internet testosterone or really the way folks think?

[done]

So I am on a number of firearm related boards. I get a response from a lot of folks where they would be completely alright with blowing away a thief for stealing. When describing a situation where a thief is robbing without any threat to yourself, (say he is leaving/running away, or you come home and they rush out the door away from you carrying your TV), would folks here see any issue with killing someone for what amounts to stuff?

IMO, if they are not presenting a threat of injury or death to you or those you love, you are doing nothing more than doling out punishment, which, IMO, is the job of the courts.

Now each state has its own laws on when it is legal to use lethal force, and I am not looking for the legal debate but the moral/ethical debate. We have a pretty level headed bunch of folks on here from across the nation, what are your opinions on this?

[Sam]

M, here is the problem.

You cannot use more than "reasonable" force to stop someone from stealing or damaging your property or you will be in big trouble.

You cannot intentionally injure someone unless you are put in physical harm and then to only stop them from injuring you or others if you have an escape route.

As you know, it is illegal to shoot a perp if they are stealing your car. However it can be self-defense if the perp places you in danger of bodily injury and you cannot escape.

Yes, it would be nice to take out a perp but it is against the law unless you know the definition of "reasonable" in your state/city/county/parish to make sure you will not get in trouble.

This is why we always carried a hidden knife with us in Viet Nam to put on the individual we took out if we found they did not have any weapons on them. We called it self-defense.

You know about gun and gun laws in your state but each state is different and the political atmosphere differs from states like Massachusetts to Texas.

Maybe a law enforcement officer or attorney can bring us up to date.

Can you fill us in on the laws in your state for using deadly force to protect property and persons? 

[fishinfiend]

Just wing him 

[I.rar]

afaik , you cannot shoot someone in the back , in any state. the threat would be over if they are running away. i could be wrong though...

i plan on getting my CCW permit sometime next year. i would also like to see peoples opinion on this.

[firefightn15]

In the past, whenever I ran these scenarios, I worried more about civil actions against me than I did for the possible criminal charges that would be made by law enforcement. Sam's comment on an escape route for yourself is also huge in the outcome of both the possibility of civil suits and criminal charges.

There's a lot of weight on your shoulders and some quick, straight thinking that needs to be done in the basic "blink of an eye".

[fishfordollars]

Call Joe Horn in Pasadena Texas and get his thoughts. He killed one stealing his neighbors stuff and was never charged. He was judge, juror, and carried out the sentence in his neighbor's yard while talking to the 911 operator.

Depends on where you live.

If in Texas feel free to discharge your weapon.

[K_Mac]

I am in the process of upgrading my firearms collection. I've given this some thought, and I've also spent some time on the online gun forums. It always seems to get political...

For what it's worth, I don't believe I have any right to kill a BG running away with my property. Killing a human being, even if he is stealing my stuff is not something I want to live with. On the other hand, I believe I have a responsibility to protect myself and my family. Any kind of physical threat and all bets are off. A BG who comes into my house is a threat, whether he knows it or not...

[grimlin]

Most of this is Internet testosterone.It is the way people think....but thinking something is completely different that actually doing it.Very few people have the balls to do it without caring about a life.

Self defense is actually somebody getting attacked or in the process of getting attacked.Shooting somebody in the back because they running away is not self defense IMO.I don't buy that B.S. for one second. I can understand how people feel about criminals(the hatred toward their actions) But i don't understand why somebody would "want" to take a life.IMO God is the only Judge on when it's time for us to die.That's how i feel about this.

[Grey Wolf]

Talks cheap , I would only kill to protect my family from dying , anything else does not matter.

[SoFlaBassAddict]

If somebody comes busting through my doors while I'm at home, I'll shoot.  I'm not going to ask him his intentions.  As far as I'm concerned, if he's smashing his way into my house, he's a major threat to the safety of my family.  If I pull up like you said, and somebody is running off with some of my junk, I'll let them go.  Thats what I have insurance for.

[adclem]

A shotgun loaded with rock salt and glass would sure work very well and not injure the person very badly.

A bean bag gun also works really well. ;D

And neither involves deadly force.

If I feel that my family lives are in jeopardy then that is the only time I would consider using deadly force.

Later,

[grimlin]

A shotgun loaded with rock salt and glass would sure work very well and not injure the person very badly.

A bean bag gun also works really well. ;D

And neither involves deadly force.

If I feel that my family lives are in jeopardy then that is the only time I would consider using deadly force.

