Using Force to Defend Property

[Man_in_the_Moon]

How about a discussion not about guns, but about using force (of any type) to defend property?

Is it justifiable?

If it is, what is the line between using force and not using force?

If it is not, doesnt that just encourage criminal behavior?

I ask because in some areas of the country you can use force (even deadly force) to defend property (any property), and in other parts of the country you cant.

[Patriot_Spear]

1. Every situation is different...

You must be prepared to take responsibility for the rule of unintended consequences. My state 'allows' the use of deadly force to protect property- but it offers no protection civily.

[happyslug]

4. In most states, force is limited to protection of life

In most states, force is limited to protection of life, or protection from Serious Body injury. Now, if someone points a pistol at you and demand your wallet, you can still shoot him because the gun is pointed at you and as such a THREAT to you. Now there are exceptions to this rule, but none of these exceptions include having you turn over your wallet to the Robber. The exceptions tend to deal with situations when the victim refuses to turn over his wallet, and the Robber than leaves. At that point the Victim no longer is under a threat of harm and therefore can no longer shoot the criminal. You can only use as much force as is needed to defend yourself AND NO MORE (through remember this is a reasonable person standard, standing in your shoes with your background etc. I.e. if you pull out a gun thinking that is the force you need, the District Attorney can not say you could have defended yourself with your fists or a knife. The issue generally comes out when ever a crime victim overdoes the Defense to a degree that a jury can not accept the fact that what happen was what was needed. For example a woman slaps a man in the face, his pulling of a gun and shooting her is excessive (His blocking her hand from slapping is all that should have been needed).

Thus most states also require that you use only as much force as needed to end the conflict, you can not shoot someone till your gun empties, reload and shoot him some more (Providing he has cease being a menace to you, and most time by the time you re-load that would be the case). Now this does not mean you can not use a gun against someone threatening you with his fists, but if you do not back off (or at least try to avoid the fight) you can find yourself serving time for manslaughter (if not Murder). Now this varies from person to person, if a 5 foot, 100 pound woman is being threaten by a 6 foot 2 inches 250 pound man, her use of a gun (or other weapon) on him will be generally recognized as what was "needed". On the other hand, the reverse situation, I do not see a jury believing such a man having to shoot such a woman because she was hitting him with her fists AND he needed to shoot her to defend himself.

As to property, the law tends to look at any loss of property can be resolved through the court system and thus the use of force is generally NOT permitted to defend property. On the other hand this is a generally requirement and as such EVERY person has an obligations to avoid violence. For example, if a re-possession person tried to take your car, he has to do it "Peacefully", he can not use force or the threat of force to get your car (i.e. he can come in the dead of night and take your car out of your drive way, but he can NOT pull you out of it NOR can he break into your Garage to get the car. I had a case few years ago involving a Mobile home, and I told the owner just to stay in the Home and call the police of the re-possession agent tries to take the Home. Under Pennsylvania law it was permitted by a Mobile home seller to re-possess such a mobile home but ONLY THROUGH PEACEFUL MEANS, and that includes NOT forcing people out of the house by hooking it up to a trailer. If owners of the trailer are still in the trailer, hooking it up is "Not-Peaceful" and as such illegal (it is viewed as "Violent" and a criminal act in itself.

My Advice to clients is to use self-Defense only in the Defense of Life. Property is NOT to be defended by the use of force. The Courts generally do not like people using force to defend property, it is merely property. The Courts tend to view life as more important than property. The court generally says the loss of property is to be treated through your insurance company (and if you do not have insurance, the courts tend to say, find the persons who took your property and sue them for its value DO NOT USE FORCE TO KEEP YOUR PROPERTY.

Now in natural disasters standing over your own property with a gun and than putting yourself between any looters and your property has been permitted, Even than you can only use the gun to defend yourself NOT your property. The fact that you have to defend yourself with the gun because you put yourself in a position of danger while trying to prevent someone from taking your property is generally OK, but you are on dangerous ground. You will have to show your actions were reasonable, and the pulling of the Gun was to defend yourself NOT the property. I would tend to say do NOT use force, but if you want to remember that the burden of proof to show what you did was justify will be on you NOT the person you shot.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

6. In Texas

After nightfall it is perfectly legal to shoot and kill someone committing theft, even if they are fleeing.

