• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Life and property

Shinz1212

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
23
Location
Greenwood, Indiana, USA
imported post

Not everything can be replaced LEO. Rims yes, television yes, the pocket watch you grandfather carried on him in WWI no. If they are successful in stealing your rims what is to stop them from coming back and taking the things that can't be replaced. Or harming your wife because you weren't home when they came in to take your TV.

Think about it, it's not about taking a life for property. It's about stopping a criminal from doing harm. A responsible gun owner knows that his firearm is not there to kill but to stop a threat to his life and the life of others.

And with the LE record for apprehending/recovering at 17% you can almost guarantee the bad guy will be back and bolder the next time.
 

Beau

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
672
Location
East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
dwilson9725 wrote:
Don't shoot someone over a set of rims thats just asking for trouble. As its already been said here thats what your car insurance is for. That said if you ask the person to get the hell off your property and they try to attack you then shoot them. But you will probably wish you hadn't, what its going to cost you in legal fees would buy you 100 sets of rims. I honestly hope to god that I never even have to draw a weapon let alone use one.
+1 on that!!

I have seen questions like this asked before...

I do not like the thought of some joker stealing my property... But insurance will cover it.

I personally cannot justify killing a man over my property. Just like I cannot understand how a criminal can kill someone for a few dollars or a watch.

It is sad that people are so eager and willing to kill another over something that can be replaced. :(

How do you define replaceable? And who gets to define it?

My kids are insured and I can always have more. Guess they can be replaced too.

I don't care if it's my garden shovel, rims or anything else.

IT'S MINE AND YOU CAN'T HAVE IT.

You'll get one chance to put "it" down......If your lucky.
 

dwilson9725

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
10
Location
, ,
imported post

How do you define replaceable? And who gets to define it?

My kids are insured and I can always have more. Guess they can be replaced too.

I don't care if it's my garden shovel, rims or anything else.

IT'S MINE AND YOU CAN'T HAVE IT.

You'll get one chance to put "it" down......If your lucky.
And if you actually shoot someone over a set of rims and say something like that to the judge where do you suppose you will be spending the rest of your life? The bottom line is you have no right to apply deadly force until you fear for your or someone elses life. Chances are if you catch the guy hes going to run and not make it off with the 'loot' anyway, criminals are cowards. Although I do agree we should have more property rights then we do, the fact is we do not. I can tell you one thing you won't see me trying to explain to a judge that I killed someone because they were trying to steal my rims or car stereo or whatever, I just really really do not see that as a good position to be in and I'd much rather replace the goods than risk going to prison for life over it.

Anytime you use deadly force you risk going to prison if the Judge/Jury do not see things your way (EVEN IF YOU WERE IN THE RIGHT), that is the scary thing. To me a couple thousand bucks in property is not worth the risk. That and if you have to hire a defense attorney for a murder charge your going to be spending a lot more money than if you just call the insurance company and have your stuff replaced. It's just not worth it....to me anyway.
 

Liko81

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
496
Location
Dallas, TX, ,
imported post

HiRoller wrote:
tattedupboy wrote:
The only state where deadly force may legally be employed in the defense of property is Texas. Therefore, you better be damn sure your life is in jeopardy before you use deadly force; thus, if he already has the wheels and is running away, you're just SOL, but at least you're alive.
IC 35-47-2-4 Version a
Qualified or unlimited licenses to carry handguns; fees; exemptions from payment of fees
Note: This version of section effective until 7-1-2007. See also following version of this section, effective 7-1-2007.
Sec. 4. (a) Licenses to carry handguns shall be either qualified or unlimited, and are valid for:
(1) four (4) years from the date of issue in the case of a four (4) year license; or
(2) the life of the individual receiving the license in the case of a lifetime license.
A qualified license shall be issued for hunting and target practice. The superintendent may adopt rules imposing limitations on the use and carrying of handguns under a license when handguns are carried by a licensee as a condition of employment. Unlimited licenses shall be issued for the purpose of the protection of life and property.
Um, what? This law covers the scope and lifetime of a carry license, not justification. "Protection of property" is shooting a burglar or home invader, not an escaping thief. Shooting at someone escaping with your stuff is attempting to RECOVER property, and the only state in which that is allowed is Texas.
 

