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
-
I just remembered a hypothetical question posed by an instructor in college. To me, it is germane to this discussion, but it may be a stretch.
You are a TV news reporter doing an "on location" about a renovation to a park in your town. As you are reporting about the renovation, a deranged man sits on the sidewalk, douses himself with gas, and pulls out a zippo. Do you "roll tape" on the potentially ghastly situation with the notion that it would boost ratings? Or, do you throw down your camera and try to keep this person from killing themself, missing out on the opportunity to produce a tremendous headline?0 -
quote:Originally posted by tacking1
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!
you're welcome.0 -
Yes!!!!!!!!!!! Today my Stuff, Next day Me. [8D] 0 -
Odd that you aren't allowed to accept and try to live with the realities of our society, including the legal prohibition on shooting thieves in non-life-threatening situations, without being accused of or at least having it implied that you're contributing to the degradation of our country.
I've already stated my position on the original post, which, again, involved a specific set of circumstances in which my life and the lives of those I place value on were not threatened. This doesn't make me the author of every last piece of criminal-protection legislation and judicial b.s. that has come down the pike. It means my sense of morality dictates that property is not on the same plane as human life, and that in those situations where I might tend to change my opinion society as a whole stands ready to punish me for doing so.
FWIW, I actually was, once, in a potential property-vs.-life stand-off. It involved a moronic brother-in-law's truck being repo'ed, me confronting what appeared to be car thieves, in my back yard, at a very early hour of the morning, and I was armed. So was the Los Angeles County Sheriff waiting down on the street for these guys to do their job, a fact I was unaware of until after I'd confronted the intruders on my property. According to many professionals in those fields where guns are working tools, I should have killed at least on of the repo guys for moving when I told him not to. I didn't. Had I done so, a guy doing his job (not a particularly savory job, I don't think, but then if my brother-in-law had paid his bills the repo fools wouldn't have been in my yard to do a job to start with....) would be dead. His partner might be dead. A police officer might be dead. I might be dead, and if I weren't I would probably still be in prison.
More power to you, if you believe I wussed out and made the choice of weaklings and sheep, since I failed to kill what I honestly thought to be a pair of car thieves on my property. You're entitled to your opinion and to handle a similar situation, should it arise, in whatever manner you deem proper. Good luck with the consequences, and I mean that sincerely. Don't blame me, though, based on the choice I made and would probably make again, for all that's weak and wrong in our country today. I don't have that degree of power and won't accept that degree of responsibility, particularly when, like even most of those who disagree with me, I am more tolerating the way things are than happy about it.
I edited to add this: Nemesis Enforcer, a number of times I've disagreed -- strongly -- with things you've said. In this case you said essentially what was on my mind and better than I would have. Thank you.0 -
DOA ! 0 -
if caught in my house, yep ... outside i'd whack him, tie im to a tree or phone pole and beat his azz with a bundle of rusty barbwire[;)][:(!] 0 -
Evil wins when good men do nothing.
We have a justice system shot full of evil men..men willing to turn criminals back out into the street dozens..hundreds..of times..allowing them to ply their trade with little interference.
Those evil men are aided and abeted by citizens declaring that 'things don't matter'..meaning that personal property and the RIGHT to be left alone are meaningless words..subject to the whims of some scum bag wanting another hit.
Telling me all about the 'state of society today' is all rather meaningless to me..I have a better grasp of the degadation by far of this system them most of you...because I do not blind myself with cozy warm thoughts of just how wonderful every thing is.
Just another thought...the poster above that took me to task for my 'extreme' example of the wilderness homesteader...What, pray
tell, do you make of the ghetto dweller...otherwise law abiding...just poor. What of this wretch...as his few belongings are looted time after time by ghouls ?
Naturally, YOU...well-fed, heavily insured, surrounded by all the good things in life...easily replaced by your well=paying job..cannot identify with such...but they exist...really, they do.
I can tell you with certainty..were I sitting on the jury of the guy in Texas that shot the 2 ghouls....NOT GUILTY !!! Today, tomorrow, and forever !!0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
97 comments