§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and


(3) he reasonably believes that:


(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

[jody]

2. Agree. Does anyone have a link to a summary of the different state

positions on the use of force?

In particular, if a state acknowledges in its constitution, a citizen's inalienable right to defend self and protect property, then how can that state lend its courts to civil suits against citizens who exercise that right?

[happyslug]

5. Retreat to the Wall Doctrine

Is generally a Court made rule, that State Legislatures have failed to change. Sometime it is codified, but generally it is not. Pennsylvania's Retreat Doctrine is NOT statutory (through its ruling that a person has no duty to retreat from their home was made a statute by the Legislature).

The list of Retreat to the Wall doctrine states include the following (This is from a West Horn-book dated 1986 so the law may have changed):

Pennsylvania
New Jersey
New York
Alabama
Maine
Minnesota
Iowa (But see http://www.legis.state.ia.us/IACODE/2001SUPPLEMENT/704/1.html
, which is the Modern Statute, looks like it retains the Retreat to the Wall in the last sentence of the Section, but before I would say anything I would talk this with an attorney who knows mor about Iowa law than I do).

List of States that do NOT require someone to retreat to the wall

California
Mississippi
Indiana
Oklahoma
Texas http://www.texaspolicecentral.com/title_2.htm#9.02%20Justification%20as%20a%20defense

“§ 9.21 (c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.”


The Model Penal Code adopted the Retreat to the Wall Doctrine § 3.04(2)(b)(ii), but most states have NOT adopted the Retreat to the Wall Doctrine (Even as most States used the Model Penal Code to update their own Penal Codes after the MPC’s publication in 1962..

The California Code on Line:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

State of Iowa:
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/IALaw.html

Texas Penal code:
http://www.texaspolicecentral.com/penal_code.html

[vdeputy]

3. Using force to defend property

is legit. I drew my gun on a couple of gangbangers who approached me in the dark parking lot of a mall one time when they asked for my purse and packages. They went running and I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Anyone who ever breaks into my house runs the risk of getting shot!

[CarinKaryn]

7. Sure!

I'd kill to protect my VCR! Wouldn't everyone?
:)

[TexasMexican]

8. me too.

Since my VCR is in my bedroom and if some guy is breaking into my bedroom while I'm there one of us is going to get hurt and hopefully it would be him.

[CarinKaryn]

9. So you'd kill someone for $129 VCR

How very progressive of you. So by extension I can assume you are pro death penalty? Anti choice? (just a guess -weird how many are pro death penalty, but anti choice).

Must be a "Texas" thing. :shrug:

[Tinfoil]

10. You're damn right I would...

What would you do...? Offer him some coffee and help him unplug it?

Call the police and go "na na.. you better hurry.. I called the COPS and they said they'd be here in a half an hour!"?


On a note. I would not shoot to kill him. I will shoot to stop him. If he dies while commiting a felony, so be it. If they are willing to break into my home, I am damn sure not going to wait around to find out if they are violent or not.

[CarinKaryn]

12. Nice.

You'd kill someone for $129.

What's your price to NOT kill someone? Would you let them go for $130? How about $500?

Do you support capital punishment, or do you only kill to protect YOUR property?

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. False choice

Someone who breaks into your home has already broken the law. There is no way of knowing what OTHER laws they will break. Only a fool would wait a find out.

Someone comes into my home, I will assume the worst and provide it in return.

[CarinKaryn]

15. Tinfoil said he'd kill to save $129

He was pretty explicit about KILLING someone in order to save that product.

Maybe we should start a collection. If we can get $150 or so, we can give it to Tinfoil and ask him not to shoot.

[a2birdcage]

18. He said he would shoot to stop, not to kill!

I've noticed you have a terrible problem misquoting people and putting words in their mouth. He was not explicit about shooting someone in order to save his VCR. What he was explicit about was shooting someone to stop them from hurting him or his family. I would hate to have you as a mother or wife. Someone who is not willing to protect themselves against a threat in their own home is someone that is more dangerous than the threat itself. I feel sorry for your kids if you have any.

