PDA

View Full Version : Wife's Car Stolen Last Night! Stop the SOB with a Gun?


Deliverer
April 8, 2000, 08:09 PM
I can't believe it. My wife's car was stolen last night. If I saw the theft in progress, I would have confronted the SOB with my Mossy 590A or my HK USP45 which ever was at hand! The cop I gave the report to said I would be committing a crime and said I was lucky I missed the SOB.
I don't think I shouldn't have a right to protect my property. Am I missing something. What would you habve done? :mad:

JimR
April 8, 2000, 09:04 PM
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but my gut is that in the PRK, where I assume you live based on your profile, you'd be screwed if you had confronted the thief with a gun. Sad, but that's likely the law there for a property crime.

I'm sure others more knowledgable than me re: Kali will chime in.

Bruce in West Oz
April 8, 2000, 09:05 PM
Sounds just like the coppers here, too. You protect your property with any sort of weapon and you'll be charged.

B

4V50 Gary
April 8, 2000, 09:18 PM
CA doesn't permit deadly force in the protection of property. This doesn't mean that you can't stop someone from stealing your car, but only that you can't use deadly force to do so. Now, if the facts suggests that the suspect escalated the situation such that the owner's life was endangered, we're not talking about defense of property now but self-defense and deadly force is permitted. The owner however cannot have done anything to have escalated the situation to a deadly force level.

Two things need to be done. Restore the older Common Law which permits deadly force to protect property. In the old days of the Common Law, if a thief stole a man's horse, which was not only transportation but a work animal, he deprived him of his livelihood and therefore, an indirect threat of death to him. Thus, in the days of the old, a man was permitted to use deadly force to protect said horse). Second, Tort Reform Now to give the homeowner or property owner immunity from civil liability for lawfully killing the SOB who was trying to steal.

Until those two changes are made in Calif, I cannot recommend deadly force to protect property.

sbryce
April 8, 2000, 10:59 PM
Its probably that way in most states. In Utah you would be facing murder charges if you shot him. The law specifically states that you cannot used deadly force against someone breaking into your vehicle unless you are in the vehicle when the break-in is attempted.

Jeff OTMG
April 9, 2000, 12:51 AM
GOD BLESS TEXAS!!!!!!!!!! It's a whole other country.

Donny
April 9, 2000, 10:29 AM
To say I don't understand why you can't protect your property is an understatement.

Why then, are convenience stores allowed to protect their property with deadly force?

Why are the "elite" allowed to protect themselves with deadly force?

I guess they (Kali Politburo) figured out yet why crime is such a favorite occupation for far too many "subjects"?

I suppose this is Socialist Justice. And it's there for Just Us.

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler

CANIS
April 9, 2000, 10:30 AM
Re: Texas - Amen to that!

Drill him between the eyes if he's stealing your car and the world has one less parasite and you have the satisfaction of not having to feel like less than a man because of the liberals (note: I don't mean that you are less than a man - just that the liberals are trying to legislate everyone in that direction)

I love TEXAS! I have had to investigate many a strange noise outside and have always done it in the confidence that I am empowered to defend my family, home and property with whatever force is necessary! (In my case, either a 6D cell flashlight to the head or several .44 or .45 caliber holes applied liberally to the torso of the BG)

canis

[This message has been edited by CANIS (edited April 09, 2000).]

Kentucky Rifle
April 9, 2000, 12:03 PM
In Kentucky the law states that you
can't use deadly force to protect
your property. The local prosecutor
has stated that he will charge a CCW
holder with murder if he uses his
pistol. (So, you'd better be sure
that you are in mortal danger before
you shoot.) As far as your
car...well, in Ky. you just have to
stand there with your thumb up
your...and wave bye to the thief.
Sucks.

Will

------------------
Mendacity is the system we live in.

M19
April 9, 2000, 12:07 PM
To be safe, the show of deadly force may keep one out of trouble with the law if it is only used to protect a life or grave bodily injury. "in fear of your life, or life of others" It depends how your actions are explined after the fact . What happened when and why. The key is don't play policeman,
be a good witness. I would protect my property, but I would not shoot at a fleeing GTA susp. Let 'em get away and save yourself
a bunch of trouble.

MrBlonde
April 9, 2000, 12:48 PM
Depends where you live. In CA you cant shoot someone unless they are gonna hurt you badly or kill you.

jnix
April 9, 2000, 01:10 PM
Does anyone know Washington state laws? Now I know you can't use deadly force in the defense of property, but can you simply hold them at gun point?

