Would you kill to defend your property?

[senorpogo]

Would you kill to defend your property? Or rather, can you imagine a realistic situation where you would kill to defend your property?

(I was going to produce a hyopthetical situation, but decided to keep it general.)

[steverino]

Would you kill to defend your property? Or rather, can you imagine a realistic situation where you would kill to defend your property?

(I was going to produce a hyopthetical situation, but decided to keep it general.)

MY property? Have you SEEN my apartment?:D

[Tricky]

A hypothetical situation would be hard to come by, one where you were certain of your own safety but able to kill a robber. Maybe like turning on a high voltage fence when you saw the intruder on your closed-circuit tv. I honestly can't imagine doing such a cold-blooded thing. Assuming you are perfectly safe, there are too many other options.

I like my stuff, but it's just stuff. Not worth a human life, even a flawed one.

[Upchurch]

Property, no. People (and my dogs), yes.

[specious_reasons]

I have insurance in case people try to steal my stuff, so it's unlikely I'd feel the need to "defend my property."

I'd feel differently if someone was threatening my family or me.

The devil's in the details.

[Crossbow]

Would you kill to defend your property? Or rather, can you imagine a realistic situation where you would kill to defend your property?

(I was going to produce a hyopthetical situation, but decided to keep it general.)

Nope!

There is nothing I have that is worth killing someone for.

[cgordon]

Property? No.

Family/loved ones? Yes.

Property ain't nothing but a thing.

[ponderingturtle]

A hypothetical situation would be hard to come by, one where you were certain of your own safety but able to kill a robber. Maybe like turning on a high voltage fence when you saw the intruder on your closed-circuit tv. I honestly can't imagine doing such a cold-blooded thing. Assuming you are perfectly safe, there are too many other options.

I like my stuff, but it's just stuff. Not worth a human life, even a flawed one.

Not that hard, someone grabs your wifes purse and runs with it, can you shoot them?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Yes.

[Tricky]

Not that hard, someone grabs your wifes purse and runs with it, can you shoot them?
With certainty that they don't have a gun too and may turn around (yes, even wounded) and return fire? Yeah, I can think of lots of scenarios where it would be fairly safe, but not many where it would be totally safe.

[LawnOven]

Well, I wouldn't but one cannot possibly be held responsible for what one's robot machine guns might do.

But seriously the only situation I could see is if, maybe the theft would leave me in financial ruin destroying everything I had been working towards, or for, up to that point; or the theft of something that might cause me or a loved one to die.

[senorpogo]

But seriously the only situation I could see is if, maybe the theft would leave me in financial ruin destroying everything I had been working towards, or for, up to that point; or the theft of something that might cause me or a loved one to die.

See, I was thinking along the same lines, but what would such a situation look like?

[KingMerv00]

I'm sure everyone here knows this but you aren't legally allowed to use deadly force to defend property. (In America at least.)

If the guy breaks into your house in the middle of the night on the other hand...

[Tricky]

See, I was thinking along the same lines, but what would such a situation look like?
Crook 1: What did that old lady say when you stole her iron lung.

Crook 2: Sumthin like, "Wheeeeeeeeze"

[HarryKeogh]

If Osama bin Laden was trying to steal my 40" LCD then the answer is Yes. Yes I would.

[Crossbow]

I'm sure everyone here knows this but you aren't legally allowed to use deadly force to defend property. (In America at least.)

If the guy breaks into your house in the middle of the night on the other hand...

I do wish more people did know it!

One is allowed to use "reasonable force" to protect one's property.
So for example, it may be legally permissible to kill someone if that someone is stealing something that the victim would die without having (such as a vital medication).
On the other hand, killing someone to stop someone from stealing a wrist watch worth twenty dollars would probably not be legally permissible.

However, one is allowed to use "deadly force" to protect their own life or the life of someone else.

[LawnOven]

See, I was thinking along the same lines, but what would such a situation look like?


Crook 1: What did that old lady say when you stole her iron lung.

Crook 2: Sumthin like, "Wheeeeeeeeze"


...something like that maybe. Or if you were a nomadic sheep herder (or whatever) and someone made off with your livestock.

um...
Stolen insulin, when there is scant opportunity to get ahold of more.

um...
Maybe someone making off with gubberment secrets.

um...
Someone making off with 10 years of research; effectively stealing life from me.

Things like that.

I'm not really saying I think it's morally right do kill in regards to these things, I'm just saying I can imagine myself in a place were these things would cause me to kill.

[Darth Rotor]

Would you kill to defend your property? Or rather, can you imagine a realistic situation where you would kill to defend your property?

(I was going to produce a hyopthetical situation, but decided to keep it general.)
Yes.

[Luke T.]

In a middle-of-the-night scenario, it is hard to tell if someone is there for my stuff or to harm my family, and in such a case, I would take no chances. So his life is forfeit.

If someone was stealing my car. No. I would not kill them. Not unless they were armed and I felt my life was in danger.

I've told my wife, if someone robs you, you give them whatever they want. Yessss, even your wedding ring. That's right. But if the robber attempts to harm you or take you anywhere, then you fight. Bite, scratch, kick, gouge, whatever it takes, but don't let him take you anywhere under any circumstances.

[Tricky]

In a middle-of-the-night scenario, it is hard to tell if someone is there for my stuff or to harm my family, and in such a case, I would take no chances. So his life is forfeit.

If someone was stealing my car. No. I would not kill them. Not unless they were armed and I felt my life was in danger.
My take on the question was that it was only your property that was in danger. Otherwise, you would be killing to defend your life or loved ones.

I've told my wife, if someone robs you, you give them whatever they want. Yessss, even your wedding ring. That's right. But if the robber attempts to harm you or take you anywhere, then you fight. Bite, scratch, kick, gouge, whatever it takes, but don't let him take you anywhere under any circumstances.That sounds like excellent advice. Only rarely do you hear stories of where a woman was abducted and released. Your odds are probably far better to do your best not to be abducted.

[fishbob]

See, I was thinking along the same lines, but what would such a situation look like?

Your ENRON retirement plan?

[senorpogo]

In a middle-of-the-night scenario, it is hard to tell if someone is there for my stuff or to harm my family, and in such a case, I would take no chances. So his life is forfeit.

I was imagining a situation clearly separate from the "middle-of-the-night" scenario, a situation where it is clear that you and your family are not in any direct physical harm, but your property is in danger.

[Jocko]

Yes, I would kill to defend anything I would miss. Not because I'm that attached to my collateral, but because I wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life wondering it would happen again.

I'd kill to protect my property, but the REASON is peace of mind. I won't live in fear for anyone. Family, pets, etc., that goes without saying. I'll keep pulling that trigger till it goes "click." You don't f**k with the Jesus.*


*See The Big Lebowski.

[Jocko]

A corollary question begged by this topic is,

Would you be willing to risk death to take someone else's property?

I'd like that question answered before I'm expected to justify why I'd ice the sumbitch without thinking twice. ;)

[Tricky]

A corollary question begged by this topic is,

Would you be willing to risk death to take someone else's property?

I'd like that question answered before I'm expected to justify why I'd ice the sumbitch without thinking twice. ;)
Yeah, I thought of that one too, but I was afraid this would turn into a game of "Scruples", and I hate that game.

I think a better questioni would be "Would you risk death to steal in order to protect your life or that of a loved one." Ya know, kinda like Jean Valjean.

[Garrette]

I would be reluctant, but I won't rule it out.

For those who do rule it out, is there any amount of violence you are willing to commit to protect property?

Suppose you knew you could beat the snot out of the guy and get him to leave? Would you do that?

If you had a gun, would you point it at the perp, knowing that you wouldn't pull the trigger?

(And I realize those are two very separate questions)

[Jocko]

Yeah, I thought of that one too, but I was afraid this would turn into a game of "Scruples", and I hate that game.

I think a better questioni would be "Would you risk death to steal in order to protect your life or that of a loved one." Ya know, kinda like Jean Valjean.

Poignant, but irrelevant. Unless you think that's applicable to most (or even a signifigant minority of) crimes, which I'm sure you don't. Besides, the French are not known for fighting for their possessions, up to and including their actual country. (see also, English, Normans, Germans, et al.)

I, for one, would like to see a little responsibility for one's actions applied to the criminal as well as the criminalized. After all, the criminal intiates the situation. See, it's simple: stay out of my house and your mitts off my crap, and your chances of dying by gunshot at my hands is quite literally zero. No crime, no gunplay. No gunplay, no tragic death of another of "victim of a cruel and uncaring society." Could not be simpler.

[Garrette]

Poignant, but irrelevant. Unless you think that's applicable to most (or even a signifigant minority of) crimes, which I'm sure you don't. Besides, the French are not known for fighting for their possessions, up to and including their actual country. (see also, English, Normans, Germans, et al.)

I, for one, would like to see a little responsibility for one's actions applied to the criminal as well as the criminalized. After all, the criminal intiates the situation. See, it's simple: stay out of my house and your mitts off my crap, and your chances of dying by gunshot at my hands is quite literally zero. No crime, no gunplay. No gunplay, no tragic death of another of "victim of a cruel and uncaring society." Could not be simpler.Jocko brings up an interesting point. Defense of country is defense of property. Would you kill for that?

Make it smaller--would you kill for communal property?

Make it specific--you know for a fact that no one is in the Twin Towers. Osama bin Laden is about to push the "Blow Up the Twin Towers" button. You have the ability to stop him, without question, but only by killing him. Do you?

I do.

[Beerina]

Property? No.

Family/loved ones? Yes.

Property ain't nothing but a thing.

Doesn't not killing them encourage further thefts? Isn't it counterproductive?

[Beerina]

In a middle-of-the-night scenario, it is hard to tell if someone is there for my stuff or to harm my family, and in such a case, I would take no chances. So his life is forfeit.

If someone was stealing my car. No. I would not kill them. Not unless they were armed and I felt my life was in danger.

You also have to construct a situation where you can only kill them, or they have your car. Pointing a gun back at a guy with a knife and saying, "No, I think I'll decline to be carjacked today" is more like it. And if the guy lunges, game over.

I've told my wife, if someone robs you, you give them whatever they want. Yessss, even your wedding ring. That's right. But if the robber attempts to harm you or take you anywhere, then you fight. Bite, scratch, kick, gouge, whatever it takes, but don't let him take you anywhere under any circumstances.

I do believe this is the recommended course of action to survive statistically, though it is dangerous too.

[Tricky]

Jocko brings up an interesting point. Defense of country is defense of property. Would you kill for that?
I disagree. It is defense of people at least as much and probably more than property.

[Garrette]

I disagree. It is defense of people at least as much and probably more than property.You're probably right. But if it were not?

"54 40 or fight"

"We want Alsace-Lorraine."

That sort of thing?

[Garrette]

You also have to construct a situation where you can only kill them, or they have your car. Pointing a gun back at a guy with a knife and saying, "No, I think I'll decline to be carjacked today" is more like it. And if the guy lunges, game over.Not necessarily. I know quite a few people who would miss, even at extreme close range. Even trained cops miss frequently at close range.

I do believe this is the recommended course of action to survive statistically, though it is dangerous too.It is dangerous, of course, with no guarantee of success, but I think there are two reasons it remains less attractive then getting in the car, though this is only my supposition and I have no evidence:

1. Most people are either genetically disposed or culturally raised to not take aggressive/violent action.

2. Resisting brings the danger closer, makes it imminent. Even if the danger is less, it is more threatening then the far-off unspecified danger that getting in the car entails.

I would guess that number 2 is the more significant.

[brodski]

I would be reluctant, but I won't rule it out.

For those who do rule it out, is there any amount of violence you are willing to commit to protect property?

Suppose you knew you could beat the snot out of the guy and get him to leave? Would you do that?

If you had a gun, would you point it at the perp, knowing that you wouldn't pull the trigger?

(And I realize those are two very separate questions)

I would not kill to defend property.
I may use some force to protect property, "reasonable force to restrain" is the legal limit where I live, and I find that a pretty good definition of what is also morally acceptable.

In the unlikely event that I had a gun at home, I wouldn't point it at anyone, as I'd probably be risking a lot more trouble than the thief if the police got involved, however I don't see anything morally wrong with making such threats in jurisdictions where they are legal.

[Pescado]

Logically I know that I wouldn't want to kill to defend property, because it is not worth it. That's what my brain knows when it isn't under intense stress, like right now.

However, I know that if I were actually involved in a situation where I was being threatened, directly or indirectly(as with property), I would undoubtedly confront the person responsible, because it is my nature to make testosterone-fueled decisions like that when under threat. The ensuing confrontation may lead to the person's death. It might also lead to my own death.

I think a lot of people, especially young males, fit into this 'Irish' category. It isn't so much the property that makes you react in situations like those, but pride or protective instincts. I've gotten myself into a few messes with behavior like this, and I am lucky I have never been badly hurt. Let's hope the streak continues.

[Garrette]

Thanks, brodski. I have found that the self-defense rules are generally in line with what most would consider morally acceptable, though it leaves room for judgment calls.

"reasonable force to restrain" sounds similar.

[Tricky]

You're probably right. But if it were not?

"54 40 or fight"

"We want Alsace-Lorraine."

That sort of thing?
It is probably impossible to separate the issues. Governments want land so their people will thrive. It is hard enough to separate property/people at the individual level ("If he steals my money, my children will go hungry") so it has to be much more difficult at the level of societies or countries.

I don't see any way this question can be made simple. Every single answer must contain "it depends".

[Garrette]

It is probably impossible to separate the issues. Governments want land so their people will thrive. It is hard enough to separate property/people at the individual level ("If he steals my money, my children will go hungry") so it has to be much more difficult at the level of societies or countries.

I don't see any way this question can be made simple. Every single answer must contain "it depends".You and your Democratic moral relativism...

But I agree.

[Darth Rotor]

I don't see any way this question can be made simple. Every single answer must contain "it depends".
Seconded.

DR

[steverino]

I don't see any way this question can be made simple. Every single answer must contain "it depends".

"If a meteor hits Seattle, what would keep me from crapping my pants?"

Depends.

[Upchurch]

I don't see any way this question can be made simple. Every single answer must contain "it depends".
I accept your challenge:

Evil Zombie Hitler wants to take your property in order to complete his Post-Final Solution. Would you kill* Evil Zombie Hitler to defend your property?




* y'know ...again

[Tricky]

I accept your challenge:

Evil Zombie Hitler wants to take your property in order to complete his Post-Final Solution. Would you kill* Evil Zombie Hitler to defend your property?




* y'know ...again
It depends. Is Evil Zombie Hitler actually alive? If not, you can't kill him.

[Upchurch]

It depends. Is Evil Zombie Hitler actually alive? If not, you can't kill him.
I think that was implicit in the footnote, wise guy.

[pipelineaudio]

The only time you can be even reasonably sure that the crook is only after some property and not intent on hurting you, is when he is running away with your stuff.

If a crook is threatening deadly force in order to get your stuff, he is already harming you

Its easy for monday morning quarterbacks to call it later, but at the time you can never be so sure what exactly is going on, and since you arent the one who set this ball rolling, you really shouldnt be responsible.

AFAIC any robber who threatens deadly force in a robbery has forfeit his life. That includes knives, guns and fists. I know a lot of smug people dont believe an unarmed body is capable of murder, but even a simple body slam to the pavement can be fatal

[Katana]

AFAIC any robber who threatens deadly force in a robbery has forfeit his life. That includes knives, guns and fists. I know a lot of smug people dont believe an unarmed body is capable of murder, but even a simple body slam to the pavement can be fatal
AFAIC?

