From Hondo11:
Quote:
|
As for minimizing loss or resources- you have to decide whether you want: A. No injury to you, yet some property loss. (Stay inside and call the police); B. Injury to you and no loss of property. (Go outside and the BG hurts you); C. Injury to you and loss of property. (Go outside and the BG hurts you AND takes your stuff) D. No injury to you and no property lost. (Go outside and not get hurt and BG takes nothing...OR...find some other way to deter them from inside.)
|
I might point out that B, C, and D are really something that you do not "decide", since in each case your decision has been to go outside. I will also point out that along with injury may come death. I might also point out that in each injury scenario you have mentioned "BG hurts you." Don't forget the possibility of being hurt by the police--see Fiddletown's post.
I presume from the fact that you are discussing the protection of property that you would either (1) be going outside unarmed with no intention of using deadly force, or (2) be going outside armed, with no intention of using deadly force (unless you are in Texas at night) unless you are put in personal danger, and that if the law in your state so requires, you would retreat before resorting to the use of deadly force. Right?
The former looks dangerous, and the latter looks both dangerous and pointless.
The best case is no injury and no loss of property, and the other three outcomes you have listed involve injury or death and/or loss of property.
You have not mentioned the possibility of being charged with a crime, which is a risk whenever arms are displayed or used outside.