------------------
"Guns don't kill people the government does" (http://www.favewavs.com/cartoonwavs/gvmt.wav), Rusty Shackleford.
http://www.fair.org

ctdonath
April 9, 2000, 04:54 PM
You gonna take a life to keep a car?
I don't care what the state law is; if you kill someone to protect property (especially insured, mundane property), you deserve to be stuck in a cage for a long time.

Hard Ball
April 9, 2000, 05:32 PM
In most states in the United States you ccould legally use deadly force in the situation you describe if you can say that when you confronted the car thief he took some action that put you "in fear of death or serious bodily harn." The test is whether a "reasonable man" in yor place would have felt that they were in fear of death or serious bodily harn.
As you can see, if it happens it is important to tell the right story to the LEOs wgo respomd.

Deliverer
April 9, 2000, 06:17 PM
CT,
I can appreciate your concern with life vs property. After all, the SOB just took my wife's car. I know his/her life is more important than my families ability to earn a living. Our insurance will reimburse the legal owner, and we will have to buy another car. I know it's just an inconvenience. After all, it's only money! The SOB probably came from a broken home, sociologically challenged. You know, so I should feel sorry for the poor SOB. Life in America is tough. Imagine someone who wants what you have and could have anxiety if the SOB had to pay for it dearly. So, your damn right,I would if I could. I at least would take responsibility for my actions. :mad:

Miss Demeanors
April 9, 2000, 06:28 PM
While I understand your frustration Deliverer, I have to agree with CT. Do you really want to take a life for a material thing? I thought guns were used to save lives not cars. Please don't take me wrong, it would really tick me off as well and I don't have any sympathy for the BG, but there still is not a life threatned. I know you and others feel different, but that's just how I feel.

Sorry about the car :(.

Blue Jays
April 9, 2000, 06:42 PM
Good Afternoon Everyone-

The tough "measure" that we're up against here is that we (as gunowners) would be "bringing the fight" to the person stealing the car (or motorcycle, or fishing tackle, or outdoor bar-b-que), rather than avoiding confrontation.

It would require us to explain to the responding officer why we ran out the front door of our homes grasping a 12-gauge shotgun.....Why didn't we stay safely inside and dial 9-1-1 to report an auto theft in-progress?

Believe me, if I saw someone stealing my hard-earned possessions, I would want to "convince them otherwise" with my hands comfortably around a firearm, but I don't think that would go over well in today's political climate....aahh, the old days! ;)

Regards,

~ Blue Jays ~

CANIS
April 9, 2000, 07:41 PM
I take someone stealing my possessions as a personal insult. I would sleep very well knowing that I was protecting my property. The fact that the P.O.S. did not value his own life enough to consider the consequences of his action just lends credence to my actions. For the love of God folks, you got to take stand at some point in your life and stand up for what's yours!!!!! Tonight GTA tomorrow night car jacking and murder?! Not if I catch him first! The law allows me to use Deadly force to prevent property theft - I'm prosecuting to the full extent of the law!

NO QUARTER!!!

canis

(Perhaps I;ve had too much coffee today?)

Gopher a 45
April 9, 2000, 08:02 PM
I agree that it's not real nice to shoot someone over a piece of property, but if you see someone in your yard stealing you car, are you saying that you should just dial 911 without even leaning out the window to say, "Please stop taking my car?" Would the response be, "Make me!"? I mean, 911 response times even of the "I'm being killed right now" type are still usually enough time for a savvy thief to take your car and scoot. Now I'm not saying that you should just lean out the bedroom window and let 'em have it, but if thieves know that you, by law, are not allowed to defend your property in any way, shape, or form, then wouldn't that just encourage thievery? Oh wait, it already does. Why not just leave your keys in the ignition with the door unlocked, because the time it takes for them to hotwire your car is a longer time that they will be on your property, where they might stub their toe and subsequently sue you, the property owner, for pain, suffering and lost income? I'm being (slightly) sarcastic, but it appears that the inmates are running the asylum. Can't believe I just now noticed that. For the record, no, I don't think it's a good idea shooting a fleeing perp. However, the idea that I'm somehow supposed to sit by while they help themselves to my stuff doesn't sit well with me.

Glenn E. Meyer
April 9, 2000, 08:25 PM
I find Carl to be a most reasonable guy and he is very well trained.

Some items to consider. In TX, even if you are no-billed, it will cost you about $5000 in legal fees.

If you go to court, look at $20,000 to $100K.

Also, it is nice to chest pound and proclaim you will just shoot them.

I recommend Deadly Force Encounters : What C0PS Need to Know to Mentally and Physically Prepare
for and Survive a Gunfight
by Alexis, Dr. Artwohl, Loren W. Christensen

While aimed at cops, it points out that most people have serious psychological consequences after shooting someone and so does your family.