[pipelineaudio]

as far as Im concerned

[Piscivore]

Two more questions:

Would you kill a guy to get more property than you have now?
I mean, a whole lot. Like Rhode Island.

Would you make your property look valuable and unguarded in order to tempt a robber so you could kill a guy?

[shuize]

As noted above, it just depends. In general, I doubt I would kill to defend property if there were absolutely no risk to myself or my family. However, such things are difficult to know for certain. I could probably imagine a scenario in which I might. It would probably depend on how much property was at stake.

For example, a robber leaving the house with all my financial information (account numbers, passwords, etc.) and the only way to stop him involved shooting him. Yeah, I think I could pull the trigger.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

No. I tend to dislike killing people, but that's just me :) . And, technically speaking, my property is not worth stealing...

[Huntster]

How do you know the mind of a criminal?

How do you know if a home invasion is all about your big screen TV, or if they want your wife's behind, too?

If confronted on the street, and your wallet is demanded, how do you know if after handing it over, you'll just be shot down in order to eliminate you as a witness?

[Tricky]

How do you know the mind of a criminal? We'll just use you for a model. ;)

How do you know if a home invasion is all about your big screen TV, or if they want your wife's behind, too?

If confronted on the street, and your wallet is demanded, how do you know if after handing it over, you'll just be shot down in order to eliminate you as a witness?The premise was that you would not be in any danger. You would be killing only to protect your property. It was mentioned more than once.

Wasn't it you I saw dissin' somebody's reading skills recently?

[Mephisto]

How do you know if a home invasion is all about your big screen TV, or if they want your wife's behind, too?

. . . or even her front!



;)

[Tailgater]

It depends. Is Evil Zombie Hitler actually alive? If not, you can't kill him.

Can't you kill the brain?

[Tailgater]

Is blasting a leg off with a Winchester an option?

[Mephisto]

Is blasting a leg off with a Winchester an option?

A Defender with 3 inch Mag slugs? I hope so?

[Ziggurat]

Could I ever be willing to kill to protect property?

Yes, quite definitely, and so should anyone else with any sense of self-preservation.

Note, though, that this is actually a DIFFERENT question from asking if any property I own (or could own) would be worth killing someone for. And it's different because the consequences of killing or not killing someone who is trying to steal your property can, in fact, extend well beyond the preservation or loss of that property itself.

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Winston Churchill

[KingMerv00]

Yes, I would kill to defend anything I would miss. Not because I'm that attached to my collateral, but because I wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life wondering it would happen again.

I'd kill to protect my property, but the REASON is peace of mind. I won't live in fear for anyone. Family, pets, etc., that goes without saying. I'll keep pulling that trigger till it goes "click." You don't f**k with the Jesus.*


*See The Big Lebowski.

How much piece of mind could you really have in prison?

[HarryKeogh]

What if you had a suitcase filled with your life savings under your bed, $500,000...you never trusted banks. You're on the way home from just getting laid off your job but that's okay. You have enough money to retire. As you enter you bedroom you see a guy shutting the case and pushing your way past you with the money and out the door. You can't chase him thanks to a bum knee. You grab your gun from your dresser drawer and have a clear shot because after all you live in the country and there aren't even any eyewitnesses. All your money is in that case. It's incrediblly hard to find work in this one horse town. You won't be able to pay your mortgage. You stand to lose everything you worked so hard for.

Yep, I think I'd shoot the guy.

[Jocko]

How much piece of mind could you really have in prison?


It's not one's mind you worry about being a "piece" in prison; nonetheless, I think you misapprehend the likelihood of a prosecution, let alone a conviction, let ALONE for anything like a felony.

Your "peace" of mind is in no small part due to the willingness of others to exert force, up to and including the deadly variety, to protect their belongings. It's rude to get sanctimonious with those who make your life easier, Merv.

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes, I would kill to defend anything I would miss. Not because I'm that attached to my collateral, but because I wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life wondering it would happen again.

I'd kill to protect my property, but the REASON is peace of mind. I won't live in fear for anyone. Family, pets, etc., that goes without saying. I'll keep pulling that trigger till it goes "click." You don't f**k with the Jesus.*


*See The Big Lebowski.

You live a country with hundreds of millions of people. How is shooting robber A going to prevent you being robbed by robber B in the future?

[Ziggurat]

You live a country with hundreds of millions of people. How is shooting robber A going to prevent you being robbed by robber B in the future?

If a lot of other people follow his example, then robber B will think twice before deciding to rob anyone. Including, as Jocko pointed out, people who wouldn't kill to protect their property.

[Tailgater]

If a lot of other people follow his example, then robber B will think twice before deciding to rob anyone. Including, as Jocko pointed out, people who wouldn't kill to protect their property.

And robber A will not be robbing anyone in the future.

[ImaginalDisc]

If a lot of other people follow his example, then robber B will think twice before deciding to rob anyone. Including, as Jocko pointed out, people who wouldn't kill to protect their property.

And we'd live in a society with a lot of dead repopossesors, and where homicide can be justified with the claim that someone was trying to steal a dime from someone else.

[Garrette]

And we'd live in a society with a lot of dead repopossesors, Well dang it! If I couldn't afford to pay for it they shouldn't have sold it to me!

[Ziggurat]

And we'd live in a society with a lot of dead repopossesors, and where homicide can be justified with the claim that someone was trying to steal a dime from someone else.

No, repossesors would just have to adapt. And quite frankly, your supposition about the possibility of people using property protection to commit homicide is nonsensical. The possibility ALREADY exists of claiming self-defense as a legal defense against killing, and yet people are routinely convicted of murder rather than walking free by merely claiming such a defense. Why would it be fundamentally different in the case of defending property? And why would you think that allowing killing in defense of property requires that you allow ANY such killing, regardless of the circumstances?

[ImaginalDisc]

No, repossesors would just have to adapt.
Adapt how?
And quite frankly, your supposition about the possibility of people using property protection to commit homicide is nonsensical. The possibility ALREADY exists of claiming self-defense as a legal defense against killing, and yet people are routinely convicted of murder rather than walking free by merely claiming such a defense. Why would it be fundamentally different in the case of defending property?


Because in order for faking self-defense to work for homicide, it needs to seem plausible that person A had a reason, means, and opportunity to kill person B. "He tried to steal my dime" as a defense would be much easier to use because it makes more sense that someone would try to rob you than try to kill you.

[Pescado]

I forgot to mention that I have a Doberman to do dirty work like this for me, so I don't have to. So maybe I should have posed this question to my dog, instead of answering it myself. She is the one that would be making the first move, after all.

She is outside right now, so I can't ask her directly, but I am pretty sure that if I asked her she would tell me that she would have no problem killing a person, or trying to, to protect our property. God help the intruder if they made any threatening moves towards myself, or especially her 'mother', because that would really set her off.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Would you kill to defend your property? Or rather, can you imagine a realistic situation where you would kill to defend your property?

(I was going to produce a hyopthetical situation, but decided to keep it general.)

Yes. If someone was attacking my wife or girlfriend, then I would kill.

[Garrette]

Adapt how?Not sneak up. Most repo men don't spirit things away in the middle of the night anyway, movies to the contrary. They knock on the door and politely inform you what they are there for and even give you time to remove your personal stuff from the car (if that's what they're after).

Of course, it doesn't hurt that the nice man knocking on the door is usually a grizzled and burly ex-cop who's probably packing.

Because in order for faking self-defense to work for homicide, it needs to seem plausible that person A had a reason, means, and opportunity to kill person B. "He tried to steal my dime" as a defense would be much easier to use because it makes more sense that someone would try to rob you than try to kill you.There's more to it than that.

For self-defense, absolute proof of the robber's intent and ability to kill you is not enough. You must also demonstrate that the action you took was the minimun amount of force that in those circumstances would prevent the would-be murdered from murdering you.

I imagine it would be similar for defense-of-property. Simply proving an intent to rob you is insufficient; you would need to prove that punching the perp would not also have thwarted the attempt.

The only exception to this line of thinking (of which I am aware) is in Kentucky. In that state of the U.S., killing someone on your property is automatically justified if that someone can be shown to have been in the process of (or having just completed) committing arson.

It's an old law, and the reasoning (I think) was that fire was so damaging, so final, and so hard to stop, that killing was the only defense against it.

[ImaginalDisc]

Not sneak up. Most repo men don't spirit things away in the middle of the night anyway, movies to the contrary. They knock on the door and politely inform you what they are there for and even give you time to remove your personal stuff from the car (if that's what they're after).

Of course, it doesn't hurt that the nice man knocking on the door is usually a grizzled and burly ex-cop who's probably packing.

Oh, I didn't know that. (Hurries off to pay bills.) I suppose that's probably the safest way to do that, even now.

There's more to it than that.

For self-defense, absolute proof of the robber's intent and ability to kill you is not enough. You must also demonstrate that the action you took was the minimun amount of force that in those circumstances would prevent the would-be murdered from murdering you.

I imagine it would be similar for defense-of-property. Simply proving an intent to rob you is insufficient; you would need to prove that punching the perp would not also have thwarted the attempt.



Oh good. It sounds like it would be harder to use than i'd thought. Still, if it was allowed, then you'd have the legitimate concern that a person who kills to defend their property might do so with the "best" intentions, and then be imprisoned because they can't show that they reached for their gun or other weapon at an apropriate time.

[Garrette]

Oh, I didn't know that. (Hurries off to pay bills.)Too late. I'm at the door.

Oh good. It sounds like it would be harder to use than i'd thought. Still, if it was allowed, then you'd have the legitimate concern that a person who kills to defend their property might do so with the "best" intentions, and then be imprisoned because they can't show that they reached for their gun or other weapon at an apropriate time.But as Ziggy points out, that risk exists already.

[ImaginalDisc]

Too late. I'm at the door.

But as Ziggy points out, that risk exists already.

Where? I'm pretty sure Ziggy was talking about self-defense, not defense of property.

[Ziggurat]

Because in order for faking self-defense to work for homicide, it needs to seem plausible that person A had a reason, means, and opportunity to kill person B. "He tried to steal my dime" as a defense would be much easier to use because it makes more sense that someone would try to rob you than try to kill you.

Like I already said, making lethal defense of property legal in some cases does not mean you need to make it legal in all cases. Furthermore, as a defense, the burden of proof could be on the defendent that the person was, in fact, trying to steal said dime. That it COULD happen need not be enough for a defense. Which means even if we were to allow such a defense (again, NOT a necessity), it would not be something that most criminals could actually take advantage of to cimmit homicides with impunity.

[ImaginalDisc]

Like I already said, making lethal defense of property legal in some cases does not mean you need to make it legal in all cases. Furthermore, as a defense, the burden of proof could be on the defendent that the person was, in fact, trying to steal said dime. That it COULD happen need not be enough for a defense. Which means even if we were to allow such a defense (again, NOT a necessity), it would not be something that most criminals could actually take advantage of to cimmit homicides with impunity.

Let's assume you're right. You'd be comfortable living in a society with some decrease in robberies paid for in an increase in violent deaths?

[Garrette]

Where? I'm pretty sure Ziggy was talking about self-defense, not defense of property.Post #65:

And quite frankly, your supposition about the possibility of people using property protection to commit homicide is nonsensical. The possibility ALREADY exists of claiming self-defense as a legal defense against killing, and yet people are routinely convicted of murder rather than walking free by merely claiming such a defense. Why would it be fundamentally different in the case of defending property? And why would you think that allowing killing in defense of property requires that you allow ANY such killing, regardless of the circumstances?

Unless I'm grossly misunderstanding, your contention is that passage of a defense-of-property law, even with the caveats I added, would result in the risk of two things: (1) Abuse by people who see it as a means to off someone they don't like, and (2) Misapplication by courts who might convict someone who acted in good faith but who can't convince the courts of it.

That risk exists already with self-defense laws.

[Garrette]

Let's assume you're right. You'd be comfortable living in a society with some decrease in robberies paid for in an increase in violent deaths?I would be no less comfortable with that than I currently am with a society that presumes to judge, after the fact and with the luxury of time, hindsight, and experts, whether a split-second decision I made in the heat of the adrenaline-packed moment meets an arbitrarily and vaguely drawn standard.

[ImaginalDisc]

I would be no less comfortable with that than I currently am with a society that presumes to judge, after the fact and with the luxury of time, hindsight, and experts, whether a split-second decision I made in the heat of the adrenaline-packed moment meets an arbitrarily and vaguely drawn standard.

Now I think you're blurring the lines between defense of life, and defense of property. It's strictly not persmissible to kill in defense of property alone, so no judgement needs to be made.

[KingMerv00]

It's not one's mind you worry about being a "piece" in prison; nonetheless, I think you misapprehend the likelihood of a prosecution, let alone a conviction, let ALONE for anything like a felony.

I hate typeos.

The final decision rests in the hands of the jury of course and I wouldn't doubt that most juries would be sympathetic. The point I was trying to make was that common law (and probably statutory law) are not on your side.

Theft is not punishable by death. I don't know why you should have that right when the government does not.

Your "peace" of mind is in no small part due to the willingness of others to exert force, up to and including the deadly variety...

You mean the cops? I like cops.

It's rude to get sanctimonious with those who make your life easier, Merv.

My hero. Thank you for protecting me. But your time is wasted here...

"Go, GO! For the good of the city."

[Ziggurat]

Let's assume you're right. You'd be comfortable living in a society with some decrease in robberies paid for in an increase in violent deaths?

I don't take it as a given that such a course of action WILL lead to an increase in violent deaths. More criminals might get killed, but conversely, criminals might also kill fewer innocent people. Furthermore, if there is an increase but it comes from more dead criminals, then yeah, I'm OK with that price for reduced crime.

[Garrette]

Now I think you're blurring the lines between defense of life, and defense of property. It's strictly not persmissible to kill in defense of property alone, so no judgement needs to be made.You asked a hypothetical question, ID (granted, it was to Ziggurat, but I though I was welcome to answer, too). Now you're using my answer to determine my moral position based on your values?

Try again.

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't take it as a given that such a course of action WILL lead to an increase in violent deaths. More criminals might get killed, but conversely, criminals might also kill fewer innocent people.

We're taking about thieves, not murderers. You're confusing the issue.

[Ziggurat]

Theft is not punishable by death. I don't know why you should have that right when the government does not.

Prevantative measures are not the same as punative measures. The government does indeed have the right to use deadly force to prevent theft (you can even test that yourself if you are so inclined - just ask the armed guards at Fort Knox). And conversely, you as a private citizen are not allowed to hunt down and kill someone who already stole something from you (which would be punishment), and that is not what anyone here is advocating.

[Ziggurat]

We're taking about thieves, not murderers.You're confusing the issue.

But those are not, in reality, disjoint sets. So I'm confusing the issue at all. And robberies often turn into murders, despite the thieves having no intention of commiting murder at the outset, because something goes wrong.

[Garrette]

We're taking about thieves, not murderers. You're confusing the issue.You're simplifying it.

If I am awakened in the middle of the night to find a stranger rifling through my things, why should I assume he is not dangerous?

[KingMerv00]

Prevantative measures are not the same as punative measures. The government does indeed have the right to use deadly force to prevent theft (you can even test that yourself if you are so inclined - just ask the armed guards at Fort Knox). And conversely, you as a private citizen are not allowed to hunt down and kill someone who already stole something from you (which would be punishment), and that is not what anyone here is advocating.

