Can I shoot someone breaking into my car?

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: FDF12389

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Really? You people think a car is worth taking a human life?

One too many cowboy movies.

Not the car, my breath mints in the car.

Well, no one ever mentioned mints. What type of mints are we talking about here?

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: FDF12389

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Really? You people think a car is worth taking a human life?

One too many cowboy movies.

Not the car, my breath mints in the car.

dont touch my mentos!!!

and my jessica simpson albums... errr well you can take those.

 

[FDF12389]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: FDF12389

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Really? You people think a car is worth taking a human life?

One too many cowboy movies.

Not the car, my breath mints in the car.

Well, no one ever mentioned mints. What type of mints are we talking about here?

These of course.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Ahhh the old $10,000 mint trick.

They've been doing that since I was a kid.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Really? You people think a car is worth taking a human life?

One too many cowboy movies.

If you cannot protect your property using whatever force is necessary to stop the thief (up to and including deadly force) then you cannot be properly said to "own" that property. At most, you are being granted temporary custody of said property until such time as someone decides to forcibly take it from you.

The question is not, "Do I think my car is worth more than a criminal's life?" The question is, "Does the criminal think that the car is worth risking his life to steal?" The criminal is the instigator, not the defender. Now, the official legal code of whatever state one is in may take a different view, and I suggest that it's best to consider this rather than to act blindly, but I stand by a person's absolute right to protect his own property and will continue to work towards a society where such action is legal.

After all, we used to hang horse thieves.

ZV

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Really? You people think a car is worth taking a human life?

One too many cowboy movies.

If you cannot protect your property using whatever force is necessary to stop the thief (up to and including deadly force) then you cannot be properly said to "own" that property. At most, you are being granted temporary custody of said property until such time as someone decides to forcibly take it from you.

The question is not, "Do I think my car is worth more than a criminal's life?" The question is, "Does the criminal think that the car is worth risking his life to steal?" The criminal is the instigator, not the defender. Now, the official legal code of whatever state one is in may take a different view, and I suggest that it's best to consider this rather than to act blindly, but I stand by a person's absolute right to protect his own property and will continue to work towards a society where such action is legal.

After all, we used to hang horse thieves.

ZV

I love this attitude. We also used to have slaves and women previously couldn't vote. Weren't things great? Hell, I wholeheartedly encourage you and anyone else who wants to to start doing things the way they used to be done all the time. I hope to read about you in the papers very soon.

There's no point in arguing this scenario with any of the John Wayne wannabe types that populate the internet and these boards. The simple truth of the matter is, none of you will ever be in this situation. Ever. And if by some unmeasurable chance that you were, no amount of internet posturing (or in many of the cases here, real life posturing) would give you the stones to shoot someone for breaking into your car. I simply don't buy it.

And let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you somehow (although the statistics don't back you up) shoot and are able to kill someone who is breaking into your car. Great! Good for you! You're a big man now! Except for the major psychological trauma that you'll be dealing with for a good portion of the rest of your life. You've just extinguished a human life and you have to live with it forever. Fortunately, you post on these boards so with your seven figure salary, you'll be able to afford the best counseling money can buy - probably from your wife, who is not only a model on the Price is Right but holds a PhD from Cornell, to boot.

Glad to see you guys have it all figured out.

 

[Jschmuck2]

And before it gets said and inevitably blown out of proportion, I am of course not advocating that you let people steal your things willy nilly. That would be ridiculous. What I'm saying is that maybe, just maybe, fixing the problem via a gun isn't the best course of action.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: FDF12389

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: FDF12389

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Really? You people think a car is worth taking a human life?

One too many cowboy movies.

Not the car, my breath mints in the car.

Well, no one ever mentioned mints. What type of mints are we talking about here?

These of course.

ive litterally seen people kill other people for less. :T

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
If you cannot protect your property using whatever force is necessary to stop the thief (up to and including deadly force) then you cannot be properly said to "own" that property. At most, you are being granted temporary custody of said property until such time as someone decides to forcibly take it from you.