Being a psychologist, I assure you that they aren't trivial and I'm not going to be impressed by more chest pounding that says you
aren't going to be affects as you are a mighty man.

Last look at the Saustrop case on tx.guns -
you want that kind of hassle?

While you can use deadly force in some situations - decide if your decision is emotional or rational? Is the outcome one to please your brain or your lower organ?

Numbers
April 9, 2000, 08:42 PM
A couple of posters have made reference to Texas when it comes defending one's property. Here's a little more on Texas law:

A Texan has the right to use deadly force to defend his property under the cover of darkness. He does not have to be in fear of his life.

An example:
Several years ago a car was being repossessed at night. The home owner heard the noise and thought his auto was being stolen. He grabbed a rifle and ran out the door and saw his auto being towed away by a tow truck. The home owner fired and killed the driver. I may stand to be corrected, but I think the grand jury no billed him.

I'm not too sure I want to kill someone over sheet metal, but the law let's me.

Joe

Gopher a 45
April 9, 2000, 11:11 PM
I agree with Glenn that the chest-beating gets a little old. That doesn't mean I have to like getting stuff stolen though. Personally, I wouldn't shoot somebody over property unless I felt I was threatened physically since the financial and legal consequences can be severe, even if you are cleared. That doesn't even take into account the psycological and emotional ramifications, as Glenn pointed out. I know Texas says I can shoot somebody for a misdemeanor after dark, but I don't think I could shoot somebody for tagging my garage at midnight, it just isn't worth it on all levels. Case in point happened in Austin a couple of years ago. A guy happened upon someone breaking into his car at night. When confronted, the BG left, making threats over his shoulder. Our Hero, get this, got into his car and followed the guy, yelling for him to stop, etc. then got out of his car and again confronted the BG, who proceeded to make more threats about his "homies" coming to kill Our Hero, who then shot BG when he said it looked as if BG was suddenly reaching for something. No gun on BG. Our Hero was no-billed (eventually), but it cost him a lot, not just financially. This guy did just about everything wrong. The thing was, is that his girlfriend was with him, so maybe he wanted to be a big man in front of her, which goes back to what Glenn was saying about letting some other part of you anatomy besides your head do the thinking for you. Of course there were tearful interviews with the BGs family about how he was a "good boy who went astray" blah, blah, blah. Bottom line is that they were both stupid. It's cliche, but the best defensive tool is your brain.

muleshoe
April 10, 2000, 01:19 AM
Is the crime rate in Texas lower because you can shoot a BG for taking your car? If the BG is just taking a shovel out of the back of your PU, are you still gonna shoot him? Maybe just in the leg? What if he's taking your kids baseball out of your frontyard? blast him? What if it's your neighbors kid taking the baseball? That oughta teach him!! What if it's your kid swiping your neighbors baseball? Well, that's okay neighbor he had it coming. Are we still on for the BBQ Saturday night? Oops, I forgot, the funeral is Saturday.

Do you have a dollar value at what you will kill someone over? Anything under $4000, just shoot em in the foot?


Oh yeah, sorry about your car. :(
------------------
bullet placement is gun control

[This message has been edited by muleshoe (edited April 10, 2000).]

CANIS
April 10, 2000, 11:46 AM
Call it chest pounding or whatever you want, but I'm standing by my comments. If you want to try and take the time to justify every action by how much it might cost you in time or money, then go ahead. I am sure that the criminal will appreciate the extra get away time! I for one think that you must make up your mind how you would react to a situation before it occurs so that you can assess the situation and then react according to your preset plan. Of course, I would not shoot first and ask questions later, but, after trying every other avenue (loud voice, physical intimidation, mag light to the head, pepper spray, whatever...) I will escalate to the final step - deadly force.

I spent plenty of time in the Marines and really don't feel adversely affected by pulling the trigger. So, that being said, leave me and mine alone or pay the consequences. Of course I would not put my family or life in jeopardy, but I would react according to what the law says I can do! My family comes before me in EVERYTHING. I make sure that this is the first consideration in EVERYTHING. I can afford a few thousand in legal fees. The emotional cost is negligable to me.

A coward dies a thousand deaths, a brave man only once! I intend to only die once! Thank you very much!

refusing to be kinder and gentler,

canis :)

And a question,

How come everytime someone states their mind on something and it seems even remotely aggresive, it is referred to as chest pounding? When some of you folks state your minds about emotional this and that, I would like to call it "milk-sopping", but I don't. Are we so far removed from our natural instincts that we can't even relate to them anymore? I hope not!