Are you certain the guards at Fort Knox are legally allowed to shoot you if you do not threaten them with deadly force? My understanding is that cops are not supposed to open fire unless they have reasonable fear of bodily injury.

[KingMerv00]

You're simplifying it.

If I am awakened in the middle of the night to find a stranger rifling through my things, why should I assume he is not dangerous?

I know that you are not directing this at me, but I just want to say that I would be fine with you blowing him away. I think your fear is reasonable in that situation.

[Jocko]

You live a country with hundreds of millions of people. How is shooting robber A going to prevent you being robbed by robber B in the future?

Because robber B will read about robber A's closed-casket funeral in the newspaper he swiped from your lawn. Durr. Even criminals are able to construct logical connections, you know.

Of course, I never said "prevent," but I know you're not going to get hung up on some artificially impossible semantic standard, are you?

[Crossbow]

Are you certain the guards at Fort Knox are legally allowed to shoot you if you do not threaten them with deadly force? My understanding is that cops are not supposed to open fire unless they have reasonable fear of bodily injury.

Thanks much!

I was about to point the same thing to him.

[Jocko]

It's strictly not persmissible to kill in defense of property alone, so no judgement needs to be made.

Says who?

[Garrette]

It's strictly not persmissible to kill in defense of property alone, so no judgement needs to be made.As I explained earlier (neglecting to address this aspect of it), it IS permissible, at least in Kentucky and at least in regard to preventing arson.

[GrnMtSkeptic]

Because robber B will read about robber A's closed-casket funeral in the newspaper he swiped from your lawn. Durr. Even criminals are able to construct logical connections, you know.

Of course, if I was Robber B and I still wanted your stuff, I'd just be sure to kill you before I tried to; having drawn the logical connection you wouldn't surrender it peacefully and that I was risking death either way.

[Garrette]

Are you certain the guards at Fort Knox are legally allowed to shoot you if you do not threaten them with deadly force? My understanding is that cops are not supposed to open fire unless they have reasonable fear of bodily injury.Cops and soldiers do not operate under the same rules.

[Ziggurat]

Are you certain the guards at Fort Knox are legally allowed to shoot you if you do not threaten them with deadly force? My understanding is that cops are not supposed to open fire unless they have reasonable fear of bodily injury.

The fact that they are required to use non-deadly force first doesn't change the fact that they can and will use deadly force to protect property. Likewise, allowing private individuals to use deadly force to prevent theft of private property need not mean that the individual doesn't have an obligation to use non-deadly force first if that option is available and sufficient.

[KingMerv00]

Says who?

The law?

(Though the law is different state to state.)

[ImaginalDisc]

But those are not, in reality, disjoint sets.

That's irrelevant. You're advocating the killing of thieves regardless of whether they're intending to kill or not.

[Garrette]

That's irrelevant. You're advocating the killing of thieves regardless of whether they're intending to kill or not.No. He (and I) are suggesting that it is not unreasonable to allow the defense of property with whatever minimum force is sufficient to do so, even if that minimum becomes lethal.

There is a distinction.

And you have not yet addressed my point about how I am supposed to know that the thief does not intend to commit harm.

[Crossbow]

The fact that they are required to use non-deadly force first doesn't change the fact that they can and will use deadly force to protect property. Likewise, allowing private individuals to use deadly force to prevent theft of private property need not mean that the individual doesn't have an obligation to use non-deadly force first if that option is available and sufficient.

In general, the law states that a person is allowed to use "reasonable force" to protect property, and "deadly force" to protect their life and/or the life of someone else. The same holds true for police officers, the guards at Fort Knox, and people at home.

The legal system will give wide lattitude to the person being agressed, however they are not provided with a carte blanche to do whatever they like either.

[KingMerv00]

The fact that they are required to use non-deadly force first doesn't change the fact that they can and will use deadly force to protect property.

It changes the situation completely. If the robber exhibits what could reasonably construed as deadly force, it is no longer an issue of protecting property. It is now self-defence.

Likewise, allowing private individuals to use deadly force to prevent theft of private property need not mean that the individual doesn't have an obligation to use non-deadly force first if that option is available and sufficient.

You are confusing self-defense with defense of property here too. You can use reasonable force, just not deadly force unless the robber escalates.

The classic example is a thief running down the street away from you with your TV. He is 300ft away and you have a sniper rifle. He doesn't see you. Can you kill him?

[ImaginalDisc]

No. He (and I) are suggesting that it is not unreasonable to allow the defense of property with whatever minimum force is sufficient to do so, even if that minimum becomes lethal.

There is a distinction.

And you have not yet addressed my point about how I am supposed to know that the thief does not intend to commit harm.

For one thing, if they have snatched your bag and are running off, they're clearly not trying to hurt you.

EDIT: Oh, an unarmed intruder isn't likely to be looking to kill you.

[Garrette]

It changes the situation completely. If the robber exhibits what could reasonably construed as deadly force, it is no longer an issue of protecting property. It is now self-defence.



You are confusing self-defense with defense of property here too. You can use reasonable force, just not deadly force unless the robber escalates.

The classic example is a thief running down the street away from you with your TV. He is 300ft away and you have a sniper rifle. He doesn't see you. Can you kill him?Which brings it all back to what was said earlier: There is no situation that does not end up with "It depends."

And your middle paragraph (about using reasonable force until the robber escalates) is not true, either. At least, it's not complete.

It is, as always, dependent upon both the situation and the participants.

The robber need not escalate if the only reasonable force available to me happens to be deadly force. What is reasonable force varies from person to person.

I would expect a 285 pound linebacker to attempt physical restraint of an (apparently) unarmed robber before I would accept him firing a gun.

On the other hand, I would not require my 74 year old mother to try physical restraint. She can shoot first, and not because she's my mother.

[Garrette]

For one thing, if they have snatched your bag and are running off, they're clearly not trying to hurt you.Back to "It depends." And this does not answer the scenario I gave you initially.

As we've been saying, self-defense laws take this into account, at least in the deliberation phase.

There is no reason a defense-of-property law could/would not be the same.

[Ziggurat]

That's irrelevant. You're advocating the killing of thieves regardless of whether they're intending to kill or not.

No, it's NOT irrelevant, because a private property owner facing such a criminal cannot distinguish between thieves who would never kill and those who might kill, have killed, or will kill - so that person can either act against ALL of them or none of them. My choice is to act against all of them. And as Garrette mentioned, I'm not advocating the use of maximum force in every instance, I'm advocating the minimum force necessary, INCLUDING lethal force. If someone who is only a thief ends up dead because of this, well, too bad for him. Don't steal.

[fuelair]

Would you kill to defend your property?

Why yes, yes I would!

[Ziggurat]

The classic example is a thief running down the street away from you with your TV. He is 300ft away and you have a sniper rifle. He doesn't see you. Can you kill him?

Here's another hypothetical: an unarmed thief breaks into your house, and is moving towards your TV to grab it. You are standing off to the side, draw your gun, point it at him, and tell him to stop. He continues towards the TV (not towards you). Can you shoot him? Saying yes in this case is not the same as saying yes in your case, even though neither case involves any physical threat to your person. Allowing the use of lethal force to defend property in some cases does not require it to be allowed in all cases.

[ImaginalDisc]

No, it's NOT irrelevant, because a private property owner facing such a criminal cannot distinguish between thieves who would never kill and those who might kill, have killed, or will kill - so that person can either act against ALL of them or none of them. My choice is to act against all of them. And as Garrette mentioned, I'm not advocating the use of maximum force in every instance, I'm advocating the minimum force necessary, INCLUDING lethal force. If someone who is only a thief ends up dead because of this, well, too bad for him. Don't steal.

I can almost understand using sufficent force in an ambiguous situation, but you must admit many thieves clearly do not intend to murder. People involved in a midnight smash-and grab who run way from private citisen of a security guard are clearly not intending to kill anyone. A purse snatcher is the same. Considering most businesses are robbed more often by their employees than by catburglers, your proposal would allow for other store employees to shoot me for carrying off a pen.

[Ziggurat]

EDIT: Oh, an unarmed intruder isn't likely to be looking to kill you.

That cannot be claimed categorically either. A big, muscular man breaking into the home of an elderly woman could easily be planning on killing her with his bare hands, or with whatever weapon of opportunity he finds inside the home.

[KingMerv00]

Which brings it all back to what was said earlier: There is no situation that does not end up with "It depends."

And your middle paragraph (about using reasonable force until the robber escalates) is not true, either. At least, it's not complete.

It is, as always, dependent upon both the situation and the participants.

The robber need not escalate if the only reasonable force available to me happens to be deadly force. What is reasonable force varies from person to person.

I would expect a 285 pound linebacker to attempt physical restraint of an (apparently) unarmed robber before I would accept him firing a gun.

On the other hand, I would not require my 74 year old mother to try physical restraint. She can shoot first, and not because she's my mother.

I am pretty sure we agree actually, the force involved must be "reasonable". I just think we are categorizing things differently.

I am taking defense of property and separating it from self-defense. You are putting them together and talking about armed robbery.

[ImaginalDisc]

That cannot be claimed categorically either. A big, muscular man breaking into the home of an elderly woman could easily be planning on killing her with his bare hands, or with whatever weapon of opportunity he finds inside the home.

"Isn't likely"

[Garrette]

I am pretty sure we agree actually, the force involved must be "reasonable". I just think we are categorizing things differently.

I am taking defense of property and separating it from self-defense. You are putting them together and talking about armed robbery.Take out "armed" and I'll agree that we're close enough for it not to matter.

[KingMerv00]

Take out "armed" and I'll agree that we're close enough for it not to matter.

True.

[Ziggurat]

Considering most businesses are robbed more often by their employees than by catburglers, your proposal would allow for other store employees to shoot me for carrying off a pen.

Not quite. Even under the most extreme enforcement, it would allow security guards to draw on you for stealing, and IF you resisted and they could not otherwise subdue you, then fire upon you. But of course, businesses are pretty much never going to act that way, because they're never going to want their employees to act at the edge of legality because of liability issues if they step over. And as a practical matter, businesses also play the cost-benefit game: they'll permit a certain level of theft if the cost of preventing it is higher than the cost of the theft. That's already the case for office supplies, even if you're just talking about disciplinary steps (how many people even get fired for stealing pens, let alone fired upon?) - armed enforcement simply ain't gonna happen, regardless of the law.

[Ziggurat]

"Isn't likely"

I don't think you quite got my point. If you, as the victim, are that old lady, and the burglar breaking in is a big muscular guy, the fact that he's unarmed isn't enough for you to make the judgment that he's not "likely" to be trying to kill you. Most unarmed intruders aren't trying to kill or physically harm anyone, that's true, but that's still actually a different statement than the one you made.

[Garrette]

Not quite. Even under the most extreme enforcement, it would allow security guards to draw on you for stealing, and IF you resisted and they could not otherwise subdue you, then fire upon you. Not meaning to jump ship on you, but in the interest of intellectual honesty, this ain't so.

Most security guards have absolutely no more legal authority to do anything than any old joe walking down the street. (There are instances where this isn't true--where the security force is in effect 'deputized' with limited police authority on the grounds of the facility they are guarding--but that is the exception.)

A security guard who even draws a weapon on someone stealing even a high priced item when that someone presents no discernible threat is likely to be in trouble. One who shoots that someone is in deep doo doo.

Even detaining without drawing a weapon is problematic and depends both on the laws of the area and on the circumstances surrounding the theft.

I've set up and run security departments in numerous hospitals. The rules inside the gift shop were different than the rules inside the cafeteria and the emergency room. None of them allowed significant force to prevent theft.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
How do you know if a home invasion is all about your big screen TV, or if they want your wife's behind, too?

If confronted on the street, and your wallet is demanded, how do you know if after handing it over, you'll just be shot down in order to eliminate you as a witness?

The premise was that you would not be in any danger. You would be killing only to protect your property. It was mentioned more than once.

I admit not reading throught the thread before asking my questions.

I suppose it's an interesting ethical exercise to debate deadly force to protect property. It certainly has utility legally. But it's critical to understand "the line" when it's crossed, and be able to react to it under great duress.

But, having been trained several times in the use of deadly force (including the legalities), my questions remain valid. If you confront or even just interrupt a property criminal in the act, the acts might change.

I certainly wouldn't kill someone who was trying to rip me off. I'd be really tempted to break them up a bit, but wouldn't likely do that, either.

But getting some physical evidence would be key in any criminal prosecution. A bit of blood DNA would do the trick............

Wasn't it you I saw dissin' somebody's reading skills recently?

Yup. Validly, too.

In this case my reading skills are fine. It was a lack of using them that you might diss.

But please note that I made no position clear or took offense to anyone's position. I only asked a couple of questions.

[roger]

I would expect a 285 pound linebacker to attempt physical restraint of an (apparently) unarmed robber before I would accept him firing a gun.

On the other hand, I would not require my 74 year old mother to try physical restraint. She can shoot first, and not because she's my mother.I see what you are saying, and in many ways agree, but for one. Physical encounters can have permanent consequences. A twisted ankle can end the career of a linebacker, for example. A broken finger can end the career of a pianist. Even I, an amateur guitarist, would lose something very, very dear to me if I was injured in my hands in a way that to you would seem to be only a slight mobility impairment. While the linebacker will almost certainly come out on top in an unarmed encounter, he may well not come out unscathed.

(I leave unanalyzed how the linebacker knows the robber is indeed unarmed. A utility knife is easily hidden and extremely lethal. I'm assuming this is a hypothetical, not a real world example).

In a hypothetical world where I am always in the right, I don't feel that I should have to suffer, or even take on risk based on another person violating my rights. Challenge me to a bit of a dust up at the bar. Expect me (in this hypothetical world) to cut your throat. I will not assume even the slightest risk of a life changing injury because of your bad judgement.

Now, in the real world, we have to make allowances for 1) assumption of risks in the world (I risk my life when I drive, which doesn't mean that I get to shoot somebody who doesn't use their directional when they turn, 2) the possibility of mistake (the presumed robber is a 10 year old neighbor sneaking in to play a prank, 3) etc.

So in a realistic world we need limits to our response, limits which are admitedlly hard to define. But I understand the urge for a disproportinate response to minor provocations. Nonetheless, if a 275 linebacker, in a real world incident, shot an unarmed intruder on sight, I wouldn't blame him. How did he know the person was unarmed, the person's intent, etc. If a off duty police officer did the same, I would blame her, because she supposedly has the training to deal with escalating situations, and how to de-esculate a situation (STOP! POLICE OFFICER! LET ME SEE YOUR HANDS type things).

[ImaginalDisc]

Not quite. Even under the most extreme enforcement, it would allow security guards to draw on you for stealing, and IF you resisted and they could not otherwise subdue you, then fire upon you. But of course, businesses are pretty much never going to act that way, because they're never going to want their employees to act at the edge of legality because of liability issues if they step over. And as a practical matter, businesses also play the cost-benefit game: they'll permit a certain level of theft if the cost of preventing it is higher than the cost of the theft. That's already the case for office supplies, even if you're just talking about disciplinary steps (how many people even get fired for stealing pens, let alone fired upon?) - armed enforcement simply ain't gonna happen, regardless of the law.

Regardless of what you think they would do, the law you propose would allow them to shoot pen-stealing clerks.

[Garrette]

Well said, roger. And there's little if anything in your post that I haven't thought.