[CarinKaryn]

20. You are wrong

and I resent the personal attack on me. You have now idea what my personal life is like and no right to comment on my mothering capabilities.

[a2birdcage]

34. I resent the fact........

that you have children and would rather wait for the intruder to hurt or kill one of them before you decided they were a threat. I've got a little news for you Carin..........someone who breaks into your home is automatically a threat and must be assumed dangerous. Like I said, you are more dangerous than the threat itself.

[demsrule4life]

45. But isnt it a natural response of a mother whose kids are

being threatend to attack the source of the threat?

[a2birdcage]

53. Not Carin

Carin said, "My views toward others don't stop when they cross an imaginary line or border; people all over the world deserve respect and love."

I guess Carin views her kids being raped and/or murdered by a home intruder as being an imaginary line. For me that's a very real line that, if I'm present, will not be crossed and you will get neither love nor respect from me if you attempt to cross it! It's funny how she views the people who protect their property and loved ones as being the bad guys. I wonder if she would love and respect us better if we were the ones breaking into other poeple's homes? Would we get your love and respect Carin?

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. You left out a bit

He made it clear that, "I am damn sure not going to wait around to find out if they are violent or not."

That's not protecting a VCR, that's protecting the lives of the folks IN the home.

[CarinKaryn]

21. Wrong

He's not even interested in determining if there is a threat. Tinfoil was clear - Shoot first, no need for questions later.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. The threat is automatic

If you break into a home, you are a felon. The rest is just theory. That is fact and no homeowner should take the chance that you plan to do more.

[CarinKaryn]

26. How progressive of you.

So simple burglery is always a felony? And even if so, you recommend the death penalty for burglers?

You've answered the question of this thread. You, Tinfoil and a few other Texans feel you should kill to protect your VCRs from people who want to steal them for food money.

Glad we cleared that up.

[solinvictus]

29. Burglary

"So simple burglery is always a felony? And even if so, you recommend the death penalty for burglers?"

Carin, in this day and age, I do not believe it is the acme of prudence to attempt to determine an intruders intent in the midst of a crime. If I find an intruder inside my home in the night, I will without a doubt offer them a chance to raise their hands, but if they don't comply, it posits a reasonable threat to my family's safety. For the life of me, I can not understand the attitude that an intruder should be negotiated with and treated as anything less than a clear threat. People are killed in burglaries and home invasions every day.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Progressive?

Sorry, politics stops when some asshole breaks into my home. At that point he has clearly decided he is the enemy. He is now a threat to me and mine and had hope that he is better armed or luckier than I. That is not about VCRs, it's about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He's impinging on all three.

One thing is certain, only one of us would walk away.

[CarinKaryn]

35. I've heard a Conservative is just a Liberal who's been mugged...

"Sorry, politics stops when some asshole breaks into my home."

I think "politics" is just the outward expression of your point of view toward life and others around you; the "team" you support to enact your governmental wishes, the side of the room you stand on when debating bills, the donkey or elephant on your car's bumper sticker.

You sound like you take a very "conservative" attitude when YOUR VCR is involved. Maybe you are "progressive" when there is no personal cost to yourself.

My views toward others don't stop when they cross an imaginary line or border; people all over the world deserve respect and love.

You sound like you've been mugged. BTW, I've suffered losses and they haven't changed me into a right winger. If anything, I've tried to use my losses to develop more compassion for those around me.


Does Muddleoftheroad refer to your political point of view?

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. I respect life, especially that of my family and me

No, I take a very conservative attitude when my life or the lives of my family are involved. Maybe you think of thugs in the abstract. I do not. I lived in Southeast D.C. for a time -- too long of a time. I was forbidden to own a handgun to protect myself by law, yet every gangbanger in my neighborhood had several.

Now I live in Virginia where I can and do own a gun for protection. Though there is far less gang activity where I live, I have other reasons for protection.

So I know all about who many of these criminals are. I lived with them. I know them and I know what they are capable of. That means I choose NOT to let them harm me or my family.

That's not an issue of right or left, it's an issue of right or wrong. What a criminal does is wrong. Protecting yourself and your family is right.

