would you risk your life for someone else's property?

[Dufus]

I would have to say that I would.

I have been the victim of theft.

Some say material things are replaceable.

They are if you have the money to replace them.

A lot of folks work hard for their possessions and probably are on a snug budget. There are not many Rockefellers in my neighborhood and most all are either retired or working class.

Let's say you have a $50,000 SUV in the driveway that is 4 years old.

How much do you think the insurance company will give you for it?

Certainly not the replacement value.

I don't live in Washington and do not intend to, but protection of life and property is allowed in my state.

I had a cousin that was murdered to get his money. He was old, and his caretakers were the guilty parties (3 brothers in their 50s). The case has not been to trial as yet. My cousin is gone, the brothers are still living free to victimize another poor soul.

[Kosh75287]

I think I'm raising a valid issue, Mr. Eatman, not "drifting away from the OP". In Texas, the law says that one may use lethal force to defend property. HOWEVER, there's often a big difference between what the law says and of what a jury will convict someone.

If the jury has such latitudes, then in that same gray area may lie the victim's perceived potential harm involved in not discouraging the would-be perpetrators from their intended aggression. I think the phrase "it goes to 'state of mind'" is what an attorney might say.

If fear for one's life is an affirmative defense, and fear for one's property is a "SEMI-affirmative" defense, then almost certainly the latter must be viewed in terms of what's likely to happen if NO defensive action is undertaken.

[JohnKSa]

If I were house sitting, I would first make it obvious someone is there before I go to bed, and if someone entered an obviously occupied home at night, I would treat the situation the same as if it were my own home.

This is all very reasonable and makes perfect sense.

Anyone who would do hot burglaries, is a threat to the safety of every potential future victim, and WILL hurt or kill someone eventually. It is those people I think about, and not the homeowner's "stuff".

The laws in many places acknowledge that persons who commit "hot burglaries" are often a deadly threat and give the homeowner/defender more leeway than would be afforded in a crime that is exclusively about property. However, it's important not to get confused about the difference between self-defense and dispensing justice/preemptive punishment. It's perfectly reasonable to consider the immediate potential threat to you in your response to an attacker but it's questionable, at best, to take action based on what you think the attacker might do in the future if you don't confront him/her. The law gives a defender absolutely zero right/dispensation to base his/her response on what sort of criminal career the defender assumes that the attacker will engage in in the future if not confronted.

Nobody believes possessions are worth killing or dying for, but how naive one must be to assume that these are all harmless people who only have designs on our "stuff", and will be appeased if we allow them to take it.

There's a good bit of wiggle room between not going out and accosting a person in a situation where the outcome has a significant potential to be negative and allowing someone to take your stuff without taking any action at all.

Of course you should call the authorities immediately.

If you have a car made in the last decade or so, it probably has a key fob with a panic alarm on it. Push the button Max!

And, if you don't mind risking death/bankruptcy/incarceration then by all means rush to confront them with your gun and see how the scenario plays out. What's life without a little risk, right? Especially if the risk is over something totally irreplaceable, like an insured automobile, right?

Funny how we all expect the police to protect our "stuff" while refusing to help ourselves.

Property protection needs to be primarily pre-emptive/preventive. Once the property crime is underway, there's very little that can be done without significant risk to one's personal wellbeing, future freedom, and financial health. All of which are generally more important/valuable than the loss incurred by losing the property in question.

Funny how so many people who are so rabid about protecting their "stuff" once there's a criminal trying to take it are so laid back about it the rest of the time.

How much do you think the insurance company will give you for it?

How much do you think getting shot will cost you if you live? How much will retaining a lawyer cost you? How much will a criminal and/or civil defense cost you? If you want to play it by the numbers, you should look at all the possibilities, not just the best possible outcome.

In Texas, the law says that one may use lethal force to defend property.

It is true that in limited circumstances, it is legal to use lethal force to defend property if other avenues are unavailable or would expose the "defender" to risk of death. If the law is examined, many of the situations where lethal force is allowed are actually shaded more towards self-defense than property defense.

It is misleading to make the simple statement that Texas law allows lethal force to defend property without any further amplification--it's a lot more complicated than that. A careful read of those laws is eye-opening.

The laws are as much about about defending life as about defending property. The list of qualifying crimes includes, for example, aggravated robbery and arson, both of which offer significant opportunity for injury or death to innocents. Furthermore, the law makes it clear that deadly force is only authorized when using any other means to prevent the property damage/loss or to recover the property would expose the defender to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

In most cases when this section of law could be used to justify deadly force, deadly force would likely also be justified under the self-defense section of the Penal Code. Even Texas law, unusual as it is, is much more restrictive than people typically believe.