Liko81

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
496
Location
Dallas, TX, ,
imported post

Shinz1212 wrote:
Not everything can be replaced LEO. Rims yes, television yes, the pocket watch you grandfather carried on him in WWI no. If they are successful in stealing your rims what is to stop them from coming back and taking the things that can't be replaced. Or harming your wife because you weren't home when they came in to take your TV.

Think about it, it's not about taking a life for property. It's about stopping a criminal from doing harm. A responsible gun owner knows that his firearm is not there to kill but to stop a threat to his life and the life of others.

And with the LE record for apprehending/recovering at 17% you can almost guarantee the bad guy will be back and bolder the next time.

You cannot assume that if you let a criminal escape that he'll be back for more later. If that criminal is not attempting to harm you physically when you pull that trigger, there is no justification. Period. Your opinion of criminals and what should be done to them notwithstanding, the criminal must pose an imminent threat to you. Protection of property is included because property is regarded as an extension of self in most common-law interpretations.

Let's explore that last point. Let's say that a burglar who has broken into your homecan beequated with a rapist. Are you allowed to shoot to prevent rape? In most cases, yes. Are you allowed to shoot to prevent burglary? In most cases, yes. Are you allowed to track your rapist down the next day (or even an hour afterward)and kill him to get your self-esteem back? Almost universally, no. Are you allowed to chase down the burglar and kill him to get your property back? Almost universally,no.

You are allowed to shoot to defend. You are not allowed to shoot to avenge. The quick mental rule is present vs past tense. If youwould tellsomeone on the phone right that second"the guyis doing X" and X is a forcible felony or threat of same, you are justified. If you would tell someoneon the phone"he did X", you are not justified even if the act X was "killing the family next door with a blunt axe".
 

Beau

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
672
Location
East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
imported post

dwilson9725 wrote:
How do you define replaceable? And who gets to define it?

My kids are insured and I can always have more. Guess they can be replaced too.

I don't care if it's my garden shovel, rims or anything else.

IT'S MINE AND YOU CAN'T HAVE IT.

You'll get one chance to put "it" down......If your lucky.
And if you actually shoot someone over a set of rims and say something like that to the judge where do you suppose you will be spending the rest of your life? The bottom line is you have no right to apply deadly force until you fear for your or someone elses life. Chances are if you catch the guy hes going to run and not make it off with the 'loot' anyway, criminals are cowards. Although I do agree we should have more property rights then we do, the fact is we do not. I can tell you one thing you won't see me trying to explain to a judge that I killed someone because they were trying to steal my rims or car stereo or whatever, I just really really do not see that as a good position to be in and I'd much rather replace the goods than risk going to prison for life over it.

Anytime you use deadly force you risk going to prison if the Judge/Jury do not see things your way (EVEN IF YOU WERE IN THE RIGHT), that is the scary thing. To me a couple thousand bucks in property is not worth the risk. That and if you have to hire a defense attorney for a murder charge your going to be spending a lot more money than if you just call the insurance company and have your stuff replaced. It's just not worth it....to me anyway.

You make a good argument. I expected it from someone. I am completely against you.

So lets stick with the rims.

So my rims have been stolen. Say I do have insurance. Now I have to file a claim with my insurance company. In the time it takes them to get me my check I can't drive. Being that I can't drive I can't get to work. Employer not very understanding and now I've lost my job. Now I have no money because I live paycheck to paycheck. My kids are hungry but I can't feed them because I have no car to get to the store and no money to buy the groceries.

I would say that my rims being stolen have put my life in danger. Yet you say I have no right to protect my property.

Now let's say I caught the criminal in the act of stealing my rims. What are my choices?

A) Call the police.

B) Confront the person and hope they just run away. Then call police.

C) Confront and be prepared to defend myself if the person attacks.

D) Defend my property using any means available including deadly force.

Iwould feel justified picking D. However, I would probably choose C. Maybe.

Hence my original closing statement. "You'll get one chance to put "it" down. If your lucky".

I use "it" and "if your lucky" because it depends on what it is. If "it" is property, your lucky, you'll get your chance. If "it" is a person and in danger you get no chance.
 