You and I are NOT discussing an "imaginary line or border," we are discussing people who break into your home. Such people DO NOT, "deserve respect and love." They deserve justice. If they break into another home, they can hope that justice will be a 911 call. In my house, that call comes AFTER I deal with intruders.

I am, as I often describe myself, a radical moderate. I am wildly left on some things, more conservative on others. Like much of America, I am not at either end of the spectrum.

[DoNotRefill]

40. So, if you were being sexually assaulted....

you'd try to negotiate with your attacker? That's a sure recipe for disaster...

[CarinKaryn]

42. As someone wiser that we said...

An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind.

There are many true pacifists who refuse to use violence against agreession.
Passive resistance and avoidance tactics are always your best bet.

I wonder how many of you ready to gun down the next person creeping around your cars have taken simple precautions such as turning on exterior lights and locking your doors.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. True Pacifism

Is beyond me. Far beyond me in fact. I fight for those I care about.

[DoNotRefill]

48. Not only that...

but "true pacifism" ENCOURAGES more violence and crime. Why? Because it teaches criminals that they can act badly without fear.

I wonder why "true pacifists" don't wander around wearing buttons saying things like "True pacifist: Please don't attack me, so that I will not have to pay for what I believe in." Could it be that "true pacifists" are the classic "free riders"?

[DoNotRefill]

46. I prefer...

"if Justice takes an eye for an eye, Justice will soon be blind."

Of course, Justice is supposed to already BE blind.

Regarding passive resistance and avoidance tactics being your best bet, there's research conducted by the DoJ under Clinton that shows that sentiment to be FALSE. Your best bet to avoid being injured if attacked is to meet the attack with a firearm. Even Kellermann admits this.

Do you have some actual scientific basis for your statement that passive resistance is your best bet, or are you just making stuff up? Please provide a link to your sources for that "interesting" conclusion.

[demsrule4life]

49. Tell that to 6,000,000 jews

being passive really helped them.

[DoNotRefill]

50. Didn't they also exterminate all the Quakers, etc...

that they could lay their hands on?

[demsrule4life]

51. They killed anyone they didnt like

The problem with the Jews is that thoughout history they took the passive route figuring it would save lives. Only problem is there are people out there that want to kill you no matter what. (you know this isnt addressed to you)

[TexasMexican]

56. I read somewhere.

a phrase something along the lines of "it takes two groups fighting to have a war, it only takes one to have a slaughter."

[a2birdcage]

54. For the record...........

I take those precautions as well as having a home security system armed during times of absence and at night. Believe me Carin, the last thing I want to do is have to shoot someone for what ever reason. The legal ramifications of doing something would be overwhelming even if it were in true self-defense. However, if I'm left no other choice and it comes down to me or someone I love being hurt or killed then I will shoot in order to STOP the situation from happening. I ask you Carin, what is so wrong with that stance?

[jhfenton]

57. "simple precautions"

"I wonder how many of you ready to gun down the next person creeping around your cars have taken simple precautions such as turning on exterior lights and locking your doors."

Porch light on -- check
Exterior lights on motion sensors -- check
Monitored alarm on doors and windows with internal motion sensors -- check
Loaded firearm on my person -- check

For what it's worth, I would not necessarily shoot someone stealing my car from outside my house. That's just property.

Invading my occupied home is a different story. I don't how to interpret that except as a threat to my family.

[CarinKaryn]

58. If you want to "fight"

the next step after passive resistance and avoidance tactics would be non-lethal options. It hardly seems suprising that no one has suggested pepper spray and tasers as you all seem so anxious to shoot someone.
Non lethal options are a nessary step in the escalation of force.
If you were police officers and you simply plugged someone who was merely creeping through a darkened building you could be charged with murder.
Non lethal options, though not as satisfiying to the gun slingers, are every bit as effective in defending your VCRs.

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. No guarantees

Non-lethal options are also less effective. I don't take chances with the lives of my family.

[solinvictus]

60. Non lethal

Pepper spray, tasers, and stun guns are ineffective against drug addicts, especially those on PCP or methamphetamines. If you prefer passive resistance against human predators, fine, that's your choice.