[Kosh75287]

It is misleading to make the simple statement that Texas law allows lethal force to defend property without any further amplification--

Then don't print PART of what I said, without including THE REST of what I said:

In Texas, the law says that one may use lethal force to defend property. HOWEVER, there's often a big difference between what the law says and of what a jury will convict someone.

...and I suspect you meant "without any further qualification"? My second sentence of the paragraph was written with precisely that mission in mind. Sorry if the qualification was unclear.

I'm not an attorney, and I haven't read those statutes in a number of years (hence my 2nd, qualifying sentence), so I'll defer to your description of them. I also observe that many (not all, nor even a majority, but many) court cases I have followed concerning this issue rather closely, ended in a result that I didn't really expect. Litigation is not a mathematically precise nor predictable process. No process so heavily predicated on the judgments of 6 or 12 peers (a term which I use advisedly) can be. But then, I think I already alluded to that.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Kosh75287

...I'm not an attorney, and I haven't read those statutes in a number of years...

In that case it would be best to refrain from commenting. Why should we be wasting time and bandwidth discussing the subject when we can't even be sure your information is accurate?

[9x18_Walther]

I believe security guard training is a prime example of this topic.

I believe most guards, including those who are armed are instructed to observe the situation and notify 911.

This is the safest and most logical course of action assuming that your life is not at risk.

I can guarantee you that the police are not concerned one bit about your possessions. They are concerned about whether or not the criminal is putting lives in danger and capturing the individual.

In the city I live in the police stopped a vehicle which was reported stealing possessions in the neighborhood. It was a station wagon loaded to the brim with electronics, valuables, etc. As soon as the officer approached the vehicle, the subject sped off. The police did not pursue since he had no warrants or committed a crime in front of the police. They cited the high traffic density as justification for not putting motorists lives in danger.

[stagpanther]

Depends on the circumstances. If it's a good neighborhood with mostly upper income homes--then chances are good the local police keep a good eye out cause that's the tax-payer and political base. I wouldn't risk anything other than getting the call out and getting myself out.

If it's a lower income area with strong organized gangs populated with "nothing to lose" toughs I think it's very reasonably to assume they constitute a deadly threat--especially if they tend to operate in numbers. Police response time--unless a call of use of deadly force is involved--may be longer to lower income areas. My opinion is gangs are bringing a potential fight to you--prepare accordingly.

[TimSr]

I think the reality of the situation is that, if you saw someone breaking into your truck in the driveway, most guys i know would go outside and yell for them to stop.

If they ran away (likely outcome), the event is over. If they started to close with me and were armed with a screwdriver or some other weapon, then i would defend myself. I would not be shooting to stop a theft, i would be shooting to defend my life in a place i was lawfully at...doing something i was lawfully entitled to do.

Nothing says i have to huddle in the dark house while some dirtbag steals my truck. Im legally able to confront and stop that theft. If the badguy decides to attack me...well, im going to defend myself.

Exactly. I don't confront the thief with a gun. I confront the thief as the property owner. The gun is on me for the same reason it's always on me.

Thieves are like stray cats. If you keep feeding them, they keep coming back.

[TimSr]

I'm not an attorney, and I haven't read those statutes in a number of years (hence my 2nd, qualifying sentence), so I'll defer to your description of them. I also observe that many (not all, nor even a majority, but many) court cases I have followed concerning this issue rather closely, ended in a result that I didn't really expect. Litigation is not a mathematically precise nor predictable process. No process so heavily predicated on the judgments of 6 or 12 peers (a term which I use advisedly) can be. But then, I think I already alluded to that.

This is noteworthy in that the general attitudes of jurors vary greatly, and there are certain regional tendancies. I've also seen a great change over the years where criminals who were injured or killed "on the job" used to be viewed more as victims, whereas now the tend to be viewed more as assuming the "hazards of the job" even in cases where the same laws are applied. Some regios of the country seem to be more inclined than others.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by TimSr:

I don't confront the thief with a gun. I confront the thief as the property owner. The gun is on me for the same reason it's always on me.

We hear that one from time to time time.

There have been at least a few cases around the country in which a person did not prevail in his defense of justification after a shooting because it was held that his actions in heading out to engage in the confrontation had precipitated the use of force incidents.

I cannot put my electronic hands on them right now.

"The thief? How could one know that the guy's driver did not have a gun to train on the"property owner" in case something like that were to develop.

Thieves are like stray cats. If you keep feeding them, they keep coming back.

That is completely irrelevant to any basis of justification for the use of deadly force.

And I most certainly would not want any statement along those lines read to a jury after I had shot someone.

[SocialAnarchist]

The answer to this topic is amazingly simple for me. If I am not risking my life for my own property, I am certainly not risking my life for someone else's.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Dufus:

I would have to say that I would.

I have been the victim of theft.

Some say material things are replaceable.

They are if you have the money to replace them.