[This message has been edited by CANIS (edited April 10, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by CANIS (edited April 10, 2000).]

Don Gwinn
April 10, 2000, 12:03 PM
To be fair, the original poster was not asking if he could walk outside, say something witty and cap everyone within ten feet of his car. Those of you who keep asking "Would you kill over a stolen car?" Are missing a point--only one or two posters have even left the door open to such an action. The original question was about going outside, confronting the thief with a deadly weapon, and holding him for police. The weapon was to be there only for use if the thief attacked the homeowner. That means he's NOT being killed over stealing a car. He was being held for police over stealing a car, he got killed for trying to kill the homeowner.

Current law (unless you're Texan) doesn't allow that, because current law says that if you do hold him, then it will be YOUR FAULT if he charges you or pulls a gun because you chose to come outside. Well, that's bullsh** easily disproven--think about this. A cop catches you climbing out a window, draws his gun, and orders you to stop. Is he about to shoot you? Hell no, he's going to take you into custody. Now, same situation, but when the cop tells you to stop, you pull out your own revolver. NOW will the cop shoot you? Of course.

So would you then say that the cop killed you for stealing, even though he would have let you live after he caught you stealing if you hadn't escalated the situation? Well, why is it any different for a private citizen? Obviously it's different because we're either less valuable or less trustworthy than the average LEO, or both.

jeffelkins
April 10, 2000, 12:14 PM
In Florida deadly force to protect property is illegal, unless deadly force is being used in the taking.

Philosophically, this sucks. My property is worth more to me than the life of anyone who would take it by force, intimidation or just plain thievery.

CANIS
April 10, 2000, 12:41 PM
Jeff,

You managed to say very simply and clearly what took me several paragraphs to say.

Ditto

canis

Mike in VA
April 10, 2000, 01:04 PM
I don't know if I'd shoot or not, but I look at it this way - That car out front represents a lot of after tax dollars that took me many, many hours to earn. the POS IS stealing my life, not all at once, just in chunks. He shouldn't ask the question if he won't like the answer.

OTOH, I've often though that petty thieves should be shot for their lack of ambition. I guess I just don't have much use for thieves in general. M2

Long Path
April 10, 2000, 01:11 PM
Numbers--

Careful with the "darkness" clause-- case law no longer suports that aspect of the book law.


All-- Deeeeeep breaths, and recognize the consequences of your actions are best considered in calm deliberation rather than the heat of the moment.

There are lives that must unfortunately be taken on occasion. I hope that no one here must be put in the position of having to take one. Do not, if you could at all avoid it without retreating from your home, take a life unnecessarily. It will plague you in ways you haven't yet considered. I've never done it.

I live in a state (TX) where I can shoot a man to prevent him from stealing my TV set (good riddance to it!). My chest is as hairy as the next guy's. My machismo is as big as the next fella's. And folks, as much as it sux, sux, sux, to see the SOB profit from the fruits of MY labors, the thought of living with myself after shooting him over it when I could have chosen another path is far more bleak.

Regards and :(,
Matt

[This message has been edited by Long Path (edited April 10, 2000).]

Jeff OTMG
April 10, 2000, 02:22 PM
numbers, the incident you spoke of occurred in Houston. He as no billed. Within a year he had gone through a divorce and committed suicide as a result of the stress. Glenn, I think the $5000 figure might be a little steep. All shootings in Texas are referred to a GJ and some people go unrepresented. Although retired, I have Roger Zimmerman as my attorney and he is much cheaper than that. It pays to shop around.

Deliverer
April 10, 2000, 03:52 PM
I thank everyone for their input. I'm still pis***, but now realize that in todays society, material victimization is a reality without the vaseline! But if this was 1848 and the SOB was stealing my horse, I would, if I could :mad:

Glenn E. Meyer
April 10, 2000, 04:43 PM
Got the $5000 mean figure from Karl Rehn, Jeff. You're an Austin boy IIRC. Ever meet him? Does a nice training job.

As far as natural instinct - whatever.
Even in justifiable students as in the Hatori case in Louisiana, the shooter did not come away unscarred by the experience.
Also, I thought we have evolved beyond using the simple territorial responses of other mammals. Even they sometimes just drive the opponent away.

For those who listen, use of force is to accomplish a goal. If the goal is to feel
good in jail - do it.

Chest-pounding is used by me to describe in a deliberately perjorative fashion folks who use violence and aggression based on emotion and without rational thought.