[jody]

61. Come back when criminals and LEOs start using non-lethal options.

:hi:

[demsrule4life]

62. Non-lethal options that are effective

are not for sale to us peons.

[CarinKaryn]

63. Don't you claim to be an ex LEO?

So your commander advised you to shoot whoever gave you trouble? The peperspray, taser, and baton were just for show?

[jhfenton]

64. I do carry OC spray...

for occasions when less than lethal force is appropriate. If a criminal confronts me with a knife or a baseball bat I'm going to defend myself with potentially lethal force. If a belligerent drunk takes a bare-fisted swing at me, I'm probably going to reach for the OC spray.

Different tools for different needs.

[demsrule4life]

65. They can be effective but they were not designed to be used

against an armed person. One of the best non lethal weapons for an armed person who is not activally shooting at you is the bean bag shotgun shells, but they are not avalable to the general public.

[DoNotRefill]

68. I'm an ex-LEO....

and "less lethal" weapons were not required to be used in situations that required lethal force. We were not required to go through every available tool before using our guns, simply because such an assinine idea would result in dead cops.

A burglar in your bedroom in the middle of the night is the textbook definition of when lethal force is required.

[happyslug]

69. Different Rules apply to law enforcement officers

LEO need not retreat in any state, and can use whatever force their deem needed to arrest someone.

Police officers can go over-board for excessive force must be not just a little bit excessive it has to be over the top. That is how the police who beat Rodney King got off, while the hitting with the Night Stick was excessive, it was not to the degree to be legally excessive (at least to the Jury).

Now I have had officers look at that film and saw not only excess but also bad police work. i.e. the first thing you do with ANY suspect is to cuff him. Once he is cuffed his ability to do ANYTHING is limited. Not one of the officers involved put his knee on Rodney King's Back and cuffed him till after the beating. HE HAD BEEN ON THE GROUND BEFORE HE WAS BEING HIT. It would have been easy to cuff him. Just bad Police work by the officers involved and all of them should have been fired JUST FOR FAILING TO CUFF RODNEY KING. I better get off this rant on Rodney King and bad police work. (By the way the State CHP who stopped Rodney King had cuffed two of the people in his car, she just ran out of cuffs and than the LAPD showed up and started to beat people, I can not blame her, but just mean spirted bad police work by the LAPD).

Now you mentioned burglars, in the US most burglars do NOT break into occupied dwellings. The polls of burglars on why not, and their say, dogs and guns. Dogs they can often work around, trick them outside, feed them food, even poison them, but a gun means a good chance at being shot at and most Burglars draw the line at being shot at. The ideal combination is a dog and a gun. Now this is opposite in Britain where you have strict gun laws, and with those laws the ability to be shot is much lower. Thus in England you have a much higher rate of burglaries when the house is occupied in England than you do in the US.

As to shooting someone for a $129 VCR, that is excessive. In most states (even in Retreat to the law states) if someone enters your house without your permission, he is trespassing and you are viewed as having no further duty to retreat (you are in your house). Now there are restrictions on this. First if the person is in your house and just refuses to leave (and not a threat to you) you just can’t shoot him, you can only shoot him if he is a threat (through that would be viewed through your mind NOT the trespassers). Also the shooting is just the start of the procedure to see if what you did was right. You still have to show that he (the trespasser) was a threat to you. That can be done by him just being in your home, but you have to show something that he was a threat. You just can not shoot a traveling salesman trying to sell you a sweeper because he refuses to leave your home.

Now you can also NOT follow the trespasser as he leaves your home. Once he is no longer a threat (i.e. by his running out the front door) you can NOT shoot him. If you do the DA will probably charge you with manslaughter (do to the claim that you believe you could shoot him as he fled, but that belief was wrong).

My Advice, if your house is burglarized first call the police and than gather up your family. Once your family is secure turn on the lights (you are at a disadvantage in the dark in your home for most people have NOT traveled in their home without lights - so turn them on, it will shock most burglaries and probably chased them out of the house. If I was you once my family was secure I would wait for the police. If would NOT chase after the trespasser. Once my family is safe he can take what he wants, I value my family over mere property. This way I avoid a confrontation and hopefully I would not have to shoot the SOB. At the same time I am working on my Defense that I was only defending myself and my family. Thus if I do have to shoot someone, I can better show that I HAD TO DO IT, not that I WANTED TO DO IT.

