life is all about choices, and accepting responsibility for ones own actions, of course the society we live in today undermines that idea every chance it can, my opinion is, if you CHOOSE to break into a persons house and take that which they have worked hard to earn, then you are also CHOOSING to take what comes with it, and if that happens to be a pissed off homeowning texan with a revolver, then hey buddy, you made your bed, now lie in it.

[Yorik]

At 6/20/11 11:21 AM, TheGuyAtYourWindow wrote: saying possessions dont go with you after you die is disagreeing with a whole lot of ancient cultures...

I think every single one of them disproved themselves by burying all of their possessions with the deceased for us to find them. All of their stuff is still there.

[TheGuyAtYourWindow]

is it? we found their bodies too but are they really there? i mean REEEALLYY there?

btw thanks for responding to my comment about the subject lol

[Camarohusky]

At 6/20/11 01:56 AM, Yorik wrote: Oh is it now? Then why have I read dozens of news articles where this exact thing happened? A quick google search will turn up results, even some where police officers/departments were sued by criminals and/or their families after they opened fire on them.

Post some of these stories. I can be pretty sure that in these cases, either somebody along the line didn't understand the legal issue, or they intentionally ignored it in order to create a more compelling story.

If the person trespassing on your property and threatening your life survives your self defense shooting they can claim that you used unnecessary force and take you to civil court.

The shooter can be sued for the same if they kill the intruder.

If a situation comes to a point where it is worth it to shoot someone and you are legally justified to use deadly force then it is worth it to shoot to kill. I don't think there is any exception. Even police do this. That stuff about shooting to disable is movie bullshit.

Exactly, that's why the term is "seriosuly injure" or "Kill".