The question is not, "Do I think my car is worth more than a criminal's life?" The question is, "Does the criminal think that the car is worth risking his life to steal?" The criminal is the instigator, not the defender. Now, the official legal code of whatever state one is in may take a different view, and I suggest that it's best to consider this rather than to act blindly, but I stand by a person's absolute right to protect his own property and will continue to work towards a society where such action is legal.

After all, we used to hang horse thieves.

True, but we also used to burn witches, throw people to lions, and wear bellbottoms

I think there is a happy medium between killing over property and letting people walk away with your things. Every state allows "force" to protect your belongings. Generally the level of force permitted is "that which is reasonable and necessary". I think the reasons behind not wanting grant to people the unilateral right to kill over property has to do with the fact that we are human, make mistakes, occasionally make poor choices in judgment, and sometimes things aren't what they seem. Killing at the drop of a hat doesn't let us get to what is really going on. Dead men tell no tales.

A few examples:

1) duress: I kidnap your daughter, tell you to break into some guys house and steal a diamond or I whack the kid. You clearly have no intention or motive to harm the homeowner, so there is no danger to him, but under your preferred law he would have the right to kill you just for breaking in. While I agree he shouldn't be thrown in jail if he reasonably believed you meant him harm, suppose he just held a gun on you and called the cops? Wouldn't that be a better outcome for everyone?

2) mistake: In college while visiting a friend who went to Univ of Maryland, where there is an apt complex featuring 2 identical buildings. I got really drunk, and left the group and went back to the apt complex, but went into the WRONG BUILDING! I banged on the door and kept trying the keys they'd given me. Technically since it was the wrong door I was trying to 'break in' to an apt. In FL even if the person on the other side of the door knew I was just a drunk idiot at the wrong apt, he could still shoot to kill. The FL castle doctrine removed the 'reasonable fear' aspect so that all a homeowner has to show is that someone was unlawfully and forcefully attempting to enter their home. That's it.

3) possessions can be replaced, a life cannot. At it's most basic, killing when life your life is not in danger is morally inferior to sparing a life when only property is at issue. Sure this is a philosophical point and an opinion, so reasonable people can disagree, but even Joe Horn (the acquittted Texas shooter) has said if he could do it over he would have stayed in his house. We may be gung-ho about protecting our property in theory, but it's probably not a good idea to discover that type of remorse after you kill someone over your golf clubs.

But hey, you can always just pick a state that adopts the laws you favor and live there. Most Texans seem pleased as punch with their rights. Bless em.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Really? You people think a car is worth taking a human life?

One too many cowboy movies.

If you cannot protect your property using whatever force is necessary to stop the thief (up to and including deadly force) then you cannot be properly said to "own" that property. At most, you are being granted temporary custody of said property until such time as someone decides to forcibly take it from you.

The question is not, "Do I think my car is worth more than a criminal's life?" The question is, "Does the criminal think that the car is worth risking his life to steal?" The criminal is the instigator, not the defender. Now, the official legal code of whatever state one is in may take a different view, and I suggest that it's best to consider this rather than to act blindly, but I stand by a person's absolute right to protect his own property and will continue to work towards a society where such action is legal.

After all, we used to hang horse thieves.

ZV

I love this attitude. We also used to have slaves and women previously couldn't vote. Weren't things great? Hell, I wholeheartedly encourage you and anyone else who wants to to start doing things the way they used to be done all the time. I hope to read about you in the papers very soon.

There's no point in arguing this scenario with any of the John Wayne wannabe types that populate the internet and these boards. The simple truth of the matter is, none of you will ever be in this situation. Ever. And if by some unmeasurable chance that you were, no amount of internet posturing (or in many of the cases here, real life posturing) would give you the stones to shoot someone for breaking into your car. I simply don't buy it.

And let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you somehow (although the statistics don't back you up) shoot and are able to kill someone who is breaking into your car. Great! Good for you! You're a big man now! Except for the major psychological trauma that you'll be dealing with for a good portion of the rest of your life. You've just extinguished a human life and you have to live with it forever. Fortunately, you post on these boards so with your seven figure salary, you'll be able to afford the best counseling money can buy - probably from your wife, who is not only a model on the Price is Right but holds a PhD from Cornell, to boot.

Glad to see you guys have it all figured out.

For someone who has never met me, you sure think you know an awful lot about me.