Later,

Paintball guns work pretty good too...At least they'll get the message... ;D

[Lund Explorer]

It may have changed since I got taught the use of force rules, but we had three qualifications.

1. To save your life.

2. To save the life of another person.

3. To prevent the escape of someone, who if given the chance could harm someone else.

PS - We had a fourth rule that didn't really fit into civilian life....

4. To prevent any unauthorized person from getting at the nukes we were guarding.

[done]

Yeah legally I know what is allowed and not, I did not want to get to that because it will inevitably lead to politics about whether the law is good or bad.

I really think beyond the law there are moral/ethical considerations. IMO, nothing I own is worth a life. I hate thieves. I would have no problem locking them up for a LONG time, even caning, but to play judge, jury, and more importantly executioner, to me just ain't right.

Now I am talking about thieving where you are not in immediate danger. This is something completely different from someone kicking your door at 2 am. Personally, that situation puts me in fear for the lives of my wife and kids and I am responding with lethal force not waiting to see what he wants to do.

I am more looking at the case lets say, you look out your window and some dude is loading your lawnmower into a truck backed into your driveway, or you wake up, walk into you living room and you front door is open and you see a thief running down your driveway with your 50" flat screen or more inline with the site, you see some dude running down the driveway to a car carrying your Hummingbird 1197c SI. I would have no problem catching up to him, hitting him with some OC and breaking his legs, but shooting him in the head and killing him, I couldn't do it for that. I wonder, when push came to shove, while i doubt anyone here would have a problem doling out a can a whoop ***, killing that person, just seems wrong.

And for this I am making another wild assumption that this person has no visible weapons and is not pulling one on me.

[bass or bass ?]

It may have changed since I got taught the use of force rules, but we had three qualifications.

1. To save your life.

2. To save the life of another person.

3. To prevent the escape of someone, who if given the chance could harm someone else.

PS - We had a fourth rule that didn't really fit into civilian life....

4. To prevent any unauthorized person from getting at the nukes we were guarding.

This pretty well sums it up.

In Sams post he mentions the requirement of having an "escape" route. Arizona and Florida statutes have the Castle Doctrine which does not require you to flee from imminent danger. You may stand your ground in your home or in public, provided you abide by the above rules of engagement.

Remember, even if you are within your rights, you will undoubtedly be sued by the "victim" or their family in civil court for shooting or killing the perpetrator. You will probably win the case, but it will cost you plenty monetarily. I possess a CCW and carry at all times, but I will only draw under the direst of circumstances.

A guaranteed route to a very long prison sentence is planting a weapon on someone after a shooting.

And never bring a non lethal gun (paintball etc.) into the equasion. The fleeing perp sees a weapon ,draws his own, and successfully defends himself because you produced a non lethal gun. If you draw a firearm, only do so with the intent of destroying your target.

[Lund Explorer]

It may have changed since I got taught the use of force rules, but we had three qualifications.

1. To save your life.

2. To save the life of another person.

3. To prevent the escape of someone, who if given the chance could harm someone else.

PS - We had a fourth rule that didn't really fit into civilian life....

4. To prevent any unauthorized person from getting at the nukes we were guarding.

This pretty well sums it up.

In Sams post he mentions the requirement of having an "escape" route. Arizona and Florida statutes have the Castle Doctrine which does not require you to flee from imminent danger. You may stand your ground in your home or in public, provided you abide by the above rules of engagement.

Remember, even if you are within your rights, you will undoubtedly be sued by the "victim" or their family in civil court for shooting or killing the perpetrator. You will probably win the case, but it will cost you plenty monetarily. I possess a CCW and carry at all times, but I will only draw under the direst of circumstances.

A guaranteed route to a very long prison sentence is planting a weapon on someone after a shooting.

And never bring a non lethal gun (paintball etc.) into the equasion. The fleeing perp sees a weapon ,draws his own, and successfully defends himself because you produced a non lethal gun. If you draw a firearm, only do so with the intent of destroying your target.

The rules I posted where what I learned as a military policeman (USAF) back in the early 1970's.

I would think rules #1 & #2 would be allowed for any civilian.  Rule #3?  Probably not so much if you don't have a badge.

I'm not sure if Michigan requires you to try to escape first, but I do know that term escape also means to be out of range of the attacker's weapon.  If the perp is armed, that range stretches out pretty far.