As usual, both extremes are ultimately untenable. It is no more defensible to say "Never kill in defense of x" than it is to say "Always kill in defense of x."

Which gets us back to "It depends." Again.

[Garrette]

Regardless of what you think they would do, the law you propose would allow them to shoot pen-stealing clerks.He hasn't proposed a law. He's spoken in concepts, as have you.

You're intelligent and have some valid points. Don't resort to strawmen.

[ImaginalDisc]

He hasn't proposed a law. He's spoken in concepts, as have you.

You're intelligent and have some valid points. Don't resort to strawmen.

The "concept" he is discussing is a system that allows for killing in defense of property.

[Garrette]

The "concept" he is discussing is a system that allows for killing in defense of property.Yes, and he has granted the need for qualifiers, even if only by implication; re: your scenario of the man running away with your television.

Discussing a specific law specifically worded to allow or disallow all contingencies has NOT come up.

[Ziggurat]

Yes, and he has granted the need for qualifiers, even if only by implication;

Indeed. And let me make it explicit as well: I am very much in favor of having qualifiers on the use of deadly force to protect property.

[Garrette]

Indeed. And let me make it explicit as well: I am very much in favor of having qualifiers on the use of deadly force to protect property.I'm not.

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Just jokin' :D

[brodski]

Can I post a real case here, one which got quite a lot of media attention (and significant public sympathy) in the UK

On the night of August 20, 1999 two burglars, Brendon Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras, 16, entered Bleak House. They were shot by Martin; Fearon in the leg and Barras in the back, as they attempted to flee. Barras died in the grounds but Fearon was able to leave and got medical assistance. Martin subsequently left the farm and spent the night at a friend's house.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29#Attempted_burglary_and_ma nslaughter

Does anyone here think that Martin was justified? (illegally held weapon aside)

[Jocko]

The law?

(Though the law is different state to state.)


So killing an intruder on your property is against the law?

Show me where. Pick any state you like.

[pipelineaudio]

"On the night of August 20, 1999 two burglars, Brendon Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras, 16, entered Bleak House. They were shot by Martin; Fearon in the leg and Barras in the back, as they attempted to flee. Barras died in the grounds but Fearon was able to leave and got medical assistance. Martin subsequently left the farm and spent the night at a friend's house."

Evidence for the bold part?

[brodski]

"On the night of August 20, 1999 two burglars, Brendon Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras, 16, entered Bleak House. They were shot by Martin; Fearon in the leg and Barras in the back, as they attempted to flee. Barras died in the grounds but Fearon was able to leave and got medical assistance. Martin subsequently left the farm and spent the night at a friend's house."

Evidence for the bold part?

The position in which the body and blood drops where found, the location of the wounds and Martins own testimony IIRC.

[richardm]

"As they attempted to flee" - Martin lay in wait for them and began firing at them without warning, at which point they attempted to get out. He then continued firing, shooting Barras in the back and legs, and Fearon in the legs as he tried to get out through the window they'd entered through. In the opinion of the Jury, it was this "continued firing" that moved it from Self defence into Murder.

The Appeal Court (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2001/2245.html) however found that Martin had various psychological problems and acted under diminished responsibility; thus, they reduced his conviction to Manslaughter. They still rejected the "Self Defence" defence.

[MRC_Hans]

Basically, no. But for scenarios, well, if keeping my property was a matter of survival, then maybe. Currently, none of my posessions are even important for my survival.

Hans

[Tricky]

Basically, no. But for scenarios, well, if keeping my property was a matter of survival, then maybe.
And here we are again. In the scenario where your property is necessary for survival, you are not killing for property, but to save your life. So the answer is, as always, "it depends".

And what about identity theft? Was it not the Great Bard (http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/who_steals_my_purse-steals_trash-but_he_that/146756.html)who said,
"Who steals my purse, steals trash, but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed."

Was Shakespeare packing heat?

[Crossbow]

So killing an intruder on your property is against the law?

Show me where. Pick any state you like.

Try your own state by asking one of your local police officers. Or better yet, ask several different officers as well as your District Attorney.

A stranger knocking on your door who may want to borrow a phone to call someone to help change a flat tire, or ask directions to the skating rink, or who is looking for a lost puppy, or some other such thing could be considered an "intruder" since you have no prior relationship with him.

Therefore killing that person for simply being an "intruder" would indeed illegal and I would expect that the killer would spending quite a few years enjoying the comforts of state sponsored housing.

In brief, deadly force is only legally authorized when one is acting to defend their own life and/or the life of someone else.

The authorities you speak with will tell you as much.

[Crossbow]

I admit not reading throught[sic] the thread before asking my questions.

...


Hunster:

You are an incredible hypocrite!

You complain about my lack of reading skills then you proceed to make simple spelling errors and basic comprehension errors.


...

Yup. Validly, too.

In this case my reading skills are fine. It was a lack of using them that you might diss.

But please note that I made no position clear or took offense to anyone's position. I only asked a couple of questions.

So now you claim that you have fine reading skills and that your critiques of my reading skill were valid, but for some reason or another you have chosen not to use your fine reading skills.

Therefore, are now a liar in addition to being a hypocrite?

Or would you just prefer to be known as the person who knows how to read well who actually refuses to read well?

[KingMerv00]

So killing an intruder on your property is against the law?

Show me where. Pick any state you like.

There is a case in my Torts text book where a man booby trapped the door to his house with a shotgun. A drifter tried to break in and had his leg blown off for his trouble. The property owner never spent time at the shack in question so it was very clearly defense of property, not self-defense.

The owner was found liable because you are not allowed to use deadly force solely to defend property. Had the owner been asleep with a shotgun under his pillow, the story probably would have been different.

I'll find the case when I get a chance.

Edit: Jocko, you sure sound confident. Any evidence for your position?

[The Painter]

There is a case in my Torts text book where a man booby trapped the door to his house with a shotgun.

That's a mantrap. They have been illegal for a very long time.

[KingMerv00]

That's a mantrap. They have been illegal for a very long time.

I'm sure you are right. They are illegal based on the idea that deadly force cannot be used to defend property.

[Jocko]

There is a case in my Torts text book where a man booby trapped the door to his house with a shotgun. A drifter tried to break in and had his leg blown off for his trouble. The property owner never spent time at the shack in question so it was very clearly defense of property, not self-defense.

The owner was found liable because you are not allowed to use deadly force solely to defend property. Had the owner been asleep with a shotgun under his pillow, the story probably would have been different.

I'll find the case when I get a chance.

Edit: Jocko, you sure sound confident. Any evidence for your position?

You bet. Torts are not criminal. QED. Wanna try again?

[bigred]

Would you kill to defend your property? Or rather, can you imagine a realistic situation where you would kill to defend your property?
I can't imagine a realistic situation where this would need to be a choice made, but generally the replies here sum it up for me ie wouldn't kill someone ONLY for property theft except in really extreme circumstances, like taking necessary medication etc.

[The Painter]

I'm sure you are right. They are illegal based on the idea that deadly force cannot be used to defend property.



Wrong. That is based on the fact that they are indiscriminant. They could kill an innocent person. Like a fireman coming into the burning building. Are you sure you’re a lawyer?

[Jocko]

Wrong. That is based on the fact that they are indiscriminant. They could kill an innocent person. Like a fireman coming into the burning building. Are you sure you’re a lawyer?

Considering that he seems to be saying that a civil case could put me in jail, I don't think he's shaping up to be a very good one. I lost interest after the LSAT myself, but even I know that a tort is ipso facto non-criminal.

[Francesca R]

Would you kill to defend your property? Or rather, can you imagine a realistic situation where you would kill to defend your property?

(I was going to produce a hyopthetical situation, but decided to keep it general.)I very much doubt it.

Yes, quite definitely, and so should anyone else with any sense of self-preservation.Is this self-preservation in a "lawless society" sense? Self-preservation for me points towards appointing a state that prevents and punishes crime most effectively, for preservation of my liberty.

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Winston ChurchillNot sure how relevant this quote is. It seems to assume that there is only one valid way to "fight"—namely; preventatively firing lethal weaponry (or having that threat power).

I don't take it as a given that such a course of action WILL lead to an increase in violent deaths. More criminals might get killed, but conversely, criminals might also kill fewer innocent people. Furthermore, if there is an increase but it comes from more dead criminals, then yeah, I'm OK with that price for reduced crime.Neither an increase nor a reduction are a given, but my view is that a general upping of the ante with regards to private citizens being allowed deadly force will lead to more violent deaths, and not just of criminals. I want the state to set the rules of engagement that I and society are comfortable with (and if I disagree with society then that's my bad fortune). I don't want to have a gun. If robbers can be legitimately shot dead by their intended victims then the risk premium for being a robber increases—which means that the robber will need to become less risk averse, or stop being a robber. It seems logical that robbery itself will become a more violent crime, and being a victim of robbery will be a more violent business. Even if the police are able to report that robberies are down after a while (but that the equilibrium death toll per robbery is higher) I think that is going to only increase the perceived threat to society. I will end up feeling compelled to have a gun because a crime—which might be falling—is nonetheless more violent. I would consider myself worse off

I want the state to take action against crime and am not keen to let the state off the hook by delegating the risk to me.

[KingMerv00]

Wrong. That is based on the fact that they are indiscriminant. They could kill an innocent person. Like a fireman coming into the burning building. Are you sure you’re a lawyer?

In fact I am not a lawyer. Never said I was. I am going to law school. I haven't even finished criminal law thank you very much.

Any evidence for your legal theory?

[KingMerv00]

Considering that he seems to be saying that a civil case could put me in jail, I don't think he's shaping up to be a very good one. I lost interest after the LSAT myself, but even I know that a tort is ipso facto non-criminal.

I must have missed the part where I said a civil case can put you in jail.

I was referring to a tort case because that one was the first to pop into my mind for defense of property. I'm apologize for not having a legal library waiting for you.

Holy crap you are rude.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Is the perpetrator standing on my favorite rug?

I have thought about this, and if I find someone in my house and I don't know their intentions, I would point a gun at them and ask them to surrender. That is, lie down on the floor and wait for the authorities. If they have a problem with that, then they are going to get shot. They would not get long to think about it. I would use my best drill sergeant voice and start counting down quickly, "GET DOWN ON THE FLOOR OR DIE IN 5, 4, 3, 2, 1."

If I find someone pushing my harley out of my workshop in the middle of the night, I will give them the same opportunity. The only difference is they better put the kickstand down. If my bike falls over, they do too.

In the first case, I don't know if my family is being threatened or not. In the second case it is clear they are not. I don't care. I don't know how they do it in California, but no court in South Carolina will convict me for shooting a burglar in the act.

[KingMerv00]

There seems to be a serious communication problem here. The title of the thread refers to defending your "property". This could mean movable property or real property (your house). The legal situation is very different depending on which you are talking about and the exact facts of the case.

I think Jocko and the painter are imagining the "burglar in the house" scenario. I, on the other hand, am referring to ALL property.

Generally speaking, the use of deadly force on a burglar is not unreasonable.

Generally speaking, the use of deadly force on a thief running away with a purse is unreasonable.

I'm sure Jocko and the painter will feel the need to insult me for something I've written here.

Edit:

http://wiki-law.org/mwiki/index.php?title=Defense_of_Property_or_Habitation

[Ziggurat]

Is this self-preservation in a "lawless society" sense? Self-preservation for me points towards appointing a state that prevents and punishes crime most effectively, for preservation of my liberty.

If there is not a willingness to kill, at least under SOME circumstances, in order to defend something, then you have no real defense of it. That applies to property as well as your life. Appointing the state to do this job is all well and good, and as a practical matter it certainly makes sense in most cases, but again, if you aren't willing to do it yourself, at least in some cases, then how on earth can you expect the state to do what you would not, and why on earth would you want to prevent yourself from being able to do what the state is supposed to do in the event that the state fails in its own responsibility?

[Francesca R]

If there is not a willingness to kill, at least under SOME circumstances, in order to defend something, then you have no real defense of it. That applies to property as well as your life.I don't consider myself to have the ultimate, final defence against theft of property in any and all circumstances—particularly if the state fails. Neither do you though, armed or not. That doesn't mean I have no defence against it. (What does no "real" defence mean?).

Appointing the state to do this job is all well and good, and as a practical matter it certainly makes sense in most cases, but again, if you aren't willing to do it yourself, at least in some cases, then how on earth can you expect the state to do what you would notOf course I can expect the state to do it. The state has a monopoly on the use of legitimate force to punish, and on the use of lethal force to prevent. I choose to live in a society that appoints statehood to do that on my behalf. Why—therefore—do I need to be willing to do it myself?

and why on earth would you want to prevent yourself from being able to do what the state is supposed to do in the event that the state fails in its own responsibility?If I believe that the cost of that legal freedom is going to be greater than the benefit. The state is going to fail to prevent some theft—that is certain. Shoot-to-kill rights for citizens might prevent some theft. But might (will IMO) increase violent deaths and the level of fear in the society.

[Ziggurat]

I don't consider myself to have the ultimate, final defence against theft of property in any and all circumstances

But I'm not talking about "any and all circumstances". I'm talking about at least SOME circumstances.

Of course I can expect the state to do it. The state has a monopoly on the use of legitimate force to punish, and on the use of lethal force to prevent.

I agree about the first part (monopoly on force for punishment), but not the second (monopoly on force for prevention). Surely you conceed that you have a right to use lethal force to protect your life, correct? Even though you do not have the right to use lethal force to punish murder. Which means the state's monopoly on lethal force for prevention is already not absolute.

I choose to live in a society that appoints statehood to do that on my behalf. Why—therefore—do I need to be willing to do it myself?

I think it's foolish to depend upon the competence of the state completely. And that's what I think your position essentially is: whether or not the state is appointed to do something, it can and will fail to do what it is appointed to do.

[Mephisto]

There seems to be a serious communication problem here. The title of the thread refers to defending your "property". This could mean movable property or real property (your house). The legal situation is very different depending on which you are talking about and the exact facts of the case.

I think Jocko and the painter are imagining the "burglar in the house" scenario. I, on the other hand, am referring to ALL property.

Generally speaking, the use of deadly force on a burglar is not unreasonable.

Generally speaking, the use of deadly force on a thief running away with a purse is unreasonable.

I'm sure Jocko and the painter will feel the need to insult me for something I've written here.

I agree with you 100%. I thought I would add one more comment to this thread, lest I be seen as inordinately bloodthirsty (remember, I'm the guy who wouldn't lift a finger to help Rush Limbaugh).

It all goes back to what Tricky said - it depends.

If I'm coming home with my family and I see our home being burglarized, no, I wouldn't rush in with guns blazing. If I heard someone stealing my car or my truck in the middle of the night, no I would pick up the telephone before I picked up a firearm. If someone has broken into my storage shed, nope - nothing in there but expensive tools, not worth killing someone over.

But, if someone tries to enter my home when I'm there (or especially when my family is there) and it's obvious that someone is home - they won't get too far before they're incapacitated, and the degree depends solely on them. ANYONE entering a home at night when it is a reasonable guess that someone is home, can automatically be considered dangerous. Burglars don't normally want to encounter a homeowner, but a home invasion type robbery is open to interpretation - they likely have other things in mind than simply making off with loot.

I would applaud the use of deadly force in this instance especially if it were applied by a young person, a woman or the infirm or elderly. If anything, it would make certain that one particular person wouldn't be doing it again.