Phoenixphire

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
396
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
imported post

Well, just my two cents...

When someone attempts to steal my property, they have made a choice. In life, we all get to make choices. What we don't get to do is choose the consequence of that choice.

For example, we can choose to touch a hot stove. We do not get to choose if it is going to burn us or not. We may be able to forsee a consequence, but we don't get to choose it.

When the criminal makes the choice to act against myself or my property, he is subject to the consequences of that action. If the consequence of that choice is that I choose to fire against him, then so be it.

Now, my choice to fire has consquences as well. One can forsee possible consequences, but one can not be for certain what they may be.

This is where our legal system is flawed. It tries to set out what the consequences for an illegal act will NOT be. Basically, it states that if you steal something, it is illegal for someone to shoot you. It provides a "protection" to the criminal, a lowered state of risk.

The law should not be a tool to limit those who would defend themselves or their property. Instead, it should only limit the actions that are the ORIGINAL crime, not actions that occur as the result.
 

dwilson9725

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
10
Location
, ,
imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:
Well, just my two cents...

When someone attempts to steal my property, they have made a choice. In life, we all get to make choices. What we don't get to do is choose the consequence of that choice.

For example, we can choose to touch a hot stove. We do not get to choose if it is going to burn us or not. We may be able to forsee a consequence, but we don't get to choose it.

When the criminal makes the choice to act against myself or my property, he is subject to the consequences of that action. If the consequence of that choice is that I choose to fire against him, then so be it.

Now, my choice to fire has consquences as well. One can forsee possible consequences, but one can not be for certain what they may be.

This is where our legal system is flawed. It tries to set out what the consequences for an illegal act will NOT be. Basically, it states that if you steal something, it is illegal for someone to shoot you. It provides a "protection" to the criminal, a lowered state of risk.

The law should not be a tool to limit those who would defend themselves or their property. Instead, it should only limit the actions that are the ORIGINAL crime, not actions that occur as the result.
Agreed 1 Million Percent. However we don't live in a world where things are what they 'should' be. We live in the real world where things are what they are.
 

Prometheus

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
248
Location
NW Indiana, Indiana, USA
imported post

So my rims have been stolen. Say I do have insurance. Now I have to file a claim with my insurance company. In the time it takes them to get me my check I can't drive. Being that I can't drive I can't get to work. Employer not very understanding and now I've lost my job. Now I have no money because I live paycheck to paycheck. My kids are hungry but I can't feed them because I have no car to get to the store and no money to buy the groceries.


would say that my rims being stolen have put my life in danger. Yet you say I have no right to protect my property.


Excellent points.

I'd take it a step further for any property. Lets set aside the fact that when you file a claim insurance rates can go up or that as a burden it affects every insurance premium simply because of loss of profits.

Crook steals 1,000 dollars worth of my stuff. Victim has a $500 deductable. Victim is out 500 bucks.

Victim works as an EMT making 10 bucks an hour. On the surface you've just stolen 50 hours of this persons life. In reality it's even more time. After taxes the victim needs to work roughly 75 hours to earn the $500 in take home pay after taxes, FICA, SS holding ect. ect.

Based on a 40 hour work week the crook has stolen nearly 2 weeks of this persons life.

Surely if a criminal was going to tie up our hapless EMT for 12 days you'd say that justified lethal force wouldn't you?

So why doesn't property theft ALSO justify lethal force? In both cases days if not weeks (and possibly months for the poor SOB working at mickey d's) are being stolen/taken by force.

tattedupboy posted earlier a incorrect quote about being in "control of property" vs "authority of property". In either instance by the law, the owner of the property (or designee) is being referenced, not the criminal illegally holding the stolen goods. Also, no where does it say you have to be in fear of your life when defending property. These argments are similar I hear by people who think OC is illegal too. They have preconcieved notions and even showing them the law they read what they want to read by skimming. Its cool, things change and right now, you can defend property with force... what it was like back in the day I have no idea.
 

Hoosier8

New member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
3
Location
, ,
imported post

Unoid wrote:
A criminal can easily be replaced... :idea:
LOL

All life is sacred. That said, we all have to make choices for sustenance and self defense. Choose wisely.
 
Top