If that is milk-toastishness, then tell me where it is on the menu as I will continue to make rational decisions about the use force.

masshooter
April 10, 2000, 05:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff OTMG:
numbers, the incident you spoke of occurred in Houston. He as no billed. Within a year he had gone through a divorce and committed suicide as a result of the stress [/quote]

I wonder how much of the stress that ended in suicide resulted not from guilt, but from the demonization by friends, family and of course our “justice” system....

If you were a criminal, and you knew you put yourself in mortal danger every time you tried to take what wasn't rightfully yours, or if you knew the average citizen would hold you at gunpoint until the police arrived, wouldn't you at least think twice? Call me crazy, but I would.

I'm not advocating indiscriminately taking a life to protect material property, but if every peaceful citizen had the right to at least confront the criminal with gun in hand, do you think property crimes would increase or decrease?

And why have we turned into a nation of cowards who believes every act perpetrated by a criminal is not his fault? Why do we demonize the law abiding for actively thwarting criminal activity? It makes me wonder-- all these sheeple and psychologists who think criminal behavior is a result of upbringing, society, bad parents, blah, blah, blah-- how would they feel if a "reformed" murderer, rapist or career burglar moved in next door? Better yet, would they let that "reformed" criminal date their daughter? If the answer is no, then I submit they are mere spineless hypocrites.

I don’t think the person who started this thread was trying to imply we should all live life like we’re in a Dirty Harry or Charles Bronson movie. But then, the point remains: if you don’t want to get shot, don’t try to take what is not yours!

Why should we let the criminals hold us hostage in our own homes? Why should the laws be designed to protect the bad guy? Why does it seem the laws are set up to take the right to security in person and property away from the people? I’ll tell you why—because it takes power away from the people. It makes the massive bureaucracy of our judicial system seem necessary. It takes away another valid reason to own firearms, and thus defend RKBA. And most importantly, it makes our big government, their endless laws, their intrusion into our lives, and even the police seem that much more necessary than they really are. (I don’t mean to attack police—they are necessary, but they should not be expected to be the “shepherds” of the helpless flock).

Don’t buy the argument that giving people the right to defend their person and property will cause our nation to collapse into vigilante chaos. I trust American people to be wiser than that.

For those of you who think defending your home or property with a gun is foolish, just remember that it’s also a good deterrent for future crime.

Good will never triumph over evil unless it is willing to do what is necessary to win.

muleshoe
April 10, 2000, 06:04 PM
If this were 1848 the theft of ones hoss could quite possibly mean death of previous owner, that was why hoss-thieves were dealt with quickly and thoroughly. If you were stuck out a hundred miles or so from civilization without your hoss, you may never be seen again. If a sod-buster had his plow-hoss stolen he may not be able to feed his family. His horse truely was his livelyhood. I rather doubt the loss of your car will cause your family to starve to death. If so, then maybe we could all pitch in a few bucks to get you by.

I don't think I could shoot a BG for stealing my car, no more than I could shoot him for swiping my kids baseball out of the front yard. I can get by without the car for a while, and the baseball. I'm not so sure I could sleep well at night having killed someone for a few dollars, $5 or $5000 or $25,000, makes no difference. If you will shoot for a $25,000 car, then by the same logic he should also die for a $5 baseball. Now if Mr. BG is in my casa it's a whole different story. He then becomes a threat to me and mine, and deserves whatever happens to him.

------------------
bullet placement is gun control

CANIS
April 10, 2000, 06:30 PM
Not worth the effort of arguing about it anymore...

[This message has been edited by CANIS (edited April 10, 2000).]

Jeff OTMG
April 10, 2000, 06:35 PM
muleshoe, we had a guy legally shot in the back over $2. Criminal walks up to a fellow with a knife and asks for money. Victim hands over $2 which is stuffed in the pocket. Criminal not happy with a small haul asks for the victims watch. Victim hands over watch and draws pistol. Criminal drops knife and watch. Turns to run with $2 in his pocket. Shot in the back and dies. Shooting is justifiable.

Texas does not dictate the value of a human life, it simply allows the victim to decide what value a human life has. The criminal has already, by choice, surrendered his right to live by committing certain crimes. If the victim views the criminal as vermin than he may kill him. If a life is worth more than a car or $2, then you may stand there and watch your car drive off. Since I have lived in Texas people have been legally killed over a hubcap, a lawnmower, a bicycle, spray painting the side of the house, and cars. I am sure there are others that I am not aware of. It is the victims choice. The criminals fate is in the hands of the victim. I like it, less govt intrusion.

muleshoe
April 10, 2000, 06:45 PM
Okay, I'll ask the question again. Is the crime rate in Texas lower than the rest of the country because you can shoot a BG for $2?