[Francesca R]

But I'm not talking about "any and all circumstances". I'm talking about at least SOME circumstances.OK so if you can shoot-to-kill, then you can reduce your risk of being stolen from, but not eliminate it. Fine, but is the risk reduction worth it—particularly if it increases other (more dangerous IMO) risks? Not to me.

I agree about the first part (monopoly on force for punishment), but not the second (monopoly on force for prevention). Surely you conceed that you have a right to use lethal force to protect your life, correct?Correct—I was on the subject of theft of property.

I think it's foolish to depend upon the competence of the state completely. And that's what I think your position essentially is: whether or not the state is appointed to do something, it can and will fail to do what it is appointed to do.Are you saying that you are fully protected against state failure (to prevent someone stealing from you)? I doubt it. Maybe you are saying you have an option that will theoretically fully protect you. But depending on a theoretical is the same as what I am doing. You have more confidence in one theoretical than the other is all.

[Jocko]

I must have missed the part where I said a civil case can put you in jail.

Maybe the part where you said I could enjoy piece[sic] of mind in prison, then backed it up with a tort example?

I was referring to a tort case because that one was the first to pop into my mind for defense of property. I'm apologize for not having a legal library waiting for you.

Yet you felt secure in predicting prison for me. I never asked for a library, I asked you to back up your assertion with a single fact, a single law, from any friggin' state and you come back with nothing. NOTHING.

Holy crap you are rude.

Hey, I'm not the one saying you'd be put in prison. Stick your false indignation right up your habeas corpus.

[Jocko]

I think Jocko and the painter are imagining the "burglar in the house" scenario. I, on the other hand, am referring to ALL property.

Where do you keep your property?

Generally speaking, the use of deadly force on a burglar is not unreasonable.

Still waiting for anything that even resembles evidence. A sparse Wiki page of general definitions is no more convincing than your own rather broad and unsupported declarations. How about an actual law?

Generally speaking, the use of deadly force on a thief running away with a purse is unreasonable.

Ditto above.

I'm sure Jocko and the painter will feel the need to insult me for something I've written here.

Insult /= basic common sense. Just like tort /= criminality.

[Jocko]

In fact I am not a lawyer. Never said I was. I am going to law school. I haven't even finished criminal law thank you very much.

Any evidence for your legal theory?

Ah-ah-ah... no fair. You were asked first.

[KingMerv00]

Maybe the part where you said I could enjoy piece[sic] of mind in prison, then backed it up with a tort example?

The tort example was the only one that came to mind at the time. I am at work and I didn't have time to look up a proper example. I'll do that later.

Tort law and criminal often run parallel though. Not always but often.

Yet you felt secure in predicting prison for me. I never asked for a library, I asked you to back up your assertion with a single fact, a single law, from any friggin' state and you come back with nothing. NOTHING.

I still feel secure. I just haven't had a chance to do proper research.

Hey, I'm not the one saying you'd be put in prison. Stick your false indignation right up your habeas corpus.

You might not go to prison but you probably would have broken the law. The jury might find you not guilty.

Charming.

[KingMerv00]

Where do you keep your property?

Many places. At home, in the bank, in my car, on my person.

Still waiting for anything that even resembles evidence. A sparse Wiki page of general definitions is no more convincing than your own rather broad and unsupported declarations. How about an actual law?

See post above.

Insult /= basic common sense. Just like tort /= criminality.

I knew that the tort was not the best example. Have a little patience and you will get a better answer.

[KingMerv00]

Ah-ah-ah... no fair. You were asked first.

Two legal theories have been put forth. Neither on its face seems much more likely than the other. I WILL get to the research. In the meantime, you should too.

The burden of proof isn't on who gets asked first.

[firecoins]

Only if my life or that ov a loved one was threatened. Id probably just beat them up if its just property....Its highly unlikely I would be capable of beating anyone up much less kill them.

[RenaissanceBiker]

There seems to be a serious communication problem here. The title of the thread refers to defending your "property". This could mean movable property or real property (your house). The legal situation is very different depending on which you are talking about and the exact facts of the case.


OK, then l stand by my Harley response. I keep my bike in a 12x20 workshop that is about 25 feet behind my house. It is a sturdy building on a concrete slab with double doors. I built it myself. The siding is a concrete product called hardi-board. The windows are small, locked and inside a fenced area with my dogs. The door has a standard exterior handle and deadbolt just like my house. It opens onto a small porch outside the fenced area. I doubt that someone can break into this building without alerting my dogs (2 beagles). They have awakened me many times to alert me to the presence of intruding possums. I reward them for this. My bedroom window looks out into my backyard. I can sit up in my bed, peek out the blinds and see the shop.

Now a smart bike theif would run at the sound of the beagles howling, not because they are afraid of dogs behind a fence but because they know this will wake up a homeowner. Let's assume they don't run because they are stupid or I woke up because of something else. I would get my shotgun, call the police, and go out the front door. This would be more stealthy than the back. I would then walk around the house and confront one or more theives moving my bike. The first sound I would let them hear is the shotgun bolt as I chamber a shell. I would then shout, "FREEZE! IF YOU RUN, YOU DIE. DON'T MOVE! PUT THE KICKSTAND DOWN NOW AND STEP AWAY FROM THE BIKE. GET DOWN ON THE GROUND OR DIE IN 5, 4, 3, 2, 1." If they don't do exactly as I say, I will shoot. Some of you will disagree with that. Fine, that's how you can do it. If Joe Burglar wants to explain something to me or to the law, he will get on the ground. Otherwise he can take his chances with my skeet skills and I'll take my chances with the legal system.

[skeptifem]

these kinds of questions are kind of silly to ask.

I knew a guy who bragged about how he wasnt afraid of getting robbed because he got robbed all the time at his last job, he got robbed and pissed his pants.

another group of guys that owned a video game store were talking about how they could take down anyone trying to hold them up and they did end up getting held up later, one guy got shot in the leg and the rest remained uninjured but didtn do anything at all.

[Ziggurat]

Are you saying that you are fully protected against state failure (to prevent someone stealing from you)? I doubt it.

No, I'm saying I have the right to TRY to protect myself and my property, and do not wish to be fully at the mercy of the state in this regard, as you prefer.

[KingMerv00]

OK, then l stand by my Harley response. I keep my bike in a 12x20 workshop that is about 25 feet behind my house. It is a sturdy building on a concrete slab with double doors. I built it myself. The siding is a concrete product called hardi-board. The windows are small, locked and inside a fenced area with my dogs. The door has a standard exterior handle and deadbolt just like my house. It opens onto a small porch outside the fenced area. I doubt that someone can break into this building without alerting my dogs (2 beagles). They have awakened me many times to alert me to the presence of intruding possums. I reward them for this. My bedroom window looks out into my backyard. I can sit up in my bed, peek out the blinds and see the shop.

Now a smart bike theif would run at the sound of the beagles howling, not because they are afraid of dogs behind a fence but because they know this will wake up a homeowner. Let's assume they don't run because they are stupid or I woke up because of something else. I would get my shotgun, call the police, and go out the front door. This would be more stealthy than the back. I would then walk around the house and confront one or more theives moving my bike. The first sound I would let them hear is the shotgun bolt as I chamber a shell. I would then shout, "FREEZE! IF YOU RUN, YOU DIE. DON'T MOVE! PUT THE KICKSTAND DOWN NOW AND STEP AWAY FROM THE BIKE. GET DOWN ON THE GROUND OR DIE IN 5, 4, 3, 2, 1." If they don't do exactly as I say, I will shoot. Some of you will disagree with that. Fine, that's how you can do it. If Joe Burglar wants to explain something to me or to the law, he will get on the ground. Otherwise he can take his chances with my skeet skills and I'll take my chances with the legal system.

Hey, I'm not saying I agree with the law. I'm just telling you what it is to the best of my understanding.

Your fate would be up to a jury. They would probably be sympathetic since you are being robbed but you never know.

[pipelineaudio]

Hey, I'm not saying I agree with the law. I'm just telling you what it is to the best of my understanding.

Your fate would be up to a jury. They would probably be sympathetic since you are being robbed but you never know.

I wouldnt count on it. Race could play a factor quickly. If the robber was nonwhite, the act of defending your property would also be a hate crime, and that could get tricky for the defense

[Jocko]

The tort example was the only one that came to mind at the time. I am at work and I didn't have time to look up a proper example. I'll do that later.

You found time to predict prison for defending one's property; perhaps you should do your research first.

Tort law and criminal often run parallel though. Not always but often.

What the hell does this even mean? What "parallel" can you possibly draw? Criminal law deals with an offense against the state, as defined IN DETAIL by criminal code. Civil law is a free-for-all that allows people to sue other people for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all. The burden of proof is completely different, the jury applications are completely different and the judgments are completely different.

The only thing that is meaningfully "parallel" is that they both involve a courtroom. This is just another ill-conceived off-the-cuff pile of malarkey that makes me think your career in law is already in trouble.

I still feel secure. I just haven't had a chance to do proper research.

So you're right until proven wrong? Get out of my courtroom, counselor, and take your "feelings" with you.


You might not go to prison but you probably would have broken the law. The jury might find you not guilty.

Wow, a combination backpedal and unfounded assumption with a dash of conjecture thrown in for good measure at the end - and you STILL HAVEN'T FOUND A LAW THAT BACKS YOUR POSITION.

No law, no trial. No trial, no jury. No jury, no conviction. No conviction, NO PRISON. Clear enough for you?

Charming.

Charm will only get you so far, counselor-wannabe.

[RenaissanceBiker]

It would be safer for me to use the .270 and take them out unannounced from a distance. However, I would use the shotgun because it would be less likely to injure a neighbor or damage other property. I would announce my presence and give the perp a chance to surrender just because I would want to be able to say that I did in court.

Back in the 80's when I lived in Louisville, there was a case where a man killed someone who was stealing his car stereo. The car owner was an avid bow hunter. He heard a noise in his driveway late at night and went out to investigate. He saw a man in his car trying to remove the stereo. He came to full draw with a broadhead and told the burglar to get out of the car. The burglar looked at him and finished removing the stereo. The burglar then tried to run away with it. The broadhead struck the burglar in the back of his neck and stuck out his mouth. There was a huge pool of blood in the street where he stopped and pulled it out. They found him dead under a bush 3 houses down still holding the stereo. The case got plenty of TV coverage. The hunter was not even charged because the whole city considered him a hero. If you do have to do something like this, make sure the media gets your side early.

[Jocko]

Two legal theories have been put forth. Neither on its face seems much more likely than the other. I WILL get to the research. In the meantime, you should too.

I think you mean, one (yours) is a transparently obvious pile of manure. And I don't need to reasearch anything - my claim was that I was willing to kill to protect my property and you opined, without invitation, that prison would be the result. We're still trying to get you to back up your assertion. My only claim is that your agrument is crap.

The burden of proof isn't on who gets asked first.

No one said it was. That's not the issue. Whether your claim came first or second has no impact on the fact that it's more than wrong - it's VERY wrong.

By the way, it's amazing how much "work" time you devote to compounding your errors and complaining about how much charm is being applied to you, but you can't manage five minutes to dig up a shred of evidence?

[Jocko]

Hey, I'm not saying I agree with the law. I'm just telling you what it is to the best of my understanding.

Your fate would be up to a jury. They would probably be sympathetic since you are being robbed but you never know.

This is a lie. Cite an example of a law that would allow a state prosecutor to even charge him, let alone bring him to trial. The world doesn't operate according to "Merv's big book o' rules 'n laws," you know.

[KingMerv00]

Here Jocko. 20 min on Lexis Nexis. I picked California because I figured the high population would yield more results. This also addresses the painter and our discussion on maptraps.

From People v. Ceballos, 12 Cal. 3d 470

With respect to Civ. Code, § 50 (http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=fcd76d89913aaff765878385cee5ced0&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5b12%20Cal.%203d%20470%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=10&_butInline=1&_butinfo=CA%20CIV%2050&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAb&_md5=5ebe98f8807e3fbab3f8fca76d3afefe), declaring that any necessary force may be used "to protect from wrongful injury the person or property of oneself" the court explained that this statute must be read in the light of the common law rule that, ordinarily, deadly force could not be used for the sole purpose of protecting property. In addition to holding that under the statutes and case law, the owner could not have shown justification for invoking deadly force by direct action, the court expressly rejected the view that a person is not liable for injury or homicide caused by a deadly device he erected on his property where the intrusion by the victim of the device was such that had the erector been present at the intrusion, he would have been justified in killing or inflicting bodily harm.

Bolding mine.

Painter was partly right. Mantraps are not allowed because the use of deadly force is prohibited to defend property AND because they may harm innocents.

[KingMerv00]

You found time to predict prison for defending one's property; perhaps you should do your research first.


I made my prediction based on what we covered in class. I just didn't have the time to give you a proper cite.

What the hell does this even mean? What "parallel" can you possibly draw? Criminal law deals with an offense against the state, as defined IN DETAIL by criminal code. Civil law is a free-for-all that allows people to sue other people for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all. The burden of proof is completely different, the jury applications are completely different and the judgments are completely different.

They can be parallel in their legal tests.

Civil law is not a "free-for-all" you are not allowed to sue for no reason at all.

The only thing that is meaningfully "parallel" is that they both involve a courtroom. This is just another ill-conceived off-the-cuff pile of malarkey that makes me think your career in law is already in trouble.

See above. Lay off the coffee.

Wow, a combination backpedal and unfounded assumption with a dash of conjecture thrown in for good measure at the end - and you STILL HAVEN'T FOUND A LAW THAT BACKS YOUR POSITION.

No law, no trial. No trial, no jury. No jury, no conviction. No conviction, NO PRISON. Clear enough for you?

See cite above. Pretty clear.

[Ziggurat]

Painter was partly right. Mantraps are not allowed because the use of deadly force is prohibited to defend property AND because they may harm innocents.

Not quite. Note the bolded word "ordinarily": that allows for some cases in which deadly force can be permitted, even though this particular case is not among them. Note further that this ruling does NOT prohibit an injury-causing device in situations where the erector causing injury/death directly would be permitted. As a practical matter, it's hard to see how one could set up a device to guarantee such behavior, but that ruling does not itself categorically forbid such a device.

[KingMerv00]

This is a lie. Cite an example of a law that would allow a state prosecutor to even charge him, let alone bring him to trial. The world doesn't operate according to "Merv's big book o' rules 'n laws," you know.

Do you know what a lie is?

[KingMerv00]

Not quite. Note the bolded word "ordinarily": that allows for some cases in which deadly force can be permitted, even though this particular case is not among them.

True enough. The law always has exceptions.

Note further that this ruling does NOT prohibit an injury-causing device in situations where the erector causing injury/death directly would be permitted. As a practical matter, it's hard to see how one could set up a device to guarantee such behavior, but that ruling does not itself categorically forbid such a device.

Also true. I might have been overzealous with my use of the word "prohibited".

[KingMerv00]

Ok Jocko.

Care to answer in a civil tone now? I really am willing to be shown wrong.

[RenaissanceBiker]

these kinds of questions are kind of silly to ask.

I knew a guy who bragged about how he wasnt afraid of getting robbed because he got robbed all the time at his last job, he got robbed and pissed his pants.

another group of guys that owned a video game store were talking about how they could take down anyone trying to hold them up and they did end up getting held up later, one guy got shot in the leg and the rest remained uninjured but didtn do anything at all.