Hell, you haven't even bothered to read my own previous posts on this issue in other threads. If you had, you'd know that I've said many times that I would freely choose to let the person go if they did not threaten me. I would attempt to intervene, but I would not come out "guns blazing" (which is just plain stupid), and I would not chase a retreating thief even if he had my property while fleeing. I simply do not believe that the law should compel a person to simply hand over his hard-earned possessions.

I've worked very hard for the things I own. They represent the fruits of many hours of labor that I will never be able to get back. For example, in terms of dollars spent alone, my project car represents well over 450 hours of my working life. And that's not counting the amount of my time that I've invested in labor on the car. It's a lot more than just money.

Secondly, your comparison is specious. In one case, I talk about a punishment meted out for a conscious decision to act in a manner that is outside the law and stands to deprive a person of a means to his or her livelihood (stealing a horse or a car). You, in analogy, bring up historical injustices committed for reasons that are completely and utterly outside of the individual's control and for no rational basis. The analogy isn't even close to having a logical basis. It's emotionally persuasive if one has no logical abilities, but objectively it's quite worthless.

Sometimes it is necessary to kill a man. There are plenty of people serving in our armed forces who sleep very soundly at night despite having had to kill. If my life, or the life of my loved ones is threatened, I will not hesitate to use whatever means I have at my disposal. That is what an honorable man does.

ZV

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Really? You people think a car is worth taking a human life?

One too many cowboy movies.

If you cannot protect your property using whatever force is necessary to stop the thief (up to and including deadly force) then you cannot be properly said to "own" that property. At most, you are being granted temporary custody of said property until such time as someone decides to forcibly take it from you.

According to this logic, then you really don't live in society. What you describe is the infamous State of Nature described by someone like Hobbes.

 

[Muse]

Food for thought: I'm reading Bill Bryson's I'm a Stranger Here Myself and one of the typically 3-page chapters (they originally were weekly newspaper articles) is about the state he settled in when returning from 20 years in England, New Hampshire. He talks about how crime-free it is. People don't lock their doors, they drive up to a store and don't lock their car, instead they are apt to leave the keys in the ignition and the engine running. He was discussing this with a woman who had moved there from New York and she grabbed him by the arm and said, "Honey this isn't the real world, this is New Hampshire!"

* Strolls off singing John Lennon's "Imagine" *

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: jonks
True, but we also used to burn witches, throw people to lions, and wear bellbottoms

See my reply to Jschmuck2's analogy. There's a difference between punishment for consciously-chosen actions and ones over which a person has no control.

Originally posted by: jonks
I think there is a happy medium between killing over property and letting people walk away with your things. Every state allows "force" to protect your belongings. Generally the level of force permitted is "that which is reasonable and necessary". I think the reasons behind not wanting grant to people the unilateral right to kill over property has to do with the fact that we are human, make mistakes, occasionally make poor choices in judgment, and sometimes things aren't what they seem. Killing at the drop of a hat doesn't let us get to what is really going on. Dead men tell no tales.

I can, and do, agree with this, with the only exception being my house. If someone forces entry into my home while I am in it, I can reasonably assume that such a person means to do me harm. I am away from home 5 days out of the week. There are ample opportunities to break in when I am not there.

I also reserve the right to confront any thief if I so choose. If the confrontation results in them fleeing with my property, well, that sucks for me, but at least they didn't get more. If it results in them dropping my property and fleeing, great. If it results in them threatening my life or safety, they will have anywhere between 1 and 15 .40" diameter holes in them.

Originally posted by: jonks
A few examples:

1) duress: I kidnap your daughter, tell you to break into some guys house and steal a diamond or I whack the kid. You clearly have no intention or motive to harm the homeowner, so there is no danger to him, but under your preferred law he would have the right to kill you just for breaking in. While I agree he shouldn't be thrown in jail if he reasonably believed you meant him harm, suppose he just held a gun on you and called the cops? Wouldn't that be a better outcome for everyone?

The better outcome would be to come after you instead of stealing the diamond. Better still would be contacting the homeowner, explaining the situation, and asking for his help, along with contacting the police.

