Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: WTF is wrong with protecting your property?

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705

    WTF is wrong with protecting your property?

    I read this story and I thought for sure it happened in Kommiefornia. No, it happened in Colorado which I've been told is full of people from Kommiefornia who had to look elsewhere for jobs after they ****** up their state with insipid liberalism.

    http://www.gazette.com/articles/jury...#ixzz1WAJvzqf5

    So let me get this straight. Your business is being robbed multiple times. Law enforcement can't prevent it, so you take matters into your own hands and permanently stop at least one druggie from ever offending again, then find yourself having to pay for "future wages" that ********* probably never would have earned?

    Let's say you own a business on the outskirts of a city amidst a rioting mob. You know they're looting and burning everything in sight. You take up a good tactical position with an SKS and snipe a few of the leaders before they can get too close. The rioters flee. Do you owe anyone anything? In my mind you need a medal. Korean store owners in LA did so, next thing you know SKS's are banned in Kommiefornia in their AWB (or so I'm told).

    http://www.zombiehunters.org/forum/v...p?f=16&t=45570

    Liberalism is the destroyer of civilization.

    We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
    ~Ronald Reagan~
    Last edited by PrayingForWar; 08-27-2011 at 10:44 AM.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Whether or not this verdict is just depends on the law in Colorado. Does Colorado law allow deadly force to protect property? If it does, then the property owner was acting within the law, and the family should have had no case. If Colorado law does not allow deadly force to protect property, then the property owner (in addition to the thug) broke the law, making him potentially criminally and civilly liable for the death of the thug.

    Legal or not, I would not have shot in that circumstance. I would have attempted to hold the thugs for the police, in the full realization that such may have proved vain if I were not willing to shoot until and unless life or limb were in imminent danger.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Whether or not this verdict is just depends on the law in Colorado. Does Colorado law allow deadly force to protect property? If it does, then the property owner was acting within the law, and the family should have had no case. If Colorado law does not allow deadly force to protect property, then the property owner (in addition to the thug) broke the law, making him potentially criminally and civilly liable for the death of the thug.

    Legal or not, I would not have shot in that circumstance. I would have attempted to hold the thugs for the police, in the full realization that such may have proved vain if I were not willing to shoot until and unless life or limb were in imminent danger.
    I'd say you have above average decency by not shooting in a situation where you were not being attacked. That said, if I were on the jury I would not convict a man who shot a burglar, nor would I assume a parasite might eventually become a productive citizen and award his relatives a pawltry sum of money (but enough to ruin a small business) because that idiot got ambushed by a fed up property owner.

    I believe Colorado law is wrong, since it obviously provides no protection of property. When your property provides the resources you need to provide sustenance for yourself and family, you should have the right to use any force available against anyone who breaches the boundaries of your property in the night with the intention of theft.

    The absence of that right promotes criminal behavior.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post


    Liberalism is the destroyer of civilization.

    We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
    ~Ronald Reagan~
    I agree with Reagan on this point. Although I wouldn't shoot, I wouldn't convict anyone of doing so in a similar situation. When you choose to enter someone property illegally and then steal stuff you put the value on your life not the hard working property owner.

    I disagree that liberalism is the destroyer of civilization though. Fake modern day "progressive" "liberals" are, their ideology is far from progress and far from freedom or liberty that originated the word liberal.

    Liberalism is the destroyer of empires and authoritarian rule though.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 08-28-2011 at 12:20 PM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member SovereignAxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Elizabethton, TN
    Posts
    795
    Near the end of the article it says this:

    Under Colorado’s self-defense laws, the use of deadly force is justified only under the “reasonable belief” that it’s necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death. The jury found that none of the men had a legitimate claim of self-defense.

    Property rights are not a lawful defense for using deadly force in Colorado, and the state’s so-called Make My Day law, which sets lower standard for using force, applies to households, not businesses.
    That being said, if I were on that jury panel there is no way I would vote to award this money. The family is asking for the money based on loss of companionship and future wages. The guys were on meth and looking to steal something to sell for more drug money. So I have to ask myself, what kind of companionship is a meth addict going to give, or what kind of wages are they going to earn for their family? Well, based on the actions stated, it sounds like absolutely nothing on both cases. These guys were thinking of no one but themselves, and were looking to score more drugs at the expense of a small business owner.