If an armed robber has the drop on you, bravery is useless. Cooperate. Say something like, "I'm not taking a bullet for my dumbass boss. Here's the cash. Do you want me to help you carry some beer out?" or "Take what you want, I just want to see my wife and kids again." You can try something brave if you get a good opportunity, but your first priority should be your own survival. I would kill someone to protect my valuable property at home, but If I worked in a convenience store I would only kill to protect myself. Whether or not the perp gets away, that would be my last day on that job.

[Crossbow]

So killing an intruder on your property is against the law?

Show me where. Pick any state you like.

Just to jump in here 'Jocko', since you seem to be terribly confused about this issue.

Here is a document I found from the state of New Jersey that spells out just how and when reasonable force and deadly force can be legally used to defend property and life.

JUSTIFICATION - SELF DEFENSE
In Self Protection
(N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4)

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/charges/justif001.pdf


Deadly Force

The use of deadly force may be justified only to defend against force or the threat of force of nearly equal severity and is not justifiable unless the defendant reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect (himself/herself) against death or serious bodily harm. Deadly force is defined as force that the defendant uses with the purpose of causing or which (he/she) knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. ...

One cannot respond with deadly force to a threat of or even an actual minor attack. ...


Please note that the law flatly states the specific circumstances of when Deadly Force can be used and that minor attacks do not justify the use of Deadly Force.

It also has provisions specifying when is obligated to retreat from the agressor as as opposed to applying the Deadly Force to the agressor.

You wanted an example of state code, here you go!

By the way, even if a person is aquitted of improper use of reasonable force or deadly force, that person can still be held liable for civil damages (as what happened to Rodney King and Bernard Goetz).

[RenaissanceBiker]

That's why I don't live in New Jersey.

Edit: In South Carolina, you can use deadly force in defense of property.

“…in the protection of one’s dwelling, only such force must be used as is necessary, or apparently necessary, to a reasonably prudent man. Any greater expenditure cannot be justifiable and is therefore punishable. State v. Hibler, 79 S.C. 170, 60 S.E. 438 (1907).
“[t]he weight of modern authority limits deadly force in a defense of a dwelling to situations in which the householder reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony or only when deadly force would be authorized by the law of self-defense.” McAninch and Fairey.

So it appears that in the case of someone attempting to steal my bike while on my property (a felony) I am justified in using deadly force.

Here's more on the law down here.
http://www.sled.sc.gov/sled/default.asp?Category=sccwp&Service=Reciprocity

I was unaware of the finer points of duty to retreat and defense of others.

[KingMerv00]

Just to jump in here 'Jocko', since you seem to be terribly confused about this issue.

Here is a document I found from the state of New Jersey that spells out just how and when reasonable force and deadly force can be legally used to defend property and life.

JUSTIFICATION - SELF DEFENSE
In Self Protection
(N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4)

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/charges/justif001.pdf



Please note that the law flatly states the specific circumstances of when Deadly Force can be used and that minor attacks do not justify the use of Deadly Force.

It also has provisions specifying when is obligated to retreat from the agressor as as opposed to applying the Deadly Force to the agressor.

You wanted an example of state code, here you go!

By the way, even if a person is aquitted of improper use of reasonable force or deadly force, that person can still be held liable for civil damages (as what happened to Rodney King and Bernard Goetz).

Thanks. I think between this statute and the case I posted, it is pretty clear.

[KingMerv00]

That's why I don't live in New Jersey.

Here's a case from South Carolina:


OVERVIEW: (http://forums.randi.org/) Defendant killed another upon his property. He was convicted of manslaughter. The court reversed. The trial court had instructed that the right of an occupant of property to expel a trespasser and to use such force as was necessary, even killing him, was limited to the place of his habitation or his curtilage, and did not apply to other parts of the occupant's premises. The court found that the trial court should have also instructed that a man's place of business, his office, his workshop, or factory, fell within the meaning of his "domicile" under certain conditions. The trial court had correctly absolved defendant from the duty of retreat, as he was on his own premises, but failed to give the jury clear instruction as to defendant's right to protect his property. The court believed that this failure very likely caused the jury to reach the conclusion that defendant was at fault. The trial court should have instructed that defendant could use such reasonable force, short of killing a person to protect the property; and that if, in the exercise of that right, defendant was assaulted, he could legally defend himself to the point of killing another, if that was reasonably required.

State v. Martin, 149 S.C. 464

Bolding mine obviously.

[KingMerv00]

That's why I don't live in New Jersey.

Edit: In South Carolina, you can use deadly force in defense of property.

“…in the protection of one’s dwelling, only such force must be used as is necessary, or apparently necessary, to a reasonably prudent man. Any greater expenditure cannot be justifiable and is therefore punishable. State v. Hibler, 79 S.C. 170, 60 S.E. 438 (1907).
“[t]he weight of modern authority limits deadly force in a defense of a dwelling to situations in which the householder reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony or only when deadly force would be authorized by the law of self-defense.” McAninch and Fairey.

So it appears that in the case of someone attempting to steal my bike while on my property (a felony) I am justified in using deadly force.

Here's more on the law down here.
http://www.sled.sc.gov/sled/default.asp?Category=sccwp&Service=Reciprocity

I was unaware of the finer points of duty to retreat and defense of others.

The cases you posted apply to a "dwelling" I believe, not all property. Still, I'm happy for you. :)

[Huntster]

.....Here is a document I found from the state of New Jersey that spells out just how and when reasonable force and deadly force can be legally used to defend property and life.....

......Please note that the law flatly states the specific circumstances of when Deadly Force can be used and that minor attacks do not justify the use of Deadly Force.

It also has provisions specifying when is obligated to retreat from the agressor as as opposed to applying the Deadly Force to the agressor.........

The times..............they are a'changing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law)................:

"Stand Your Ground" laws, sometimes called shoot-first laws by their critics, are statutes that allow the use of deadly force to defend against forcible unlawful entry or attack. These bills significantly expand the boundaries of legal self-defense by eliminating a person's duty to retreat from an invader or assailant in certain cases before resorting to the use of "defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another."

The state of Florida in the United States became the first to enact such a law on October 1, 2005. The Florida statute allows the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of a "forcible felony." Under the statute, forcible felonies include "treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."..........

........Since the enactment of the Florida legislation, South Dakota, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Indiana have adopted similar statutes, and other states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wyoming) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.[2]

Some of the states that have passed or are considering "stand your ground" legislation already are considered "stand your ground" in their case law. These states include: Washington State (per State v. Reynaldo Redmond), Indiana, and Georgia.......Utah has historically adhered to the principles of "stand your ground" without the need to refer to this new legislation. The use of deadly force to defend persons on one's own property is specifically permitted by Utah state law[3]. The law specifically states that a person does not have a duty to retreat[4] from a place where a person has lawfully entered or remained.

Alaska passed a law repealing any duty to retreat this past legislative session. If they're in your home, they're legal targets.

BOOM, BOOM, BOOM!

(I added that last little bit with the hope that Claus might see and enjoy it.........)

[KingMerv00]

The times..............they are a'changing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law)................:

The rules varies by state and state laws are always a'changing. I did find this part interesting though:

forcible felonies include "treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb...

I don't know if that definition of "forcible felonies" really changes the picture that much. With the possible exception of treason, all of those crimes seem to give the victim reasonable fear of direct bodily injury. You don't know a carjacking is ONLY a carjacking until after it is over. I think a reasonable person could conclude that their life is directly endangered in most of those felonies listed, with or without the statute.

Alaska passed a law repealing any duty to retreat this past legislative session. If they're in your home, they're legal targets.

It is my understanding that the "retreat rule" is pretty forgiving and doesn't exist in some states (Alaska isn't the first). I think it only applies to situations where one can retreat in complete safety.

I'm not disagreeing with you Hunster, I'm just saying that times aren't a'changing as much as it might seem.

[Jocko]

Just to jump in here 'Jocko', since you seem to be terribly confused about this issue.

Please note that the law flatly states the specific circumstances of when Deadly Force can be used and that minor attacks do not justify the use of Deadly Force.


You seem to be terribly confused about what I said, unless you equate "intruder" to "minor attack."

[Jocko]

Do you know what a lie is?

Do you know what a crime is?

[Jocko]

Thanks. I think between this statute and the case I posted, it is pretty clear.


If you were a sport, you'd shift 3 credit hours to Crossbow for doing your research for you.

[Jocko]

Here's a case from South Carolina:



State v. Martin, 149 S.C. 464

Bolding mine obviously.

Appeal on technicality of jury instruction. Spoken like a true lawyer.

So I accost intruder, and he responds in an unfriendly manner, be it verbally or non-verbally, which could be considered, under the law, as a form of assault. So this part comes into play:

if, in the exercise of that right, defendant was assaulted, he could legally defend himself to the point of killing another, if that was reasonably required.

So I shout, then I shoot. Same diff. I would like to see this case cited as a precedent before I hand you a gold star, Merv. Maybe you could spend a little time at the law library tomorrow and work that out.

[Huntster]

......I'm not disagreeing with you Hunster, I'm just saying that times aren't a'changing as much as it might seem.

I think if you combine the rapid change in many states regarding the carry of concealed firearms along with the number of states that have legislated change with regard to the use of deadly force, I think that the magnitude of change with regard to citizen's rights of self-defense would be noticable.

[RenaissanceBiker]

I'll let you legal highbrows argue about the letter of the law. I'm just an engineer. I happen to know a few of the LEOs around here and I'm pretty sure this is how it would go.

SCLEO: What happened here?

RB: I heard a noise outside and looked out my window. I saw these two guys breaking into my shop. So I called 911 and got my shotgun. I caught them pushing my bike out the door so I shouted for them to stop and informed them that I had a gun.

SCLEO: Then what happened?

RB: That one tried to run around behind me. I was scared because I didn't know if he was armed or if there was more of them around so I fired. Then that one threw my bike down and ran right at me. I had no choice. My wife and kids are in the house and I was the only one here between them and these crooks.

Perp1: (Gurgle)

Perp2: (Gasp)

SCLEO: Is your bike OK?

[Skeptic]

The question is, is it robbery or theft? Robbery means the threat of force to you or your loved ones, which many times (such as breaking into one's house, or holding you up at the threat of a gun) justifies deadly force. But theft without force--e.g., a purse snatcher, or if I see someone from far away just finishing breaking into my car--then deadly force is probably not jusitified.

[RenaissanceBiker]

I don't usually walk around carrying a gun. I've thought about getting a CCW permit, but I just don't see the need. I always carry a folding pocketknife that can be opened with one hand. If the Mrs. and I were walking down the street and someone snatched her purse, even if I had a gun I wouldn't use it. I might try to chase the perp down if I thought it was safe to leave the Mrs. for a moment. I would try to knock him down and restrain him but would not use deadly force.

[Crossbow]

Thanks. I think between this statute and the case I posted, it is pretty clear.

You are most welcome!

I noticed that the more recent 'Jocko' posts have been decidely less negative and personal, so I expect that even he may be getting the point that one cannot legally kill another just because that person may be scaring you, stealing something from you, or some such thing.

Killing in the name of self-defense is permissible, but only under rather narrow defined circumstances.

[Crossbow]

You seem to be terribly confused about what I said, unless you equate "intruder" to "minor attack."

Perhaps I am terribly confused by what you said.

Did you not say the below about killing to protect your property?

Yes, I would kill to defend anything I would miss. Not because I'm that attached to my collateral, but because I wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life wondering it would happen again.

I'd kill to protect my property, but the REASON is peace of mind. I won't live in fear for anyone. Family, pets, etc., that goes without saying. I'll keep pulling that trigger till it goes "click." You don't f**k with the Jesus.*


*See The Big Lebowski.

I sincerly hope that you can see by now that a person is simply not legally entitled to kill someone simply to protect their property.

[Crossbow]

I'll let you legal highbrows argue about the letter of the law. I'm just an engineer. I happen to know a few of the LEOs around here and I'm pretty sure this is how it would go.

SCLEO: What happened here?

RB: I heard a noise outside and looked out my window. I saw these two guys breaking into my shop. So I called 911 and got my shotgun. I caught them pushing my bike out the door so I shouted for them to stop and informed them that I had a gun.

SCLEO: Then what happened?

RB: That one tried to run around behind me. I was scared because I didn't know if he was armed or if there was more of them around so I fired. Then that one threw my bike down and ran right at me. I had no choice. My wife and kids are in the house and I was the only one here between them and these crooks.

Perp1: (Gurgle)

Perp2: (Gasp)

SCLEO: Is your bike OK?

Thank you!

I think that you are seeing how it works.

IF you are being robbed,
AND if you have a reasonable expectation that the robbers would kill you,
THEN you may well be legally justified in killing them.

Even if it turns out later that the robbers were unarmed, if you can still show that you thought that your life was in actual danger at the time of the conflict, then your deadly force may well be legally sanctioned. I for one would say that the scenario you outline would indeed meet legal muster. Generally, the courts have been quite generous in giving the benifit of the doubt to the person being agressed in such cases.

But just to reiterate, simply being robbed does not justify the use of deadly force. If that was the case, then the killing of minor shoplifters would be justified, killing of people with overdue library books, people walking out of their work with an extra pencil in their pocket, and so on. I seriously doubt that anyone wants to live in a world like that.

[KingMerv00]

Do you know what a crime is?

A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

Do you have any evidence that I intentionally tried to deceive you?

Let's be serious for a moment here. Did I wrong you in a past life or something? Why are you trying to start a flame war?

[ImaginalDisc]

Says who?

The law, with a few regional exceptions.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Thank you!

I think that you are seeing how it works.


Yep, history is written by the winners.

[ImaginalDisc]

I wouldnt count on it. Race could play a factor quickly. If the robber was nonwhite, the act of defending your property would also be a hate crime, and that could get tricky for the defense

Has this ever happened, or is this a paranoid delusion? Are you on drugs?

[RenaissanceBiker]

Here's a point for the legal eagles; in SC I have the right to use deadly force in defense of others if they would have the right to defend themselves.

If I hear something outside and see my neighbor, Chuck, confronting some robbers, when can I take them out with my .270?

[KingMerv00]

Appeal on technicality of jury instruction. Spoken like a true lawyer.

I think you are unfamiliar with how law works.

1) States write statutes.

2) Sometimes these statutes include difficult to interpret words or phrases like "reasonable force".

3) The court determines as a matter of law what "reasonable force" is.

4) The court invents a legal test on how to apply the law.

The case I gave you shows how the criminal court applies the law. This is actually more important than the statute itself in this case since your level of reasonableness can differ from someone else's. The only standard that matters is that of the court.

It is unimportant that the case I cited involved jury instructions. The legal rule was still applied.

So I accost intruder, and he responds in an unfriendly manner, be it verbally or non-verbally, which could be considered, under the law, as a form of assault. So this part comes into play:

Words alone are not assault. Though that can be used as evidence when interpreting someone's actions. In the event the intruder physically assaults you, your use of deadly force may become reasonable.

So I shout, then I shoot. Same diff. I would like to see this case cited as a precedent before I hand you a gold star, Merv. Maybe you could spend a little time at the law library tomorrow and work that out.

The case cites precedent and applies it. If you like, I can find out if this particular case was cited in later cases.

Do you know of any cases that support your POV?

[KingMerv00]

I'll let you legal highbrows argue about the letter of the law. I'm just an engineer. I happen to know a few of the LEOs around here and I'm pretty sure this is how it would go.

SCLEO: What happened here?

RB: I heard a noise outside and looked out my window. I saw these two guys breaking into my shop. So I called 911 and got my shotgun. I caught them pushing my bike out the door so I shouted for them to stop and informed them that I had a gun.