------------------
bullet placement is gun control

DC
April 10, 2000, 07:53 PM
First of all...
Deliverer is extremely PO'd...rightly so.
Yes insurance will replace the car, but his rates will go up. He will pay for the privilege of having the car stolen for years.
I believe he is venting, and that is his right.

I also believe, given where he lives, he wouldn't kill the thief and he knows the penalties. Santa Monica is a level beyond Red, even in Calif....Tom Hayden got his political start there and there are even more glaring political examples.

Give the guy a break

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!

ExtraSmooth
April 11, 2000, 02:09 AM
My attached garage IS part of my house. Trespassing in my garage is the same as trespassing in my house. Would I like to shoot the SOB if I caught him attempting to steal my car? Hell yes! Should I shoot? Most probably no. I would prefer that my 105 pound german shepherd dog remove about 25 pounds of flesh from the fleeing felon. I think that would be much more satisfying!


(Gooood boy. Here's a biscuit for ya.)



------------------
In Fine Regemus
(In the End We Shall Reign)

Dennis
April 11, 2000, 07:01 AM
Muleshoe,
"Okay, I'll ask the question again. Is the crime rate in Texas lower than the rest of the country because you can shoot a BG for $2?"

Well, I don't have the figures for Texas, but as a matter of fact, the crime rate *is* lower in Comal County (just north of San Antonio) than in Bexar County (San Antonio proper). Thieves know our Grand Juries in *this* county side with honest ownership - not theft, assault, etc.

What bothers me about your question is the apparent intent to put a dollar figure on acceptable theft. At what dollar amount (if any) *would* I be justified in using force in your opinion?
-----

All,

Several people here seem to advocate permitting theft of any material object. So long as the thief does not represent a threat of serious bodily injury or death to the owner - the owner should just call 9-1-1, file a police report, and get on with his financially injured, but oh, so moral life.

This is practical - no legal involvement.
This is sane - no consequent mental anguish.
This is moral - life (even of a thief) is beyond value.

If such is the case, then sell all your guns. Somebody might find and use them in a "hurtful" manner.

What if you had a firearm (unloaded, disassembled and locked in an appropriate container in your locked car trunk, of course!) and you had an auto accident? (Not your fault, of course.)

What if your car was towed to a junkyard before you got out of the hospital and some teenage victim of child abuse found your gun, took it, and hurt himself or someone else??? Oh, MY!! :eek:

Think of the mental anguish to you, your family and friends, the thief and his family and friends. It just isn't worth it. NO item of violence can be secured adequately to protect the poor thieves of our society.

And protecting the human parasites of our society must be the goal of so many "practical" and "moral" people of our society - of our "village".

Gee. Why don't we all take the locks off our homes so the poor burglars aren't at risk of getting a splinter when they kick our doors in? Gee, they might sue! Gee, I might have mental anguish! Gee.... :eek:

The subject gives me gas.... :mad:

If he wants to burn down my house, I should just get my family out and not interfere?

Where do we draw the line?
Since when do the thieves have more rights than honest folk?
What's happened to America?

For the record:
- No, I wouldn't shoot a car thief stealing my car.
- Yes, if I stood in front of the car and he tried to run me down, I'd shoot him - especially if the incident took place on my property or property under my control.
- Yes, I'm angry that our nation of cowards forces me to become part of their lowest common denominator.

My guts are with Canis, but I hear Glenn (and hate it).

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!

muleshoe
April 11, 2000, 07:50 AM
Thanks for the enlightenment Dennis. Now I know that your county has juries that will treat BGs like BGs. Still doesn't answer the question though.

I believe that punishment for a crime should fit that crime. I'm a strong supporter of the death penalty, but I doubt if anyone is on death row for swiping a pink flamingo out of someones front yard. Maybe in your county? I have not put an exceptable dollar figure on which I think YOU should kill a thief. That's your business, whatever you feel is justifiable. I have just stated that I don't think that I would care to kill someone for personal property. Like I said before, it doesn't matter if it's a $5 baseball or a $25,000 car. If you're willing to kill someone over one, you should be willing to kill over the other. Dennis, are you saying that I should sell my guns because I'm not willing to kill someone over a lawn sprinkler? Isn't that just another form of gun control? Are you saying I'm a coward for not wanting to kill someone over that same lawn sprinkler? If so, then have the courage yourself to just say it.

I thank God that I have never been faced with the situation of having to use deadly force, but I do feel that I would be willing and able to do so if me or my family was at risk.

------------------
bullet placement is gun control

CANIS
April 11, 2000, 07:56 AM
We've been made to think that it's wrong to stand up for ourselves for any reason. Even if it's to tell a loudmouth to shut up at a movie or restaurant. I don't remember seeing many fellow veterans in the Marines crying and shaking in the fetal position because we pulled a trigger or two in Somalia or The Gulf. So, please don't spout any more of the "emotional trauma" crap! Not everyone falls to pieces after action needs to be taken.