    It's sad that it had to come to this, but if anything, the shooters did society a favor and removed a couple of leeches.
    "Anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting twice." -Zeus

    "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!" - Malcolm Reynolds

    EDC = Walther PPQ 9mm

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Liberalism is the destroyer of empires and authoritarian rule though.
    Not in today's definition. That's what most people work with, and that is how you get people to understand the point you're trying to make. Therefore MODERN liberalism is indeed the destroyer of civilizations, and a promoter of authortarianism.

    There are no "empires" in the classic sense. Since you seem to be so keen on classical definitions I would expect you to recognize that.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    From the article:

    "Under Colorado’s self-defense laws, the use of deadly force is justified only under the “reasonable belief” that it’s necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death. The jury found that none of the men had a legitimate claim of self-defense."

    Given the offensive actions of the defendants in the civil suit, I'd say this is true.

    "Property rights are not a lawful defense for using deadly force in Colorado, and the state’s so-called Make My Day law, which sets lower standard for using force, applies to households, not businesses.'

    It's a Castle Law, meaning it applies to one's "castle" i.e. home. Had any of them been using the store as their domicile at the time, I believe the law would have thrown this into fuzzy territory.

    "The 4th Judicial District Attorney's Office declined to file charges in the shooting, and instead sent the case to a grand jury, which decided against returning an indictment, effectively clearing the trio of criminal wrongdoing."

    This is one of the reasons I'm absolutely dead-set against people being allowed to file a civil lawsuit against another who has been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing.

    "Defense attorneys John P. Craver and Chelsey Burns declined to comment."

    Two people who undoubtedly did their best to work within a system where the families of criminals can come home with the bacon after all, even if their deceased never managed to steal it in the first place.
    Last edited by since9; 08-29-2011 at 02:14 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    From a libertarian perspective, If you believe in property rights........

    You really have to believe that protecting your property with deadly force is your right. This is where some of the libertarians get a little wishy-washy but if all rights are derived from property rights and your right to life; especially on your own property, is paramount, deadly force in it's protection must be a right. Your life can easily be adversely affected if someone steals your property. 300 years ago, it may have been a theif taking all of your pigs or some other foodstuff that you needed to survive the long winter. You could surely die if not for that food. Today, it may be a large amount of money that you need to survive. Whatever it is, that person has no right to your property.

    Now, maybe someone should be looked down upon or shunned for protecting property with deadly force when that property is not all that important but we can't say that the person did not have the right. If someone trespasses on your property for instance, how are you to know that they aren't there to take your life or property that is important to your survival? In short, I believe it is your right to protect your property with deadly force but I also believe it is a responsibility for you to excercise that right justly.
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 08-29-2011 at 09:23 AM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    In short, I believe it is your right to protect your property with deadly force but I also believe it is a responsibility for you to excercise that right justly.
    Well said. It's clear you read the full text of the article.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    Not in today's definition. That's what most people work with, and that is how you get people to understand the point you're trying to make. Therefore MODERN liberalism is indeed the destroyer of civilizations, and a promoter of authortarianism.

    There are no "empires" in the classic sense. Since you seem to be so keen on classical definitions I would expect you to recognize that.
    That's why I prefaced my point in the above referenced post with this.....


    I disagree that liberalism is the destroyer of civilization though. Fake modern day "progressive" "liberals" are, their ideology is far from progress and far from freedom or liberty that originated the word liberal.
    Why let them steal the word? I am going to point out as often as possible this fact to those who claim to be liberal.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 08-30-2011 at 09:35 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Seems to be considering the lowlife that the deceased was, the shooter deserved a reward and actually did the family a favor. Hopefully the daughter will have a better chance without a meth head criminal as a parent.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Whether or not this verdict is just depends on the law in Colorado. Does Colorado law allow deadly force to protect property? If it does, then the property owner was acting within the law, and the family should have had no case. If Colorado law does not allow deadly force to protect property, then the property owner (in addition to the thug) broke the law, making him potentially criminally and civilly liable for the death of the thug.