SCLEO: Then what happened?

RB: That one tried to run around behind me. I was scared because I didn't know if he was armed or if there was more of them around so I fired. Then that one threw my bike down and ran right at me. I had no choice. My wife and kids are in the house and I was the only one here between them and these crooks.

Perp1: (Gurgle)

Perp2: (Gasp)

SCLEO: Is your bike OK?

Heh...wouldn't surprise me.

[KingMerv00]

The case cites precedent and applies it. If you like, I can find out if this particular case was cited in later cases.

People v. Ceballos was used as precedent in the following cases:

People v. Quesada, 113 Cal. App. 3d 533

People v. Mathews (https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=dc8f85740472c425999e3fc883c6e85c&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5b12%20Cal.%203d%20470%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_lexsee=SHMID&_butType=3&_butStat=254&_butNum=300&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA %5b1979%20Cal.%20App.%20LEXIS%201646%5d%5d%3e%3c%2 fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtb-zSkAW&_md5=fe6914c730e96788d4525aa8a623fd08), 91 Cal. App. 3d 1018

In both cases, the court followed the rule set forth in Ceballos and gave it a positive analysis. The rule has not been overturned at the time of this post.

[Crossbow]

Here's a point for the legal eagles; in SC I have the right to use deadly force in defense of others if they would have the right to defend themselves.

If I hear something outside and see my neighbor, Chuck, confronting some robbers, when can I take them out with my .270?

Simple!

When you have a reasonable belief that the robbers are about to seriously hurt or kill Chuck.

The key term is "reasonable"; it shows up a lot in laws but is not always so simple to define in the very scant time that it can take for something very terrible to happen.

If the robbers draw a weapon (firearm, edged object, etc.) that may well constitute a reasonable belief since the robbers are already engaged in doing something illegal.
If the robbers draw a something that could be used as a weapon (cell phone, car keys, etc.), maybe so if they used the item in a way that could be considered threating. But then again, maybe not.
If the robbers turned around and walked off, there is probably no way you could legally justify shooting them since the immediate danger to Chuck had passed and you were not in danger to begin with. However, prior to that point, the robbers were still doing something illegal and such they could at least be charged with something like attempted robbery.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Jocko
Do you know what a crime is?
A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

Interesting. If I'm not mistaken (based on previous post exchanges with you), aren't you a lawyer?

It is not a crime to lie, unless under oath. Lying is often a critical component of a crime, but the crime is not the lie itself, unless the attempt to defraud someone of something (money, consideration, etc.) is also established.

If all lies were crimes, this forum would be a very lonely place, indeed.

[Tricky]

If I hear something outside and see my neighbor, Chuck, confronting some robbers, when can I take them out with my .270?
Did Boo Radley have the right to kill Bob Ewell?

[RenaissanceBiker]

Did Boo Radley have the right to kill Bob Ewell?

IIRC, the sheriff did not press charges.

[KingMerv00]

Hunster, here is the conversation in full. I think you misunderstood:

Jocko:
This is a lie. Cite an example of a law that would allow a state prosecutor to even charge him, let alone bring him to trial. The world doesn't operate according to "Merv's big book o' rules 'n laws," you know.

KingMerv00:
Do you know what a lie is?

Jocko:
Do you know what a crime is?

KingMerv00:
A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.


I was defining "lie" for Jocko, not "crime".

[KingMerv00]

Interesting. If I'm not mistaken (based on previous post exchanges with you), aren't you a lawyer?

It is not a crime to lie, unless under oath. Lying is often a critical component of a crime, but the crime is not the lie itself, unless the attempt to defraud someone of something (money, consideration, etc.) is also established.

If all lies were crimes, this forum would be a very lonely place, indeed.

I am not a lawyer. I am about 3/8 of the way through law school. I felt confident enough to comment on defense of property because we recently covered that issue in my criminal law class.

[Huntster]

Hunster, here is the conversation in full. I think you misunderstood:.....

.....I was defining "lie" for Jocko, not "crime".

Sorry about that.

That's what I get for not reading far enough................

[DanishDynamite]

Nope, I can't think of a single situation where I'd kill to protect my property, assuming normal circumstances. I've got insurance.

As MRC_Hans said, this action would only come into consideration if my life somehow depended vitaly on me retaining this specific possession here and now.

[Checkmite]

I agree with many people here, in that I would not kill to defend my property. My life, perhaps, but not my "stuff". I don't have too much of a problem with beating, thrashing, and bludgeoning to defend my property, though.

[luchog]

OK so if you can shoot-to-kill, then you can reduce your risk of being stolen from, but not eliminate it. Fine, but is the risk reduction worth it—particularly if it increases other (more dangerous IMO) risks? Not to me.

What increase in risk? If you're referring to the claim that an increase in lethal force in self-defense will result in robbers simply killing their victims first; then that has long since been debunked. In fact, in areas where concealed carry is easiest, and victims more likely to respond with deadly force, there has not been an increase in "shoot first, steal later" robberies. What has been is a small increase in the "pepper spray first, steal later" robberies; ie, muggers, and car-jackers using non-lethal means of incapacitating their victims. For the most part, would-be assailants simply hope that the threat of violence will be sufficient, and generally target those who don't appear to be able or willing to adequately defend themselves.

Are you saying that you are fully protected against state failure (to prevent someone stealing from you)? I doubt it. Maybe you are saying you have an option that will theoretically fully protect you. But depending on a theoretical is the same as what I am doing. You have more confidence in one theoretical than the other is all.
Straw man. No one is claiming that either method is foolproof.

But it's a matter of public record that 1) government police agencies are notobligated to prevent crime before the event; and 2) the failures rate of government protection is very high. Adding personal protection options dramatically reduces the chances of being injured or killed by a robber or other assailant. Not 100% effective, but 99%, or even 90% vs. 50% or less is a pretty d4mn good justification for self-protection.

[Crossbow]

Sorry about that.

That's what I get for not reading far enough................

I figured as much!

It takes a hypocrite such as 'Hunster' who to complain about the reading skills of someone else yet 'Huntster' is unable to spell and is unable to read.

[Francesca R]

What increase in risk? If you're referring to the claim that an increase in lethal force in self-defense will result in robbers simply killing their victims first; then that has long since been debunked.Not specifically no—but that legal use of lethal force as defence against property theft will probably result in more violent outcomes.

In fact, in areas where concealed carry is easiest, and victims more likely to respond with deadly force, there has not been an increase in "shoot first, steal later" robberies. What has been is a small increase in the "pepper spray first, steal later" robberies; ie, muggers, and car-jackers using non-lethal means of incapacitating their victims. For the most part, would-be assailants simply hope that the threat of violence will be sufficient, and generally target those who don't appear to be able or willing to adequately defend themselves.Note I was not considering whether carrying concealed guns is legal. Although carrying a gun would obviously need to be legal.

Straw man. No one is claiming that either method is foolproof. Well I wan't attributing such a position to anyone. (I was doubting that my respondent had such a position)

But it's a matter of public record that 1) government police agencies are notobligated to prevent crime before the event; and 2) the failures rate of government protection is very high. Agreed

Adding personal protection options dramatically reduces the chances of being injured or killed by a robber or other assailant.Appeals to statistics on this can be too easily disputed rendering any such claim mostly a matter of opinion based on preference.

[KingMerv00]

Three days have passed...I guess Jocko got tired of thrashing me soundly with logic and data.

Do I win yet?

[luchog]

Not specifically no—but that legal use of lethal force as defence against property theft will probably result in more violent outcomes.

No, as I said, that's been debunked. Read my previous post.


Appeals to statistics on this can be too easily disputed rendering any such claim mostly a matter of opinion based on preference.
Disputed how? It's established fact that firearms prevent a great number of violent crimes. According to FBI and BJS statistics for 2005, firearms are used an estimated 2.5 million times a year to prevent crimes. 75-80% of those times, the firearms are never even fired. By contrast, firearms are only used in 9% of violent crimes (which include robbery). As of 2006, 48 states have concealed carry laws, 39 of which are "shall issue" (ie, authorities cannot arbitrarily deny a concealed carry permit to anyone to meets eligibility requirements, which means adults over 21 with no felony criminal record).

Violent crime rates have been falling steadily since the mid-80s. So clearly an increase in the ability to defend one's self and one's property with lethal force did not lead to an increase in violent crime rates, but is in fact at least corelational, if not actually causative, with a decrease in violent crime rates.

How could it possibly be disputed that the legal use of lethal force does not lead to increases violent crime? There's no room for "opinion and prejudice". All the facts are squarely against your assertion.

[pipelineaudio]

Is this another "rich people got special rights" type of thing?

For instance, when a loomis armored car comes to the bank, those guys got guns. Can I just grab a money bag, and not worry about getting shot? Can they only draw those guns if I have a lethal weapon?

Or are rich peoples' property more important than my property?

[a_unique_person]

Three days have passed...I guess Jocko got tired of thrashing me soundly with logic and data.

Do I win yet?

I think he just ran out of insults and putdowns.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Sorry about that.

That's what I get for not reading far enough................
I figured as much!

It takes a hypocrite such as 'Hunster' who to complain about the reading skills of someone else yet 'Huntster' is unable to spell and is unable to read.

What are you crying about, fool?

You just can't get over getting caught with the WMD accusation, can you?

Do you want to get ugly, or do you want to grow up?

[RenaissanceBiker]

Is this another "rich people got special rights" type of thing?

For instance, when a loomis armored car comes to the bank, those guys got guns. Can I just grab a money bag, and not worry about getting shot? Can they only draw those guns if I have a lethal weapon?

Or are rich peoples' property more important than my property?

I may have missed something. How is your property involved when your try to rob an armored car?

[KingMerv00]

Is this another "rich people got special rights" type of thing?

Not in any way I can see.

For instance, when a loomis armored car comes to the bank, those guys got guns. Can I just grab a money bag, and not worry about getting shot?

If you rob an armored car, you should worry about getting shot. The guards aren't SUPPOSED to shoot you but...

Can they only draw those guns if I have a lethal weapon?

I don't know when guards/cops are allowed to draw guns.

Or are rich peoples' property more important than my property?

Don't see the connection.

[KingMerv00]

I think he just ran out of insults and putdowns.

By all means, let me help him then.

I'm short, skinny, and I can't dance.

[brodski]

I may have missed something. How is your property involved when your try to rob an armored car?

It's not, but I think he's asking if armed guards are allowed to shoot to protect property in situation where he wouldn't be allowed to shoot to protect his own property. The answer i think is "no", in fact I wouldn't be surprised if armed guards as (presumably) trained professionals where held to a higher standard of conduct than your average Joe who has just been confronted by an attacker.

[Francesca R]

No, as I said, that's been debunked. Read my previous post.You're not using a lot of critical analysis. I suspect you are believing what you want to believe, and presuming that scepticism of your claims is totally unfounded.

Disputed how? It's established fact that firearms prevent a great number of violent crimes. Not relevant. This is about the effectiveness of the threat of deadly force to combat or prevent property theft. But taking your statement in isolation—how many violent crimes do they encourage which would not occur without unfettered firearms availability?

Violent crime rates have been falling steadily since the mid-80s.[I think you mean "in the US"—and isn't it since the early 1990s?]. . . Which has all manner of possible explanations, ranging from "better policing" to the US Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs Wade. None of these explanations are "established fact", they tend to be believed by people who have an interest in believing them to be true.

So clearly an increase in the ability to defend one's self and one's property with lethal force did not lead to an increase in violent crime rates,What's the counterfactual? You don't have one. Violent crime might have fallen faster without this ability, and the fall might have been attenuated by gun availability. (PS—Are you sure it's actually legal where you are to use lethal force to defend property? It isn't where I am, which is not the US, which is not the only country on Earth.)

but is in fact at least corelational, if not actually causative, with a decrease in violent crime rates.A correlation is all you have and does not an "undisputed fact" make.

All the facts are squarely against your assertion.All facts? Careful! The US has a significantly higher murder rate per 100,000 civilians than does the UK.

Have you robbed yourself of the luxury of being even partially open minded on this issue?

[KingMerv00]

[I think you mean "in the US"—and isn't it since the early 1990s?]. . . Which has all manner of possible explanations, ranging from "better policing" to the US Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs Wade. None of these explanations are "established fact", they tend to be believed by people who have an interest in believing them to be true.


Not to butt in...

According to the uniform crime report (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm) crime has been dropping since 1991.

[Crossbow]

Three days have passed...I guess Jocko got tired of thrashing me soundly with logic and data.

Do I win yet?

Congratulations!

I noticed that 'Jocko' has not done any posting since his last post in this thread (about eight days ago), therefore I guess that you (along with your supporting cast known as "logic" and "data") have won.

:)

Hopefully, 'Jocko', and a few others, have now learned that it not legally permissible to kill someone just because that someone may be stealing your property.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00
Three days have passed...I guess Jocko got tired of thrashing me soundly with logic and data.

Do I win yet?
Congratulations!

I noticed that 'Jocko' has not done any posting since his last post in this thread (about eight days ago), therefore I guess that you (along with your supporting cast known as "logic" and "data") have won.

Wow! Congratulations!

Did you get a stuffed doll or something?

Hopefully, 'Jocko', and a few others, have now learned that it not legally permissible to kill someone just because that someone may be stealing your property.

It's not likely, because "winners" on this silly forum don't legislate law or set moral standards. All they do is pat each other on the back when they think they've "won" something.

[KingMerv00]

It's not likely, because "winners" on this silly forum don't legislate law or set moral standards. All they do is pat each other on the back when they think they've "won" something.

I don't pretend to but it is fun to see unfounded confidence shrivel sometimes. Especially after someone attacks you personally.

[Darth Rotor]

I don't pretend to but it is fun to see unfounded confidence shrivel sometimes. Especially after someone attacks you personally.
Time to do your victory dance. :) Oops, sorry, Merv can't dance.

I am here for you, KingMerv. I too am dancing impaired.

DR

[RenaissanceBiker]

Well I, for one, would kill to defend your right to dance poorly.

[Crossbow]

Well I, for one, would kill to defend your right to dance poorly.

You Gotta Fight for Your Right to PAAAAAARTY!

;)

[brodski]

You Gotta Fight for Your Right to PAAAAAARTY!

;)

But would you kill for it?

[Crossbow]

But would you kill for it?

Definitely not!

Although I have pretend killed quite a few people then proceed to party my you know what off.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Crossbow
You Gotta Fight for Your Right to PAAAAAARTY!

But would you kill for it?

I might be able to kill myself to demonstrate that right.

[brodski]

I might be able to kill myself to demonstrate that right.

Yeah, but once you've done that, I doubt you'd be much fun at parties anymore.

[luchog]

You're not using a lot of critical analysis. I suspect you are believing what you want to believe, and presuming that scepticism of your claims is totally unfounded.

Far more than you are, apparently, since you haven't provided a bit of data to back up your assertion, and I've provided quite a bit.

Not relevant. This is about the effectiveness of the threat of deadly force to combat or prevent property theft.

Property theft, aka robbery, is a violent crime per FBI and USDOJ stats. This includes home-invasion thefts as well as muggings. But not burglaries where the owner isn't around to defend his property. Do try to keep up.

But taking your statement in isolation—how many violent crimes do they encourage which would not occur without unfettered firearms availability?

From my reading, none. If you're asserting otherwise, provide evidence.

[I think you mean "in the US"—and isn't it since the early 1990s?]. . .