Also - You call it "chest pounding" to speak your honest mind about what you would do in an incident - I find it even more annoying and offensive when people try to take the - all life is sacred, I am at peace with my fellow man road - and then look down at everyone as less evolved beings than they are.

I will leave with one of my favorite quotes:

"Tolerance is the vice of those who have no convictions of their own"

Chris Canis

Glenn E. Meyer
April 11, 2000, 11:37 AM
Dennis - if you listen and understand what I say and even if it makes you hate it - thanks!

Philosophically, I feel human life is sacred. I regret the forces that get anyone into a position that deadly force must be used against him or her. As far as psychobabble,
people grow up in unspeakable horror and then some become monsters. Should you hate them?

One case I know was of a vicious rapist. I have no problem with the use of deadly force to stop him in prevention of his crimes. I think that he should be imprisioned without chance of parole given our current level of behaviorial technology.

I also know that when he was a child and he was bad, he was severely beaten and sexually abused. When he was bad, his mother gave him enemas with Tabasco sauce.


I understand the emotional processes that make me feel anger, hurt and want the need for revenge.

But, we try to rise above that. I have decided that I will use deadly force to prevent grievous bodily harm. Faced with a property crime in progress, I will do what seems best on a rational basis.

If I can drive the person away, fine.

Like I said, you are at work, you are a supervisor, you an employee walking out with a company pen. You challenge him and ask him to return the pen. He laughs at continues to walk away.

Chestpounding means to me that you do not understand the need feel compassion and regret for the death of another person.

As far as those who say they won't break after such an incident, Grossman and others estimate 2% of the population don't. If you are in that 2%, good or bad for you.

I say that folks should be aware that strong, well integrated folks have had serious consequences after shootings both personally and from social interactions. You need to understand this as part of the total package before you shoot.

Last, I have met some very fierce individuals who could take me apart and throw me away.
They caution restraint as I have argued.


Please choose 9mm or 45 ACP, shotgun or AR-15, Glock or 1911 for your response.

You can fire him or fire at him.

CANIS
April 11, 2000, 12:11 PM
I'm all for restraint. Heck, I even ignore the idiots that cut me off in traffic everyday. Even the ones that shoot me the bird!

There are different levels of restraint. I just choose a more aggressive one than you.

I still love you man! :)

Chris Canis

FUD
April 11, 2000, 12:21 PM
I think that a majority of the problem with crime in this country is that the criminal has very little to fear. If a private citizen tries to stop him, he can pull out a knife or gun to defend himself. Maybe if they had more too lose, some of them would think twice and we all would feel a little bit safer.

masshooter
April 11, 2000, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer:
people grow up in unspeakable horror and then some become monsters. Should you hate them?[/quote]

We should not hate these "monsters", because hate is an terrible, unproductive vice. But we definitely should see them for what they are, fear them, and be prepared to deal with them in an "appropriate" manner. And no, I don't agree that your average person will die from remorse if they do so deal with these "monsters" in a fitting manner.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>One case I know was of a vicious rapist...he was severely beaten and sexually abused. When he was bad, his mother gave him enemas with Tabasco sauce.[/quote]

So what's your point? Should we all feel bad for this guy, sympathize, empathize with him? Try to rehabilitate him? Then let him out again to do it to your wife/daughter/sister/girlfriend? Give me a break! All we hear from modern psychologists is psycho-babble about why the BG is not at fault, how tough his childhood was, how abused he was, ad naseum. What about his victims, why don't we hear about them? Where's your empathy for them? What unspeakable evil did he do to them? Do you even care that the victims, if they survived, with have to live through a private nightmare every day for the rest of their lives?? Getting rid of this kind of BG-- permanently-- is not motivated by a misplaced sense of revenge, but a desire to make the world a safer place for eveyone by ridding it of a clear and present danger. How hard is that to understand? Understand this, and you will understand why zero tolerance for any criminal act, however insignificant, is born of the desire to stop senseless criminal acts against law-abiding citizens, and it's not about money or property.

Someone on this thread mentioned a BG got shot in the back for $2. For the record, even if I did not live in the People's Republic of MA, I would not shoot unless forced to. However, it seems like some people missed the point. The BG pulled a knife-- which is a clear threat of death-- and demanded money. When he only got $2, he came back for more! What if it had gone the other way, and he killed his victim with the knife over $2? Who would cry for his rights? And don't forget, who initiated that transaction anyway?