A lot of folks work hard for their possessions and probably are on a snug budget. There are not many Rockefellers in my neighborhood and most all are either retired or working class.

Let's say you have a $50,000 SUV in the driveway that is 4 years old.

How much do you think the insurance company will give you for it?

Certainly not the replacement value.

Dufus, would you really place a higher value on the monetary loss on taken property than on the loss of your life, an arm, an eye, your hearing , or your ability to walk?

I had a cousin that was murdered to get his money.

that's not really relevant here, but this is a good tim to point out to anyone who may not understand it that robbery and theft are sistincly different things.

[Dufus]

Dufus, would you really place a higher value on the monetary loss on taken property than on the loss of your life, an arm, an eye, your hearing , or your ability to walk?

Oldmarksman, I take it that you have never suffered a loss of any kind by your comment.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Dufus:

Oldmarksman, I take it that you have never suffered a loss of any kind by your comment.

You take it wrong.

But I have never incurred a property loss by theft that was worth my life.

[Dufus]

I never said anything about the loss of your life.

I have already lost about 75% of my hearing, I have macular degeneration, so my eyes ain't that good close up, due to various back injuries, I don't walk straight, so, I say I am par for the course, and I am not kidding or pulling your leg about these maladies.

I am not going to live forever. I am a patriot, and I will fight for my values. I have never had anything given to me, and have had things taken from me.

#1. I am a thief. I will come to your house knowing that you will do nothing. I take what I want. A day or two later, I have a companion on stake out to see when no one is home. Since you did nothing the first time, I will take what I want again, knowing that you will do nothing.

#2. I am a thief. I come to your house to take things from you. You come outside with a shotgun or handgun and ask me what I am doing. I leave and I will not come back because I do not want to be shot.

I am #2. I will not hesitate, but will do so with caution. Fire fights are not pleasant, but I will be dam ned if I sit and watch some filth take what I have worked hard to get.....again.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Dufus:

I never said anything about the loss of your life

No, you said you would risk yours.

Really?

"I am a thief. I come to your house to take things from you. You come outside with a shotgun or handgun and ask me what I am doing. I leave and I will not come back because I do not want to be shot."

How would the resident ever know that what you are is a thief? That you or someone with you will not shoot?

The fellow who was fiddling with the trailer at night in Texas some years ago did not leave when the resident came out. He attacked the resident who had come out with the shotgun and shot off his arm.

[Limnophile]

Frank,

It's also a better idea to do some research rather than relying on one's "impressions."

No real need to do research on a simple topic when one's impressions are so keen and you are willing to play unsolicited research assistant.

By the way, Gerlach's case was interesting. He was lucky to be found not guilty. As to the judge stiffing him one a third of his legal expenses, thanks for confirming my hypothesis.

You think? On what basis? Do you have any evidence, or is it just basically a guess?

You may wish to brush up on your reading comprehension, then read my post again. I clearly expressed my opinion.

In that case it would be best to refrain from commenting. Why should we be wasting time and bandwidth discussing the subject when we can't even be sure your information is accurate?

Yeah, we should let attorneys run the country by passing and interpreting laws, and laymen should just bow down to the whim of attorneys. After all, our lawyer dominated legislative and judicial classes have done such a great job of upholding the Anglo-American Enlightenment that is imbued in our founding documents.[/sarc]

[orionengnr]

Never Mind...

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Limnophile:

Yeah, we should let attorneys run the country by passing and interpreting laws, and laymen should just bow down to the whim of attorneys. After all, our lawyer dominated legislative and judicial classes have done such a great job of upholding the Anglo-American Enlightenment that is imbued in our founding documents.

That learned judges interpret the laws, instruct the triers of fact, and act as gate-keepers regarding the admissibility of evidence dates back centuries before our "founding documents" were put on paper, and that long tradition was embodied in them.

[JohnKSa]

Then don't print PART of what I said, without including THE REST of what I said:

My response was exclusively about what Texas law said and that's why I only quoted the part of your post relating to Texas law.

The rest of what you said had zero bearing on Texas law, it related specifically to what a jury is or isn't likely to do. Juries may or may not follow the law specifically in their rulings. In fact, that's precisely why we have juries instead of just letting judges decide anything to do with the law. The juries can (within some limits) "make their own law" if they feel like the circumstances of the case warrant it.

#2. I am a thief. I come to your house to take things from you. You come outside with a shotgun or handgun and ask me what I am doing. I leave and I will not come back because I do not want to be shot.

I find a couple of things interesting.

First of all, a number of people seem to think that they can predict the future. They believe that an armed confrontation with a thief will go their way. They believe that they know what a thief will do when confronted, or when not confronted.