Regarding just holding a gun on someone: It can take multiple shots, even with a powerful handgun cartridge like a .357 Magnum, to subdue an attacker. A man can close a gap of 20 feet fast enough that a defender may only get one or two shots off, which is, in many cases, not enough to prevent injury or maiming by the attacker. It's simply not safe for a person to attempt to hold a person at gunpoint, despite what the movies claim.

The right thing to do in the situation you describe is to go to the police. If a person chooses to commit a criminal act in compliance with the kidnapper, that is his own mistake.

Originally posted by: jonks
2) mistake: In college while visiting a friend who went to Univ of Maryland, where there is an apt complex featuring 2 identical buildings. I got really drunk, and left the group and went back to the apt complex, but went into the WRONG BUILDING! I banged on the door and kept trying the keys they'd given me. Technically since it was the wrong door I was trying to 'break in' to an apt. In FL even if the person on the other side of the door knew I was just a drunk idiot at the wrong apt, he could still shoot to kill. The FL castle doctrine removed the 'reasonable fear' aspect so that all a homeowner has to show is that someone was unlawfully and forcefully attempting to enter their home. That's it.

Proper procedure dictates being able to see the attacker. Firing through an opaque door is reckless endangerment since no reasonable person can expect a decent chance of hitting the person banging on the door, and the chances for hitting an innocent bystander are too large. If you can't see your target, don't shoot. That's one of the key rules.

That said, there are a lot of people in hospitals because some drunk guy beat the crap out of them for no good reason. It's reasonable to fear a drunken man who is acting aggressive. Still, I feel that the proper thing to do in such situations is to announce that you have a weapon and will use it if the intruder makes it through the door. As I have already said, I have no love for people who would fire without being able to see their target.

Originally posted by: jonks
3) possessions can be replaced, a life cannot. At it's most basic, killing when life your life is not in danger is morally inferior to sparing a life when only property is at issue. Sure this is a philosophical point and an opinion, so reasonable people can disagree, but even Joe Horn (the acquittted Texas shooter) has said if he could do it over he would have stayed in his house. We may be gung-ho about protecting our property in theory, but it's probably not a good idea to discover that type of remorse after you kill someone over your golf clubs.

But hey, you can always just pick a state that adopts the laws you favor and live there. Most Texans seem pleased as punch with their rights. Bless em.

Property represents a significant portion of my life though. For a person who makes maybe $50,000/year, a house represents 5 years of his or her working life that can never be recovered. In my case, if someone steals my camera and a lens, that's 10 hours of my life that has been taken away. My cars are all well over 500 hours (probably well over 1,000 hours for the project cars) of my life when my own time spend working on them is factored in and that's not counting the amount of time required to source a replacement with the same rare options that they have; it would literally take months or even years to find equivalent cars. How do I get that time back?

Still as I've said in other threads, I personally would probably not shoot unless my own life, or the life of a loved one were threatened. However, I believe that should be a personal choice, not a legal compulsion.

Joe Horn sought out the thieves. I don't mean to suggest such action. But if I walk out of my front door one morning and see someone trying to jimmy open my car door, you can bet that I'm going to have my hand on my (still holstered) CCW yell at the guy to stop. Likewise, if I hear one of my female housemates screaming for help in the middle of the night, I'm grabbing my gun and running to her. If I just hear a window break, I'm staying in my room and simply announcing that I have a weapon. If I don't hear anything else for a few minutes, I'll check the house, but I'm not going to go running to every sound unless I have good reason to believe someone else is in danger. I'm fond of my own life. I don't intend to risk it by seeking bad situations.

ZV

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
Unless you're inside the car at the time, this is illegal in most or all states. Even then, you'd have to reasonably believe your safety was in danger. You could certainly shoot an armed carjacker, but that's because it's a violent crime and has nothing to do with the potential loss of property.

Thankfully most states are moving to making it perfectly legal to protect property.

Personally I think that is a stupid development. Only a moron would shoot someone to protect his car IMO.

It's not like you can break into someone's car accidentally, it's a choice that the thug makes. They chose that path in life and thugs have a negative value to society.

I fully support people manually euthanizing thieves.

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: mattocs
If they are not threatening you, then no.

If they run at you with anything at all, knife, bat, even fists, you should be ok in shooting them.