Of course I mean in the US. That's been the center of the entire discussion, with few exceptions. I don't have data on any other nation handy, and if I did, it'd require far more work to demonstrate, since crime reporting varies widely by country.

And no, it's since the mid-80s, just like I wrote, which you'd know if you bothered to do you homework.

Which has all manner of possible explanations, ranging from "better policing" to the US Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs Wade. None of these explanations are "established fact", they tend to be believed by people who have an interest in believing them to be true.

What? That's patently ludicrious. Policing hasn't changed at all; and I challenge you to come up with anything resembling a plausible scenario where Roe vs. Wade could possibly effect violent crime and theft rates. You might want to join the rest of us on Planet Earth before you think too hard about that one.

What's the counterfactual? You don't have one.

The who? Please speak English.

Violent crime might have fallen faster without this ability, and the fall might have been attenuated by gun availability.

Don't you get tired moving those goalposts all the time?

You claimed that the increase in ability to defend property with lethal force would lead to an increase in violent crime.

Speculation that it might have fallen faster without the presence of firearms is just that, speculation. Do you have to anything resembling data to back up your assertion, or was it obtained rectally like most of your other assertions?
(PS—Are you sure it's actually legal where you are to use lethal force to defend property?

Quite sure, yes, if there is a reasonable expectation of physical harm, which is legally assumed to be the case pretty much anytime you're dealing with a robbery or home-invasion.

It isn't where I am, which is not the US, which is not the only country on Earth.)

That's entirely your problem. As I recall, the UK doesn't even allow lethal force in self-defense.

A correlation is all you have and does not an "undisputed fact" make.

No, the correlation is the undisputed fact that refutes yoru assertion. Which is what I said the first time. Try again.

All facts? Careful! The US has a significantly higher murder rate per 100,000 civilians than does the UK.

No, really? Gosh, imagine that. Did you also notice that, while ours is going down, the UK's is going up, along with the violent crime rate in general? Even with the increasingly stringent restrictions and bans on firearms. Wonder why that is. Could it be that firearms aren't magical talismans that cause violent crime; but that the answers lie elsewhere?

Have you robbed yourself of the luxury of being even partially open minded on this issue?
No, I've just completely lost patience with idiots who won't even bother to familiarize themselves with even the basic facts before making ridiculous assertions; or simply ignore any inconvenient facts while trying to shift the scope of the debate. I'm perfectly happy to debate the issue with people who are intelligent and reasonable and have their facts straight and don't go all evasive and weasely when confronted with their errors.

[luchog]

Not to butt in...

According to the uniform crime report (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm) crime has been dropping since 1991.

Actually, violent crime, which includes home-invasion and robbery type thefts, which is what this thread is about, has been declining since 86/87. The UCR stats don't take into account a change in reporting criteria earlier in the '80s.

[Oliver]

Would you kill to defend your property?

Yes.

No kidding?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107456668ec34f2d.jpg

[Region Rat]

Would you kill to defend your property? Or rather, can you imagine a realistic situation where you would kill to defend your property?

(I was going to produce a hyopthetical situation, but decided to keep it general.)

I would attempt to wreak severe bodily harm on anyone who attempted to take anything of mine, and if they happened to die, that's the risk they took when they made their decision. Stuff is stuff, but a home invasion or robbery is a threat, and if the robber is unarmed, he will be shown a weapon and he best leave. If he shows a weapon, he will be taking a very large chance with his life. His choice.

You can cite all the statistics you want, but around where I live, there is so little home invasion type theft that I can't remember the last time it happened. I live in the country, and its a rare occasion when a homeowner doesn't have a shotgun, rifle or handgun handy. I have a conceal/carry license, and I use it. A very large number of people I work with also have them. I often leave my house unlocked when I leave for short periods, and I never lock my car outside of my house. (and no, I'm not telling you where I live):).

I live in the land of gun racks in the back of trucks, and most of the time they are filled. You would be hard pressed to convince me that the threat of getting popped doesn't keep the threat of breakins down. There are no shootings, because there seems to be no need for them.

[Region Rat]

No kidding?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107456668ec34f2d.jpg

So we're comparing dead kids (extreme poverty) to new SUV's (extreme wealth)?

I'm not sure I understand. Do you think if someone can afford a nice new SUV, they should just give it away to the first person who comes asking, because there's kids starving somewhere? Or if I have anything more than those starving kids, I should let it all be stolen because its not really necessary anyway? Or do you think that only the extremely wealthy are 'low' enough to want to commit 'murder' to save their precious 'stuff'?

Help me out. I want to understand.

[Oliver]

So we're comparing dead kids (extreme poverty) to new SUV's (extreme wealth)?

I'm not sure I understand. Do you think if someone can afford a nice new SUV, they should just give it away to the first person who comes asking, because there's kids starving somewhere? Or if I have anything more than those starving kids, I should let it all be stolen because its not really necessary anyway? Or do you think that only the extremely wealthy are 'low' enough to want to commit 'murder' to save their precious 'stuff'?

Help me out. I want to understand.

Well, the image says it already concerning the issue.
Define necessity: Live or property?

[Francesca R]

Far more than you are, apparently, since you haven't provided a bit of data to back up your assertion, and I've provided quite a bit.You're the one coming out with fallacies like "established fact" and "undisputed". You'd be better trying the term: "theory"

I challenge you to come up with anything resembling a plausible scenario where Roe vs. Wade could possibly effect violent crime and theft rates. You might want to join the rest of us on Planet Earth before you think too hard about that one.Levitt and Donohue (2000) (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=174508)

The who? Please speak English.Counterfactual (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861670941/counterfactual.html) is English. You don't know what would have happened without an increase in the ability to defend one's self and one's property with lethal force.

Don't you get tired moving those goalposts all the time?Your goalposts of "undisputed" and "established fact" are not on the field.

You claimed that the increase in ability to defend property with lethal force would lead to an increase in violent crime.I stated it as an opinion: "legal use of lethal force as defence against property theft will probably result in more violent outcomes."

Speculation that it might have fallen faster without the presence of firearms is just that, speculation. Do you have to anything resembling data to back up your assertion, or was it obtained rectally like most of your other assertions?Irrelevant. You are the one claiming things are "undisputed fact". And you are wrong. I may be wrong, but you are wrong.

No, the correlation is the undisputed fact that refutes yoru assertion. Which is what I said the first time. Try again.This is your statement:

How could it possibly be disputed that the legal use of lethal force does not lead to increases violent crime?And the answer is that the legal use of lethal force cannot be claimed to "undisputably not lead to increases in violent crime".

No, really? Gosh, imagine that. Did you also notice that, while ours is going down, the UK's is going up, along with the violent crime rate in general? Even with the increasingly stringent restrictions and bans on firearms. Wonder why that is. Could it be that firearms aren't magical talismans that cause violent crime; but that the answers lie elsewhere?You need to retreat at this point from your statement that: "All the facts are squarely against your assertion."

No, I've just completely lost patience with idiots who won't even bother to familiarize themselves with even the basic facts before making ridiculous assertions; or simply ignore any inconvenient facts while trying to shift the scope of the debate. I'm perfectly happy to debate the issue with people who are intelligent and reasonable and have their facts straight and don't go all evasive and weasely when confronted with their errors.Attempt at poisoning the well noted.

[a_unique_person]

I would attempt to wreak severe bodily harm on anyone who attempted to take anything of mine, and if they happened to die, that's the risk they took when they made their decision. Stuff is stuff, but a home invasion or robbery is a threat, and if the robber is unarmed, he will be shown a weapon and he best leave. If he shows a weapon, he will be taking a very large chance with his life. His choice.

You can cite all the statistics you want, but around where I live, there is so little home invasion type theft that I can't remember the last time it happened. I live in the country, and its a rare occasion when a homeowner doesn't have a shotgun, rifle or handgun handy. I have a conceal/carry license, and I use it. A very large number of people I work with also have them. I often leave my house unlocked when I leave for short periods, and I never lock my car outside of my house. (and no, I'm not telling you where I live):).

I live in the land of gun racks in the back of trucks, and most of the time they are filled. You would be hard pressed to convince me that the threat of getting popped doesn't keep the threat of breakins down. There are no shootings, because there seems to be no need for them.

I live in the burbs and home invasion is almost unheard of. it has never happened to me. One thing is true, the man who has nothing to lose is the most dangerous.

[Huntster]

Define necessity....

Necessity: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/necessity)

–noun, plural -ties.
1. something necessary or indispensable: food, shelter, and other necessities of life.
2. the fact of being necessary or indispensable; indispensability: the necessity of adequate housing.
3. an imperative requirement or need for something: the necessity for a quick decision.
4. the state or fact of being necessary or inevitable: to face the necessity of testifying in court.
5. an unavoidable need or compulsion to do something: not by choice but by necessity.
6. a state of being in financial need; poverty: a family in dire necessity.
7. Philosophy. the quality of following inevitably from logical, physical, or moral laws.
—Idiom8. of necessity, as an inevitable result; unavoidably; necessarily: Our trip to China must of necessity be postponed for a while.

Life or property?

Food is a necessity, but transportation is, too.

It's unfortunate that others are deprived of both for various reasons. People in areas with better climate, more resources, better political structure, and more stable peace do try to help such people, but like with all other human endeavors, perfection escapes us.

I don't have a Cadillac Escalade. I've got a 1985 Audi 4000 Quattro, a 1989 Dodge 3/4 ton pickup, and a 1999 Dodge Grand Caravan. If somebody tries to steal one of them from my garage or yard, I'll take a shot or two at them. My yard is very conducive for shotgun shootings (unlikely to hit other houses or cause collateral damage), no big deal shooting such old vehicles full of holes (it's likely to be burned up anyway soon at a wild, drunken party), and with all the high speed chases that go on if police spot the vehicle, I'd hate for the scumbag to hurt someone with my car.

As for the starving folks in North Africa, I'd say send in the Marines to see that the humanitarian aid gets to them instead of some warlord's pocket. The Marines need to shoot a few criminals over there, too.

I thought I'd edit to add this account of a recent event around here:

It's a popular activity for Anchorage scumbags to steal vehicles, take them out to the Knik River, then shoot them up and burn them in drunken parties. One such bum tried to steal a car from a local fellow's driveway. The owner, just emerging from the shower, saw the bum from the window. He ran out onto his deck in the buff with his weapon and commenced fire. The bum raced away with a minor wound, then led the police on a wild chase throughout the Valley, running three or four motorists off the road. After getting the shot up vehicle stuck in a ditch, he ran on foot to another residence and was in the process of attemting to steal another vehicle when police caught up with him and shot him dead when he fired on them.

He won't be stealing any more vehicles.

[Region Rat]

Well, the image says it already concerning the issue.
Define necessity: Live or property?

I'm not sure why necessity has anything to do with it. You say life is necessary but things aren't(?). Well, I would say that the life of a person who is using it to steal from others is not necessary. That person has no use in a civilized society, and I won't cry when that person is gone.

Now lets say that a person is starving and his kids are starving and the only way he has to feed his kids is to steal. He can come to my door, tell me that, and I'll give him some food. I will not give him my TV so he can sell it. If he tries to take it by force, I will keep him from doing it by force.

If we really think that things are unnecessary, and it is wrong to protect them from theft, lets make it a national law that all things can be taken by whoever wants them. That is what you are saying. It is only the threat of people who will not let that happen that thiefs just don't go door to door taking what they want.

If you're saying that its right to protect your things, but you can't or shouldn't kill to protect them, now you're just talking degree of force. And that degree is totally dependent on the degree of force the thief uses. If a little guy comes up to me and wants my wallet, he gets pushed away, not popped in the head with a 9mm. If he wants to fight for it, I'll fight back. If he has a weapon that can kill me, he takes a chance on getting killed himself.

As a very large digression to this thread (I apologize), with regards to the starving kids picture, I would also say it is unnecessary to have more kids than you can feed, when you are starving yourself. When you live in a part of the world that cannot sustain its current population, having kids so they can starve to death is your own fault. Cold? Yes. But that is the reality of survival.

[Oliver]

I´m waiting for my answer first. :)

[SirPhilip]

Well, the image says it already concerning the issue.
Define necessity: Live or property? The starving children are a result of their parents. This irresponsibility also extends to overpopulation. If you want to have some fun, we could debate who deserves to be cast into the 8'th circle of hell:

1) Decadent and hedonistic westerners; who are destroying the biosphere.

2) Bored third-world people, who are creating an ever-expanding inertia of human suffering.

[Region Rat]

I´m waiting for my answer first. :)

Your question does not have an either/or answer. I believe it is a false dichotomy.

[luchog]

Levitt and Donohue (2000) (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=174508)
Levitt's assertions are, at best, highly controversial. Levitt failed to include some highly important data, such as the steep increase and availability followed by an almost equally steep decline and fall in popularity of rock cocaine, the "crack wave", that occurred during the researched period, as well as a number of other factors. He also counted arrests on an absolute, not per-capita, basis. When this is corrected for, and arrests viewed in a per capita context, the claimed effect disappears.

Sorry, you must have a different definition of "plausible" than the standard one.

Counterfactual (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861670941/counterfactual.html) is English.

No, "counterfactual" is Jargon, not plain English.

You don't know what would have happened without an increase in the ability to defend one's self and one's property with lethal force.

Nope, that can easily be demonstrated by comparison to regions with similar population and culture, which did not have a similar ability to use lethal force. Regional comparisons show that crime rates decline at a similar or slower rate, or remain steady. In no case does the crime rate increase due to the increased ability to use lethal defensive force.

I stated it as an opinion: "legal use of lethal force as defence against property theft will probably result in more violent outcomes."

That's not stated as an opinion, that's stated as an assertion, which was subsequently disproven.

Irrelevant. You are the one claiming things are "undisputed fact". And you are wrong. I may be wrong, but you are wrong.

No, I'm not wrong. I provided the facts that support my assertion, you've provided nothing but an ignorant dismissal that indicates you have no knowledge of the facts in dispute. Your childish "Nuh uh, you are" just makes you look like an idiot, it doesn't change the facts.

You need to retreat at this point from your statement that: "All the facts are squarely against your assertion."

I will do so only when you provide facts that refute my point and support yours. You have not done so. You have not managed to dispute the facts that I provided, which are easily availble from the FBI and DoJ. Your asserting them to be wrong doesn't make it so. Provide evidence that they're wrong and you're right; otherwise you're just a woo cherry picking data to support an invalid assertion.

Attempt at poisoning the well noted.
Misapplication of logical fallacy and evasive accustion noted

[senorpogo]

Glenn Danzig finally weighes in after his equipment truck is stolen. (http://www.punknews.org/article/21154)

I should be able to kill somebody if they f:eek:k with me.

[Wheezebucket]

Batman teaches us that killing is never the answer. And last time I checked, he was the coolest.

Thank you, Batman.

[Budhess]

I once heard of a news article in Australia about a man bashing a burgular in his own house to a bloodly pulp, with one leg broken and the funny thing is, the own was fined and jailed for defending his property! LOL

[rikzilla]

It's a jungle out there!

Sans a functioning and honest police department you'd better either be prepared to fight and possibly kill to defend what's yours...or be prepared to become a minimalist.

-z

[KingMerv00]

I once heard of a news article in Australia about a man bashing a burgular in his own house to a bloodly pulp, with one leg broken and the funny thing is, the own was fined and jailed for defending his property! LOL

I'm not familiar with the case but he was probably jailed for excessive force not for defending his property.