Second, no one seems to want to talk about ways to prevent property loss other than confronting the thief. Given the risk (physical, financial, etc.) incurred by such a confrontation, doesn't it make sense to take some relatively low cost precautions? Video surveillance is cheap and simple these days. It provides a good chance of preventing a recurrence by providing sufficient evidence to apprehend the thief without any of the risk incurred by chancing an armed confrontation. Besides, what guarantee is there that you'll be present to have the confrontation. Thieves are pretty good about not stealing with witnesses around--it's how they stay in business.

As I said in my previous post, it's funny how so many people who are absolutely rabid about protecting their property once a criminal is trying to take it are so laid back about protecting their property the rest of the time.

[Kosh75287]

it's funny how so many people who are absolutely rabid about protecting their property once a criminal is trying to take it are so laid back about protecting their property the rest of the time.

I am not among the "absolutely rabid" nor the "laid back". And "funny" may be the the most inappropriate adjective available. "Sad", "shameful" or "tragic", perhaps, but not "funny". Not in ANY context of the word. It is neither humorous for someone to unjustly lose their possessions, nor is it ironic. It is, in fact, an entirely too prevalent form of complacency that pervades the uninformed and the unskilled in our society.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Limnophile

You may wish to brush up on your reading comprehension, then read my post again. I clearly expressed my opinion....

All opinions aren't equal. An educated opinion based on data and evidence can actually mean something. An unsupported opinion pulled out of the air (i. e., a guess) isn't worth paying attention to.

Originally Posted by Limnophile

Yeah, we should let attorneys run the country by passing and interpreting laws, and laymen should just bow down to the whim of attorneys. After all, our lawyer dominated legislative and judicial classes have done such a great job of upholding the Anglo-American Enlightenment that is imbued in our founding documents.[/sarc]

• The post of mine you quoted was in response to the following:

  ...I'm not an attorney, and I haven't read those statutes in a number of years...

  In other words, the poster was commenting on a legal issue (1) without actual training in law; and (2) without even recently reading the statute he was commenting on. In other words, he was guessing. One's uneducated guesses on important and technical topics tend to be pretty worthless. Certainly people who actually know about the subject matter won't be paying attention.
  
  
• The reality is that people who are educated and experienced in the law know more about what the law is and how it works in the real world than people who aren't. It might please your vanity to believe that you know something about the law. But someone who has actually practiced law has had his knowledge and understanding of the law tested pretty much every day of his working life for real stakes for real clients in the real world, under the scrutiny of judges, regulators and other lawyers -- some of whom are our adversaries or competitors.

[JohnKSa]

I am not among the "absolutely rabid" nor the "laid back".

You may note that the quote I was responding to at that point was not from one of your posts.

And "funny" may be the the most inappropriate adjective available. "Sad", "shameful" or "tragic", perhaps, but not "funny". Not in ANY context of the word. It is neither humorous for someone to unjustly lose their possessions, nor is it ironic. It is, in fact, an entirely too prevalent form of complacency that pervades the uninformed and the unskilled in our society.

A poor and transparent attempt at righteous indignation.

It is, in fact, "funny" in the sense of "difficult to explain" or "peculiar" because persons who do fit the definition are exhibiting radically contradictory behaviors and attitudes about the same items.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/funny

1. a : affording light mirth and laughter : amusing
b : seeking or intended to amuse : facetious
2: differing from the ordinary in a suspicious, perplexing, quaint, or eccentric way : peculiar —often used as a sentence modifier <funny, things didn't turn out the way we planned>
3: involving trickery or deception <told his prisoner not to try anything funny>

[adamBomb]

my goal is a SD scenario is to be safe. If I could leave the house, I would - even my own. The gun is there to help me if I cannot leave. Forget property. Call the cops. Safety is #1.

[TimSr]

What is funny is that only lawyers can have qualified legal opinions, because their interpretation of the law is final, and yet there are always at least two of them with opposing points of view in every court case.

Truth is most of these type defense shooting cases will be handled in local county courts on behalf of the state, and the "legal experts" on this forum are so far removed from the reality of the attitudes and perspectives of the judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement in Wayne County, Ohio that I have to laugh at the implication that they are more knowledgeable of how cases will be handled than the people who live here. What you might think is a "reasonable" reaction in your domain would be viewed as kooky somewhere else.

This forum is labeled "tactics and training" and this is not a legal discussion. I would suggets that the appropriate and most effective "tactics" for dealing with conservative, rural and small towns' auto, shed, and garage burglars and how those tactics are viewed in the eyes of the local legal system might be different than the way they are seen and dealt with when the players are in a liberal urban setting, and in the eyes of what the courts in each region view as "reasonable". Bottom line, where I live, if an able bodied man watched a couple of kids steal or vandalize his property through his window without doing anything, that would be seen as far more unreasonable than going out and confronting them. 99% of the time, yelling through an open door will save your property, and send them fleeing, and the impression of pursuing them will ensure they don't come back again. Getting them caught and apprehended is icing on the cake.