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>As far as those who say they won't break after such an incident, Grossman and others estimate 2% of the population don't. If you are in that 2%, good or bad for you.
[/quote]
Look, I'm not trying to make this a personal attack, but I do believe a lot of the problems of "moral decay", tolerance for criminal acts, etc., is due in part to psychologists promulgating the idea that no one is responsible for their actions... and by derivation, the rest of us should live in fear because these poor, downtrodden, abused, misunderstood, conflicted, innocent criminals had an unfair life!

Give us all a break. :mad:

Dennis
April 11, 2000, 05:02 PM
Muleshoe,

(Aside: If I *had* a pink flamingo in my front yard, I just might *pay*
someone to steal it! :D)

Oy! The death penalty is a topic unto itself. Interestingly enough, you might
be a stronger advocate of the death penalty than I am. But let’s save that
for another day. ;)

What I was trying to say about selling your (our) guns probably was
off-thread. I was trying to get at the following:
*IF* the only appropriate uses of firearms are sport and personal defense,
and *IF* any other use (such as defense of property) is wrong, then the risk
of possessing a firearm (which can hurt people) probably is greater for most
people than the need for personal defense or the pleasure of sport. Therefore
private ownership of firearms should be abolished - the risk outweighs the
benefits. (No, you didn’t say that and I don’t think either of us believe it.)

Defense of property has a lot of variables. I have contributed directly to the
deaths of hundreds, possibly thousands of people who never tried to hurt me
or steal from me. I was just “following orders”. Is the protection of personal
property less moral than killing (or being an accessory to killing) on
command?

I’m not about to shoot someone for stealing a minor item - but “minor” is a
variable which is dependent upon personal values *and* situations. I
disagree with the premise that if I would kill over a $25,000 car (or someone
torching my home) then I should be willing to kill over a baseball or a lawn
sprinkler (or a ballpoint pen). That excludes the variable of “situation”.

People have killed justifiably over a proverbial crust of bread or drink of water
(when supply was limited and necessary to sustain life).

If an apparent adult was stealing my lawn sprinkler (BTW, I don’t have one),
I would try to stop him verbally, then physically. If BG escalated to force or
deadly force, I would react to win.

When you say, “... I don't think that I would care to kill someone for personal
property” I have no argument with you. However, we both have the right to
disagree and I have reacted differently in the past and would again. Perhaps
it is harder for me to replace or do without my belongings than it is for you.
Perhaps we simply have different values and/or needs. To each his own.

BTW, I’ve known some pretty brave pacifists so I’m assuredly not implying
you’re a coward because we differ on the right to protect property. (Sigh)
No, I’m not accusing you of being a pacifist - it’s merely an example.
-----

Glenn,

I listen to you and I try to understand; but I surely don’t agree with your
philosophy as much as I (begrudgingly) understand the political wisdom
therein.

Human life may be sacred, but the lives and well-being of those I love take
precedence over the “rights” of those who would hurt us.

I understand that people are not dogs (or vice versa), but if I buy a dog who
turns out mean and hurts my family or me - he’s history. People have the
capacity to understand and change their values. If they remain predators,
they are to be controlled. That’s why I believe in prisons.

On the question of personal defense, I have no qualms, but the subject here
is defense of property.

I care not whether it is a man of the cloth, a Charles Manson, or a
representative of our government. He has no rights to my property -
regardless of his perceived duty or his horrid past. (That’s why I have such a
problem with our many punitive systems of taxation.)

Giving exceptional liberties to unrepentant monsters because of their tortured
past is unreasonable and I won’t do it. Permitting such social “victims”
extraordinary privileges merely endangers the safety and well-being of the
peaceful.

You mention rising above revenge; but revenge is an “after the fact” concept
implemented typically by our various levels of government in accordance with
rules they call “law” - institutionalized revenge.

As for defense of property, it *does* make a difference how valuable or
necessary the property is to our survival or well-being! That difference will
be a factor in my response to attempted theft or damage to that property.

Would I regret the death of another person? Assuredly so. But I would
rejoice in the safety and well-being of my loved ones if I prevented their
injury or death. Like you, I would hope to prevent such an incident from
happening and would try to resolve the problem with the least amount of
force. The ball would be in BG’s court. The more serious his actions, the
more serious my response - and that also goes for thieves.

Oh, and I don’t believe Grossman’s 2% figures. It is too politically correct to
express extreme regret to take such a 2% figure at face value.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!

Dennis
April 11, 2000, 05:06 PM
Well, thanks to my long-winded response(s), this thread's over 126K. Start a part 2 for further comments.

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited April 11, 2000).]