I'll agree on planting a disposal.  We called them "No Deposit - No Return" guns.  Sadly they are fairly easy to get your hands on one.

[Bassn Blvd]

To answer your question, NO.  I would not shoot someone for stealing my t.v or any other property. 

The reason I wouldn't shoot them isn't because I couldn't pull the trigger but because it is ILLEGAL and I would find myself in prison.

The posters who shout " I'd shoot and kill any SOB who I caught stealing my t.v (or whatever)" are more than likely the ones you'd find peeing their pants and dropping a deuce at the first sign of trouble and shouldn't be owning a gun in the first place.

[.dsaavedra.]

Just wing him

lolololololololol reference win!

[Hammer 4]

Here in cali, you can only meet deadly force, with deadly force. Although, if you felt threatened by a perp that grossly outweighs you, in certain circumstances you can then use deadly force, if you felt your life was at stake. I don't necessarily agree with our weapon laws, and the criminals take full advantage of this. i know of at least one case where a burglar was shot, and wounded, and sued the home owner, and won.. :

Sometimes I wished our laws were similar to Texas.

[Grey Wolf]

To answer your question, NO. I would not shoot someone for stealing my t.v or any other property.

The reason I wouldn't shoot them isn't because I couldn't pull the trigger but because it is ILLEGAL and I would find myself in prison.

The posters who shout " I'd shoot and kill any SOB who I caught stealing my t.v (or whatever)" are more than likely the ones you'd find peeing their pants and dropping a deuce at the first sign of trouble and shouldn't be owning a gun in the first place.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[D4u2s0t]

I've looked this up, and the laws almost FAVOR the criminal, at least in my state. You can NOT shoot anyone that is retreating, and even if they're actually coming AT you, you are required by law to try to exit the premesis and not shoot. If there is a nearby door, you are required to leave. The only time you are allowed to shoot is if you cannot escape any way, and your life is in danger.

Personally, I would have no problem pointing a gun at someone, telling them to get their *** on the ground, and keep them there until the officers came. I would not shoot unless it was a last resort, but at the same time, I don't want them to get away and be able to either come back, or rob someone else. I find it to be rediculous that if someone is taking your belongings, there's basically nothing you can do about it without getting in trouble. If I HAD to shoot, I would aim for an arm or leg if I had the opportunity, enough to drop the person, but not enough to kill. They're better off sitting in jail paying for their crimes then being dead, and me being in trouble and having to defend myself for murder. In reality, this would not work, because if you didn't kill the person, there's a good chance you're going to get sued, and lose. Gotta love the system.

[Raul]

A shotgun loaded with rock salt and glass would sure work very well and not injure the person very badly.

A bean bag gun also works really well. ;D

And neither involves deadly force.

If I feel that my family lives are in jeopardy then that is the only time I would consider using deadly force.

Later,

Shooting bean bags at us latinos don 't work , we 'll be back for more bean bags.

[grimlin]

I've looked this up, and the laws almost FAVOR the criminal, at least in my state. You can NOT shoot anyone that is retreating, and even if they're actually coming AT you, you are required by law to try to exit the premesis and not shoot. If there is a nearby door, you are required to leave. The only time you are allowed to shoot is if you cannot escape any way, and your life is in danger.

Personally, I would have no problem pointing a gun at someone, telling them to get their *** on the ground, and keep them there until the officers came. I would not shoot unless it was a last resort, but at the same time, I don't want them to get away and be able to either come back, or rob someone else. I find it to be rediculous that if someone is taking your belongings, there's basically nothing you can do about it without getting in trouble. If I HAD to shoot, I would aim for an arm or leg if I had the opportunity, enough to drop the person, but not enough to kill. They're better off sitting in jail paying for their crimes then being dead, and me being in trouble and having to defend myself for murder. In reality, this would not work, because if you didn't kill the person, there's a good chance you're going to get sued, and lose. Gotta love the system.

I would love to spend a day in the old cowboy and Indian days just to see how those laws back then worked. Would be kinda exciting to me...

[roadwarrior]

A shotgun loaded with rock salt and glass would sure work very well and not injure the person very badly.

A bean bag gun also works really well. ;D

And neither involves deadly force.

If I feel that my family lives are in jeopardy then that is the only time I would consider using deadly force.

Later,

Shooting bean bags at us latinos don 't work , we 'll be back for more bean bags.

                   

[K_Mac]

This site gives five rules for concealed carry, but I think it's relevant here:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/index.htm