If you do shoot them and they are running away or something that is non threatening, then you should be charged with attempted first degree murder, or first degree murder if you kill them.

not in texas, we recently just had this happen

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
Unless you're inside the car at the time, this is illegal in most or all states. Even then, you'd have to reasonably believe your safety was in danger. You could certainly shoot an armed carjacker, but that's because it's a violent crime and has nothing to do with the potential loss of property.

Thankfully most states are moving to making it perfectly legal to protect property.

Personally I think that is a stupid development. Only a moron would shoot someone to protect his car IMO.

It's not like you can break into someone's car accidentally, it's a choice that the thug makes. They chose that path in life and thugs have a negative value to society.

I fully support people manually euthanizing thieves.

If you were a lawyer, you would probably be disbarred. I'd hope so.

Not that I'm a thief, I'm certainly not...

Even your contention that thieves "have a negative value to society" can be contended. Malcolm X was a thief (burglar, to be accurate) and in spades before he turned his life around. He became one of the most influential minds of his generation. I'm not saying it's OK to be a burglar, I'm just saying that to shoot them wholesale ("euthanize" was your term) is not justifiable.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
Unless you're inside the car at the time, this is illegal in most or all states. Even then, you'd have to reasonably believe your safety was in danger. You could certainly shoot an armed carjacker, but that's because it's a violent crime and has nothing to do with the potential loss of property.

It would definitely be legal in Texas. In WA, I believe that it is legal to use deadly force to stop a felony from being committed in one's presence as well.

RCW 9A.16.050 (bolding mine):

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

Also, according to RCW 9A.56.065:

(1) A person is guilty of theft of a motor vehicle if he or she commits theft of a motor vehicle.

(2) Theft of a motor vehicle is a class B felony.

Therefore, per RCW 9A.16.050 and RCW 9A.56.065, it is legal to use deadly force (e.g. shooting) against a person who is attempting to steal your car regardless of immanent threat to your own person. However, questions would certainly be asked and you may even face a trial. However, per RCW 9A.16.110, the state is required to pay your legal bills and associated defense costs (legal wording is "all reasonable costs", and includes loss of time during the case) if you are found innocent by reason of self-defense, which, per RCW, includes defense of property.

ZV

Never mind, already covered.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Muse


If you were a lawyer, you would probably be disbarred. I'd hope so.

That made no sense at all.

Originally posted by: Muse

Even your contention that thieves "have a negative value to society" can be contended. Malcolm X was a thief (burglar, to be accurate) and in spades before he turned his life around. He became one of the most influential minds of his generation. I'm not saying it's OK to be a burglar, I'm just saying that to shoot them wholesale ("euthanize" was your term) is not justifiable.

It doesn't matter what they "may be" or "might have been". If they're breaking into your house and you have the legal right to put them away, there's nothing wrong with using your rights.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: adairusmc

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: DocHolliday
I still fail to understand why people value the lives of others who commit crimes like these. Absolutely mind boggling...

So, we should have the death penalty for anyone that commits a crime?

:thumbsup:

As harsh and inhumane as that would be, I'd wager crime rates would drop right through the floor.

 

[Cdubneeddeal]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: adairusmc

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: DocHolliday
I still fail to understand why people value the lives of others who commit crimes like these. Absolutely mind boggling...

So, we should have the death penalty for anyone that commits a crime?

:thumbsup:

As harsh and inhumane as that would be, I'd wager crime rates would drop right through the floor.

You mean if we implemented a judicial system to that of Saudi Arabia? Hell yeah. Chop the dudes hand off that stole my stereo? I'm down

 

[redgtxdi]

I am of the belief that due to the fact that we've become so soft in society lately, we need to start cracking down more.

The liberals of this friggin' country are about ready to flip the coin on defining "statesman" and "criminal".

If any more rights get taken from citizens and handed over to criminals (example: people proposing child molester's RIGHTS?? WTF????) I might check out of the whole game w/ guns a blazin' wild-west style 'cuz I'm just sick of it. Had it. Done. Over it!!


People have forgotten that Lady Justice doesn't just carry scales blindfolded..........SHE ALSO WIELDS A FVCKING SWORD! AND IT AIN'T FOR POSTURE!!!!!!!