As I said above, burglaries of occupied dwellings almost never happens in the US. You are much more likely to be attacked on a public street or parking lot than your home (And even these have declined since the 1960s by huge numbers). They the same rules apply, you can defend yourself (and others) but you better make sure what you are doing is DEFENDING not attacking.

One last comment, I see a lot of people talk about “Violent Crime” I wish I has a reference to the study that showed people’s conception of crime (related to the actual Crime rate) . When I first read it I as amused. The study showed no correspondence between people’s Conception of Crime and the actual crime rate except based on how much television you watched. The more Television you watched (Not WHAT you watch, just watching) the higher the crime rate you believed the crime rate, the less television you watched the closer your belief was to the actual crime rate. Education, background, liberal, conservative intelligence were not factors, it was simply how much Television you watched. The greater the amount of TV the higher you believe the crime rate was, the less the TV you watched the lower the rate you believe it to be (and the closer the rate one believe was to the actual crime rate).



.

[Hammie]

55. Imaginary?

What are these imaginary lines you are talking about.

If someone crosses my threshold uninvited, that is not an imaginary line. It is the very real boundry between the inside and outside of my home. Try it and you'll find out just how real the boundry is. Stay outside, and the police will come for you, come inside and it will be the coroner.

If someone is stealing my property, they have not crossed an imaginary line, they have crossed the real line of my property rights. The fact that they are rights implies that one is justified in defending them with whatever means are necessary.

If the culprit is willing to desist with harsh words, so be it. If he requires lethal force to cease depriving me of my rights, that is his choice.

[TexasMexican]

31. "food money?"

Well I guess that is real progressive of you, making out the criminal to be the victim.

Us evil bloodthirsty property owners are just choping at the bit to murder some poor down on his luck good kid who was just rummaging through our house for some "food money" so he could feed his starving family. :eyes:

[slackmaster]

37. If he wanted money for food then my ass chews gum

How much "food money" could a burglar get on the streets for a VCR that cost only $129 brand new?

Twenty bucks?

Someone who was really desperate for food could simply steal food, could he not?

[beevul]

38. ROFL

uggg...what a mess I made....

"If he wanted money for food then my ass chews gum"

Too Too FUNNY!!!

My compliments :toast:

[DoNotRefill]

39. "So simple burglery is always a felony?"

Yup.

There's no such thing as "misdemeanor" burglary.

And if a person breaks into your bedroom to steal your VCR while you are THERE, it poses a direct threat to your safety. If you weren't there, the person stole your VCR, and you tracked him down and shot him, THAT would be illegal. there's no threat to your life. If you're there, there's a presumption that you're in danger, so it's legal to shoot.

[demsrule4life]

47. Burglery is always a felony

Burglery is the unlawfull entrance into a occupied dwelling. Since it is occupied there is a chance that personal injury could result, hence it is a felony.

[Haole316]

67. are you going to be the judge of who's progressive and who's not??

do you consider calling someone a "non-progressive" to be an insult??
are we all supposed to see the world as you do??

maybe you should argue your points wthout trying to defame everyone....

[Tinfoil]

66. Karyn

As it's already been said about two dozen times on this thread, I would not be shooting someone because they are taking my $129 VCR ($300 Replay-TiVo gadget, actually, but whatever)...

I would be shooting someone because they broke into my house (felony) and I have no idea what their intentions are. Maybe they're just going to rearrange all my furniture to fuck with me, I have no idea.

I'm not about to find out, however. That person has NO business being in my home. If they are willing to commit a felony by breaking into my home, I'm not about to find out how far they are willing to go.

On a side note, I feel as though you imply that I would be catching a criminal in my apartment and then executing him after restraining him. That is not the case by any means. If, God forbid, I ever had to shoot someone, it is to stop any IMMEDIATE THREAT against myself or a loved-one. I consider someone breaking into my home an immediate threat and will act accordingly.

You may choose to be passive, and that's fine. It's your choice. However, do not think that the choice you have made for yourself (and children, unfortunately, IMO only) is the correct one for me. I choose to defend myself to stop a threat. It's my right.