    Legal or not, I would not have shot in that circumstance. I would have attempted to hold the thugs for the police, in the full realization that such may have proved vain if I were not willing to shoot until and unless life or limb were in imminent danger.
    Too many people are allowing themselves to act emotionally in spite of their better judgment and shoot a burglar. ALL they have to do is ID the guy and get a video of him, his plates, car type and then let the law act. You shoot to protect life and limb in the gravest extreme. It's very hard to remember this when you're under duress but if you can't you shouldn't be firing your handgun. Again, it is NOT easy to refrain after being victimized but you re-victimize YOURSELF if you can't use restraint. (easier said than done)

    $.02
    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    That's why I prefaced my point in the above referenced post with this.....




    Why let them steal the word? I am going to point out as often as possible this fact to those who claim to be liberal.
    It just seems to me that they have stolen it, and the statute of limitations has run out since most people understand liberals to be the same crowd of fruitcakes who promote insipid leftwing issues. Just like they dumped "progressive" for a few decades but seem to be working that back into the vocabulary since most people have forgotten that guys like Mussolini and Hitler were initially admired by the "progressive" movement in the 1920's.

    I agree we should fight back against them chaning the meaning of words however, since that is a tactic they've been using successfully for over a century.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Johnson View Post
    Too many people are allowing themselves to act emotionally in spite of their better judgment and shoot a burglar. ALL they have to do is ID the guy and get a video of him, his plates, car type and then let the law act. You shoot to protect life and limb in the gravest extreme.
    As do the laws of many states, Colorado state law allows the use of deadly force to protect one's property. This does not, however, include chasing someone down as they're trying to escape and killing them just because they stepped foot on your property, regardless of their intent or how they were armed. It does include firing at someone who is ignoring you while walking away with something that belongs to you.

    It most certainly includes dropping an individual clearly intent on torching your house, vehicle, or barn!

    On the other hand, prudence being what it is, a simple phone call to the police would likely have caught them in the act.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  15. #15
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453
    Always keep your woodchipper clean and in good working order.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sFe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Laurinburg, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    139
    Where was the dog?
    For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. — Carl Sagan

    When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours - Stephen Roberts

  17. #17
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    SSS

  18. #18
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by MCDONALD v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS - Page 4
    Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the SecondAmendment right. 554 U. S., at ___, ___. Explaining that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., the Court found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” id., at ___, ___–___. It thus concluded that citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” Id., at ___. Heller also clarifies that this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradi-tions,” Glucksberg, supra, at 721. Heller explored the right’s origins in English law and noted the esteem with which the right was re-garded during the colonial era and at the time of the ratification ofthe Bill of Rights. This is powerful evidence that the right was re-garded as fundamental in the sense relevant here. That understand-ing persisted in the years immediately following the Bill of Rights’ratification and is confirmed by the state constitutions of that era,which protected the right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 19–22.
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    I think you're missing the point. Heller's "...for the core lawful purpose of self-defense" hinges on the term "lawful."

    Colorado confers the use of deadly force for self defense. It does not confer the use of deadly force to stop a trespasser from fleeing the scene of their crime. The latter is not self-defense. What the defendants did was chase them down as they were fleeing/hiding and fire upon them:

    "Fox, 20, was shot after he and a friend scaled a fence to get inside Southwest Auto Sales at 2444 Platte Place in the city’s Knob Hill neighborhood. According to the accomplice, Brian Corbin, they had smoked methamphetamine and were looking to steal anything to buy more drugs.

    Corbin testified he saw two armed men charge out of a building and run in their direction, one of them shouting “we’re gonna get you” in an obscenity-laced threat. Corbin, who escaped by climbing over a car and jumping a fence, said he felt a bullet pass by him as someone fired four gunshots.

    Fox was standing inside a small shed when a .45-caliber rifle bullet passed through the shed’s door and pierced his heart."
    That's not self-defense. That's not protection of one's property. That's vigilantism. The first two are protected by both Colorado state law and by Heller. Vigilantism is not protected by either one.

    Earlier this year these forums were buzzing with debate about the pharmacy store owner who shot and killed a robber who was already down for the count. The courts said, and many here concurred, the owner crossed the line when he fired his last shot or two after the perp was already incapacitated. It was reiterated time and again that we don't shoot to kill, but rather, we shoot to stop.

    Our objective is to stop the crime. When perps are scaling a fence in retreat to get off the property, or hiding in a shed, the crime has already been stopped. At that point, firing on them is unlawful murder, not lawful killing.

    Having said all that, I still think the award was a total crock, but since the DA declined to press charges, it should have been a wash.
    Last edited by since9; 08-31-2011 at 06:32 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •