POLL Question. WOULD YOU KILL
over your property?
The Taxas man who killed 2 men burglerizing his neighbors home raises some interesting questions as to what extent daedly force is warranted.
The facts as far as I know are not all in yet (IE:released) on the Texas shooting. So I'm not asking for opinions concerning that.
But I assume that the majority of us consider ourselves responsible gunowners and not the armed itchy triggered fanatics the media portrays us as.
So here's the scenerio I want you to consider.
You have arrived home and caught a thief in the act of stealing your prized valueables.
You are armed.
The thief begins to run away and will get away w/your stuff. He has not threatened you or anyone else.
Would you shoot him to prevent him from getting away w/your property?
IMO it's a pretty tough question. I know I'd be tempted.
The Taxas man who killed 2 men burglerizing his neighbors home raises some interesting questions as to what extent daedly force is warranted.
The facts as far as I know are not all in yet (IE:released) on the Texas shooting. So I'm not asking for opinions concerning that.
But I assume that the majority of us consider ourselves responsible gunowners and not the armed itchy triggered fanatics the media portrays us as.
So here's the scenerio I want you to consider.
You have arrived home and caught a thief in the act of stealing your prized valueables.
You are armed.
The thief begins to run away and will get away w/your stuff. He has not threatened you or anyone else.
Would you shoot him to prevent him from getting away w/your property?
IMO it's a pretty tough question. I know I'd be tempted.
0
-
it seems obvious that many people here have thought and maybe even envisioned this scenario, with some of you seeming to actually look forward to being the angel of justice, the judge and jury and executioner.
I asked this question on this forum with one of my first posts and it evoked great emotion from some responders. I will ask again, in light of the current discussion, and hope that it will shed light on the reality of the question, not give cause to some people who want to justify thier gun owning existance.
How many of you have killed someone? What's it like?0 -
quote:How many of you have killed someone? What's it like?
Don't think that anyone that has done it for real will answer your question.
All you will get is kids, or adults with the same mentality, making up a "fantasy".
We have had that here before![;)]
I have only pulled and pointed my gun once, and while I won't give details, it ended up OK.
Even that took 10 minutes for my heart rate to go back to normal.
Reality, and "imagining" a scenario are two totally different animals.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:How many of you have killed someone? What's it like?
Don't think that anyone that has done it for real will answer your question.
All you will get is kids, or adults with the same mentality, making up a "fantasy".
We have had that here before![;)]
I have only pulled and pointed my gun once, and while I won't give details, it ended up OK.
Even that took 10 minutes for my heart rate to go back to normal.
Reality, and "imagining" a scenario are two totally different animals.
Exactly! Thank you. Not to mention that asking such question is somewhat unethical, IMO.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:How many of you have killed someone? What's it like?
Don't think that anyone that has done it for real will answer your question.
All you will get is kids, or adults with the same mentality, making up a "fantasy".
We have had that here before![;)]
I have only pulled and pointed my gun once, and while I won't give details, it ended up OK.
Even that took 10 minutes for my heart rate to go back to normal.
Reality, and "imagining" a scenario are two totally different animals.
Exactly! Thank you. Not to mention that asking such question is somewhat unethical, IMO.
unethical? how?
It is a rhetorical question intended to evoke comment on the sanctity of life.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dano
quote:Originally posted by tacking1
it seems obvious that many people here have thought and maybe even envisioned this scenario, with some of you seeming to actually look forward to being the angel of justice, the judge and jury and executioner.
I asked this question on this forum with one of my first posts and it evoked great emotion from some responders. I will ask again, in light of the current discussion, and hope that it will shed light on the reality of the question, not give cause to some people who want to justify thier gun owning existance.
How many of you have killed someone? What's it like?
There are some questions that should never be asked, no matter what the subject content or topic. [V]
Please offer other examples of questions that shouldn't be asked as I want to be sure that I don't tread on anyone's rights.
I guess those posters who proclaim thier willingness to kill someone for taking thier stuff are more in line with acceptable speech.0 -
One of the biggest gray area we will ever see. So many variables to think about. If the person is leaving your house with a tv and you shoot him, you just murdered somebody. If you chase them down, you are guilty of instigating a murder or violence. What if he is stealing the guns in your home? He may use them on someone else or sell them to someone else that would. For all ya''ll that have been through a CCW course, think back about all the different scenarios you were asked about. Just think about them. And remember, in a high stress situation, fine motor skills go away. so if you have your finger on the trigger and you accidently jerk or bump something and your weapon goes off and you kill them, that is manslaughter. IE: Accidental death due to negligence or neglect. [}:)] 0 -
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem at all with shooting a bad guy. I even have a sign on my garage asking them if my stuff is worth dying over? Just saying we have to be careful and analize everything within just a few seconds and decide what to do, if we even have that long.
PS: If the bad guy can see a little red dot on him, that doesn't hurt either! [;)]0 -
We might not have to answer these questions if the libral judges would quit turning these 4&5 time losers looseOr give them more then 90 days then probation 0 -
quote:Originally posted by savage170
We might not have to answer these questions if the libral judges would quit turning these 4&5 time losers looseOr give them more then 90 days then probation
0 -
quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:Originally posted by eboydell
If more people did what Joe Horn did, this Country would not be in the fix that it is in. I'm a Christian, but if you slap one check, I'll shove a knive right into your throat.If you pull a knife,I'll shoot you.If you pull a gun, I'll pull a gun, and the best man will walk away. Being a Christian does not mean that you have to be a puzzy![:(!]
All of which involves a physical confrontation. Defending yourself isn't the question.
But your thoughts have merit. The era of Old West bank robbing came to an end when the citizens of towns like Northfield MN. and Coffeyville Ks. defended their property. And came back later after carrying guns in town had been outlawed.
But there again, the people of these towns were confronted w/Armed thieves who used armed intimidation as a weapon.(that didn't work).
Stirctly speaking, do you think Jesus would agree w/you in regard to gunning down unarmed thieves?I wonder after reading through all the posts, why the "good" Christians didn't pipe in with an answer to your question?
Maybe, it was inconvenient for them to do so.[V]0 -
i would like to kill him, but as far as i know it is against the law in WV to shoot someone who does not threaten bodily harm. why should i go to jail over a piece of chit that i shot, when my insurance would cover what he stold 0 -
Yes. There are other ways to support yourself rather than stealing. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Flyin_PaulieI wonder after reading through all the posts, why the "good" Christians didn't pipe in with an answer to your question?
Maybe, it was inconvenient for them to do so.[V]
I don't consider myself to be a "good" christian, and I can't quote much of anything out of the bible. but I do know Jesus said "If you do not own a sword, sell what you must to buy one. When you go to work, work with one hand and keep the other on your sword. If you do not do everything you can to protect you, your loved ones, and your possessions, then you are no better than the ones that want to take them" That isn't word for word what it says, just going by memory.0 -
Its very ez to answer and i think we can all agree, IF U WONT DIE FOR IT, DONT KILL FOR IT! 0 -
I'd chase him, beat him senseless, and hold him until the law arrived. If he showed a weapon, i'd shoot, if he started turning the tables on the beating and I felt the need to, I'd shoot. My first post ever! [:D] 0 -
"but I do know Jesus said "If you do not own a sword, sell what you must to buy one. When you go to work, work with one hand and keep the other on your sword. If you do not do everything you can to protect you, your loved ones, and your possessions, then you are no better than the ones that want to take them" That isn't word for word what it says, just going by memory."
Ronbo that doesn't sound like Jesus talking to me. Are you sure that isn't from the Old testament?0 -
Yes. One less P.O.S. on the street. I work hard for my stuff. Why shouldn't he work for his. Cleans the gene pool a bit too.[}:)] 0 -
One of the methods used to destroy freedom is the elimination of the concept of 'private property'.
Therefore the condemnation officially and the outright hostility towards private citizens defending what is THEIRS.
Couple that with the official "We are entirely too busy to investigate property crimes"..as friends of mine have been told, several times..and there is little recourse for the average citizen.
Just keep right on.all you good little drones.working hard so some scumbag can hit you whenever he feels like it.
Be sure he understands that fleeing will insure his survival..so he can hit you some other day when you are not there.
After all.your `stuff' isn't worth a `life'.even if that life is a rotten dirty scumbag.
Wonder where all the men went to.the men that settled the West. They shot horse thieves and cattle rustlers, and scum that invaded their homesteads.0 -
Killing burglars could be preventing a future murder when the perp invades the house with somebody in it. I am sure shooting someone would be a rough thing to do but then so is shooting a rabid dog. 0 -
I believe the original post stated that a thief has stolen your stuff and is running away. I won't add to or change the scenario.
I have very little "stuff" and have by and large worked my butt off for it. I have a rather low opinion of criminals, thieves in particular, and often question the precise degree to which they're human at all. One theft, a non-violent swipe that took thirty seconds or less, put my father, a contractor, and those of us he supported to a world of financial hurt -- and was a hard blow to the pride of a man who asked nothing but to be left alone to make his own living. So, I hate thieves more than I do murderers, by such a long shot it's almost funny.
I still wouldn't shoot someone in the back. I wouldn't shoot someone I didn't plain have to, if it meant violating the law. Call me a coward for limiting the things I might kill for to the protection of what I believe to be innocent human life, my country, and in cases that are for me and me alone to decide, my dignity. I spent a day and one very long night in jail with a very large fellow who made it plain what was going to happen to me when I eventually fell asleep. I won't go to prison for the sake of some sense of manhood that demands I protect my "stuff" and punish the wicked. I can buy more stuff and God will deal with the wicked in good time.
I'm not a sheep or a drone or whatever the hell some of you will call me. I like my life and a certain orifice of my body just as they are, and am not willing to kill another person, however marginal his/her/its worth, and in the process destroy most of what makes my life good -- for things I can replace or do without.0 -
Doing what is right always has consequences.ALWAYS.
And it ia ALWAYS dangerous to be right.when the government and culture is wrong.
Allowing predators free run is even more dangerous..and injurous to that culture.
No matter HOW bleeding hearts attempt to make it somehow all right for all that precious 'human life'..(human garbage, actually) to steal whatever they please...whenever they please.
The message OUGHT to be sent out loud and clear..daily on the tv, once every 15 moments...Steal and you risk being shot by a decent homeowner. Open season.0 -
I don't think I'd shoot over "mere" property and the law on this issue is fairly clear and consistent: you are NOT allowed to used deadly force to protect just your property, only lives.
The criminal may be a scumbag and he definitely deserves punishment of some sort (preferably the harshest short of the death penalty if he's stealing MY stuff) but his life is still a human life, technically speaking, and taking a human life over property is something widely associated with barbarism and primitive societies.0 -
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
"but I do know Jesus said "If you do not own a sword, sell what you must to buy one. When you go to work, work with one hand and keep the other on your sword. If you do not do everything you can to protect you, your loved ones, and your possessions, then you are no better than the ones that want to take them" That isn't word for word what it says, just going by memory."
Ronbo that doesn't sound like Jesus talking to me. Are you sure that isn't from the Old testament?
Nope, not sure. Like I said, I am not a "good" christian. [B)]
guess I should have worded that differently. [:I]0 -
quote:life is still a human life, technically speaking, and taking a human life over property is something widely associated with barbarism and primitive societies.
How very amusing.
Only in 'civilized' society..according to this poster...are thieves accorded the honor of stealing all they can carry off..just as long as they turn their backs and run fast enough.
You may continue to believe somehow this is 'civilized', if you wish...I call it the feminizing of the culture.
Never is the finger pointed at the slimebag stealing the property...just the guy defending his tiny portion of the world.
I wonder;
Just how many of you 'protect the guilty' types would hold the same warped viewpoint if you lived in a wilderness, with just the bare esentials to life...one axe, one rifle, a couple traps.and you saw somebody running off with your traps you needed to feed yourself.
Suddenly, the picture OUGHT to be crystal clear.
I myself hold there to be no difference between the two scnerios..a thief is a thief.0 -
Huff'n and puff'n.
[:D]0 -
As I strap my gun on each day, my only fear is not whether I could shoot another human being, if they are intent on harming me or my family, I'll do my best to protect them at any cost....... my greatest fear is shooting the WRONG one. If someone is running AWAY from me, I'll shout STOP, FREEZE, etc and see if they do but I would be too afraid of killing a stupid kid over a prank or some other sadly misguided soul. I trust and pray when the time comes that I have to act with deadly force that I have no alternative, no escape and no choice. Then I can hopefully live with the results that I "did the right thing". Even though all criminals make a choice to enter my house and steal, I also have to make a choice if I'm ready to use that ultimate choice to end his life. Make no mistake, if it's my life or one of my family's lives or his, that choice is already made when I elected to train and qualify to carry a concealed weapon. I'll handle my business....... I pray....... 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:life is still a human life, technically speaking, and taking a human life over property is something widely associated with barbarism and primitive societies.
How very amusing.
Only in 'civilized' society..according to this poster...are thieves accorded the honor of stealing all they can carry off..just as long as they turn their backs and run fast enough.
You may continue to believe somehow this is 'civilized', if you wish...I call it the feminizing of the culture.
Never is the finger pointed at the slimebag stealing the property...just the guy defending his tiny portion of the world.
I wonder;
Just how many of you 'protect the guilty' types would hold the same warped viewpoint if you lived in a wilderness, with just the bare esentials to life...one axe, one rifle, a couple traps.and you saw somebody running off with your traps you needed to feed yourself.
Suddenly, the picture OUGHT to be crystal clear.
I myself hold there to be no difference between the two scnerios..a thief is a thief.
It's not about the thief being allowed to carry off all that he can on his back, as you so glibly put it. It's about the proper response to the particular infraction. That is a hallmark of civilization. The punishment should fit the crime. If you think he should be allowed to be shot by a private person for stealing, do you believe he should be given the death penalty if convicted in a court of law? For theft? For a crime not involving the death or near-death of another human? If so, then I would go so far as to label you uncivilize and indeed, a savage. It's not about "protect the guilty." it's about how we measure the competing losses to society: on the one hand is your TV, your NASCAR cup collection you got from Burger King and your Rent-A-Center purchased bedroom set. On the other is a human life. Maybe not the most desirable of lives, maybe a criminal life, but a fellow person's life that you would destroy to protect something less than your own life, or the life/safety of those around you. Talk about civilized.
As to your hypothetical: it's so absurd as to be laughable. I defy you to find me one individual you know living like that in this day and age. I'll wait. But just for the sake of argument, let's assume there is: the quantitative difference between such a scenario and the real world is so massive as to become qualitative, perhaps justifying the use of deadly force in such a case as you postulated. But it is exactly because we AREN'T confronted with such stark choices in the real world that taking another's life to keep possession of mere property is deemed unacceptable.
As to your statement that you see no difference between the two sets of facts, that makes me question not only your ability to reason but your very sanity. A thief may be a thief, but the two scenarios you outline (only one of which exists in modern reality I would remind you) present completely different approaches and appropriate responses. Call me "feminized" or a little girl or whatever you want.
But hey, if you're so keen on killing thieves, I'm sure there's crime-prone areas near where you live: stake them out and shoot down every thief you see. See how much honor and respect you get for your actions. Present your "one axe, one rifle, a couple of traps" hypothetical to the police and courts. See how far it gets you.0 -
If my state's laws permitted me to, then yes. What's mine is mine and nobody else's. 0 -
quote:But hey, if you're so keen on killing thieves, I'm sure there's crime-prone areas near where you live: stake them out and shoot down every thief you see. See how much honor and respect you get for your actions.
Now, there is typical stupid, right there.
I moved OUT of a crime prone area just SO that decision would not have to be made.
I always sort of figured that those continually `victimized' by crime are comfortable being so.and the responses on this thread reenforce that belief.
"Honor and respect"..from the likes of people like you ? What would I do with such worthless accolades ?
My example was indeed extreme..delibertely so. The point being rather simple...but naturally, it escaped you.
The point missed by all you `precious human lifed' people is the willful, deliberate, intelligence-driven decision by a person able to decide the difference between right and wrong..to violate another persons RIGHTFUL freedom to be left alone and in possession of his property.
I also believe in dueling..as a means to take care of the garbage that spits (figuratively or actually) in your face in a public place..as a means of handlings social insects too cowardly to steal openly from you.
I also wonder..how many of you arguing for shooting looters after a disaster are now against private owners protecting their property in this thread ?0 -
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:life is still a human life, technically speaking, and taking a human life over property is something widely associated with barbarism and primitive societies.
How very amusing.
Only in 'civilized' society..according to this poster...are thieves accorded the honor of stealing all they can carry off..just as long as they turn their backs and run fast enough.
You may continue to believe somehow this is 'civilized', if you wish...I call it the feminizing of the culture.
Never is the finger pointed at the slimebag stealing the property...just the guy defending his tiny portion of the world.
I wonder;
Just how many of you 'protect the guilty' types would hold the same warped viewpoint if you lived in a wilderness, with just the bare esentials to life...one axe, one rifle, a couple traps.and you saw somebody running off with your traps you needed to feed yourself.
Suddenly, the picture OUGHT to be crystal clear.
I myself hold there to be no difference between the two scnerios..a thief is a thief.
It's not about the thief being allowed to carry off all that he can on his back, as you so glibly put it. It's about the proper response to the particular infraction. That is a hallmark of civilization. The punishment should fit the crime. If you think he should be allowed to be shot by a private person for stealing, do you believe he should be given the death penalty if convicted in a court of law? For theft? For a crime not involving the death or near-death of another human? If so, then I would go so far as to label you uncivilize and indeed, a savage. It's not about "protect the guilty." it's about how we measure the competing losses to society: on the one hand is your TV, your NASCAR cup collection you got from Burger King and your Rent-A-Center purchased bedroom set. On the other is a human life. Maybe not the most desirable of lives, maybe a criminal life, but a fellow person's life that you would destroy to protect something less than your own life, or the life/safety of those around you. Talk about civilized.
As to your hypothetical: it's so absurd as to be laughable. I defy you to find me one individual you know living like that in this day and age. I'll wait. But just for the sake of argument, let's assume there is: the quantitative difference between such a scenario and the real world is so massive as to become qualitative, perhaps justifying the use of deadly force in such a case as you postulated. But it is exactly because we AREN'T confronted with such stark choices in the real world that taking another's life to keep possession of mere property is deemed unacceptable.
As to your statement that you see no difference between the two sets of facts, that makes me question not only your ability to reason but your very sanity. A thief may be a thief, but the two scenarios you outline (only one of which exists in modern reality I would remind you) present completely different approaches and appropriate responses. Call me "feminized" or a little girl or whatever you want.
But hey, if you're so keen on killing thieves, I'm sure there's crime-prone areas near where you live: stake them out and shoot down every thief you see. See how much honor and respect you get for your actions. Present your "one axe, one rifle, a couple of traps" hypothetical to the police and courts. See how far it gets you.
A great post. Thank You Sir!0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
97 comments