[TexasMexican]

14. ...

I'm definately pro-death penalty, but I am pro-choice.

I personally think abortion is wrong and wasteful, would be better to use proper birth control. However that being said I'm pretty apathetic on the issue and dont really feel that it should be banned.

[CarinKaryn]

16. you sound a little more right than left

guns : pro
death penalty : pro
choice: "pro" but "pretty apathetic"

:shrug:

[TexasMexican]

17. on these issues

there is nothing wrong with that.

Its obvious, I'm pro-death. :eyes:

[CarinKaryn]

22. Nope. Didn't think you'd think so.

[Superfly]

11. You still have a VCR? Get with the times, man.

You need TiVO

[Wcross]

25. You would?

I would shoot someone if they broke into my home. I have no idea what a criminal is thinking, it isn't my job to find out. I would assume the worst. Killing for a VCR is an extreme reaction but unless your a mind reader, how would you know the criminals intent? If he is stupid enough to break into an occupied home to steal a VCR I would have to think he would be stupid enough to kill any witness.
What is in my home is mine. I choose to have a firearm in my home and make no apology about it. I will use that firearm to defend my life if need be. You are quite presumptuous to assume that being pro-gun is being right wing. The will to survive supercedes any political affiliations I have.

[DoNotRefill]

41. Solution:

Make burglars who are there only to steal property wear a big sandwich-board sign that says "Don't Shoot! I just want your stuff!" If they don't have such a sign on, they're in violation of the law, and can be shot on sight for the safety of the homeowner. If they DO have such a sign on, there has to be some kind of additional threat to the safety of the homeowner to justify lethal force.

Sound fair?

[Wild Bill]

43. you should also....

make them have one arm tied behind their back. it would make them eaiser to restrain while you call 911.

[solinvictus]

23. Yep,

My car is hard earned and dearly paid for and if you try to steal it, I should be able to shoot you. Period.

[CarinKaryn]

27. So what else would you kill for?

To protect your car stereo? It's mag wheels?
To protect your hard earned job from cheaper immigrant labor? To protect your manhood? Your honor?

Or do you draw the line at only killing to protect your automobile?

[solinvictus]

28. Property

The subject of the thread was property and yes, I believe that to defend an automobile or home from theft, you should be able to use deadly force. I would shoot someone for deliberately harming my chihuahuas without blinking an eye.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demsrule4life]

52. What would you kill for? (eom)

[beevul]

33. Touchy subject for some.

"I worked HARD for what I have. Being Progressive means establishing Social Programs to assist addicts, to provide a social welfare program and jobs programs to assist those who are down-and-out. 'Progressive' does NOT mean laying down and letting a CRIMINAL TAKE your personal belongings."

Ok, this is where this gets touchy to some. Everything I own, I had to work hard to get. That Time spent working, in essence, is a PIECE of my life, and I will NOT give it up easily. (anyone whos worked over 3500 hours in a year can identify with "a piece of life"). If someone attempts to take that "piece of life", or multiple pieces of my life, I believe it IS justified to use force, possibly even deadly force, to prevent a "piece" or "pieces" of my life from being taken from me.

"I'll give a hearty second to those commenting on defense of home and life - someone breaks into my secured home at night, with my family/children present, I absolutely am going to force them from the premises, or force their surrender to wait for the authorities. IF their refusal to comply comes in the form of a physical attack, I am going to defend myself & family to the utmost, up to and including Killing that attacker."

I'll second your second.


"So what else would you kill for?"
"To protect your car stereo? It's mag wheels?
"To protect your hard earned job from cheaper immigrant labor? To protect your manhood? Your honor? "
"Or do you draw the line at only killing to protect your automobile?"

With all due respect CarinKaryn, I believe you are posing the wrong question to the wrong party(s).

What I believe is the right question should be posed to the CRIMINAL something like this:


"So what else would you take the chance of dieing for?"
"To steal a car stereo? It's mag wheels?

I honestly believe the "burden" here, if you will, should be aimed at
the criminal element(no pun intended). That some don't consider posing the above questions to criminals REALLY bothers me.