Is use of deadly force to protect one's property justified, if police can't do it?

Is use of deadly force to protect one's property justified, if police can't do it?

  • I'm not an American and I say "no."

    Votes: 12 17.4%

  • I'm not an American and I say "yes."

    Votes: 5 7.2%

  • I am an American and I say "no."

    Votes: 15 21.7%

  • I am an American and I say "yes."

    Votes: 34 49.3%

  • I'm from Planet X and all your bases are belong to us.

    Votes: 3 4.3%
  • Total voters
    69

BPSCG

Penultimate Amazing
B
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
17,539
Spawned by the events in France.

If the police can not protect your property - home, business, automobile - from rioters, do you have the ethical right to use deadly force to protect that property? Assume, for purposes of this question, that you are not trying to protect anyone's life, here, only your property.
 
your poll am screwed....darat!!!! I voted and it appeared in the Best Actress thread11
 
Interesting. I should note under Oklahoma law it is illegal to kill over property.

If I see someone breaking into (or setting fire to) my car I can not kill them under the law.
 
Unfortunately, the laws in this country say that we cannot use deadly force to protect property. I don't know them in detail, so I don't know where the boundaries are. For example, maybe it would be allowed if someone was going to torch your house. I'm not sure.

But morally, yes it is fine with me. By all means, use whatever force is necessary to protect your property. The criminal made the decision to take what you have, so that is his fault and his problem. All bets are off.
 
Sigh. So, which kind of property is it OK to protect by killing people? Your jewellery? Your car? Your lawn mower? Your new coat? Your bicycle? A few apples off your apple tree? Trespassing on your property?

Hans
 
Ed said:
your poll am screwed....darat!!!! I voted and it appeared in the Best Actress thread11
Click to expand...

Yeah. Me, too. WTF?

I vote "Yes". Property is livelihood. Property is blood, sweat, and tears. Property is mine.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Sigh. So, which kind of property is it OK to protect by killing people? Your jewellery? Your car? Your lawn mower? Your new coat? Your bicycle? A few apples off your apple tree? Trespassing on your property?

Hans
Click to expand...

All of the above. Just make sure you plant a big knife or throwaway gun in their hand, and make sure they are dead so they can't tell their side of the story.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Sigh. So, which kind of property is it OK to protect by killing people? Your jewellery? Your car? Your lawn mower? Your new coat? Your bicycle? A few apples off your apple tree? Trespassing on your property?
Click to expand...
I wanted to make the poll question longer to take into account specifically that objection, but there's a limit to the number of characters allowed in a poll question. Read the OP again to get my full intent.
 
richardm said:
Property can also be replaced. Don't you have insurance?
Click to expand...

And why do I need insurance, eh? Why do we have to pay our hard earned money to such a thing, eh? Because of f*cking thieves!

Let the thief worry about his life insurance.
 
Yes, automatic death penalty for trespassing and theft, no judgment, the mark of civilisation ...

:rolleyes:
 
Luke T. said:
And why do I need insurance, eh? Why do we have to pay our hard earned money to such a thing, eh? Because of f*cking thieves!
Click to expand...

Yes, that's right. And what happens if the thief comes while you're away? Or your house burns down? Or disappears down a forgotten mineshaft? Do you just shrug your shoulders and say "Oh well, never mind". Of course not - you insure against these eventualities. So (unless you are reckless) you should already be insured.

And if everyone thinks that way, you don't have to worry that someday one of your teenage children might go through a phase of thieving that lands them in a box because some trigger-happy homeowner decides that they'd rather execute someone than replace their lawnmower.
 
Flo said:
Yes, automatic death penalty for trespassing and theft, no judgment, the mark of civilisation ...

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

and a person who, against all laws of civilization invades your space to take your things is civilized how?
 
Let me get this right for the people saying yes (giving the opening post expansion) it is OK to shoot dead kids who are scrumping apples from a tree in your garden?
 
Darat said:
Let me get this right for the people saying yes (giving the opening post expansion) it is OK to shoot dead kids who are scrumping apples from a tree in your garden?
Click to expand...

No, of course not. But a backside full of rock salt wouldn't be out of the question.
 
Ed said:
Insurance? Who pays for that?
Click to expand...
You do, of course. Who else? It's your property - it's your responsibility to protect it.

In any event, depending upon circumstances you might not have coverage.
Click to expand...
Riots and civil commotion are usually covered though. In any event, depending on circumstances you might not be there to open fire.
 
You have the right to defend your property. If exercising that right puts your life in danger, then I think any killing could be viewed as justifiable self-defense.

That said, you have a responsibility to use the minimum amount of force necessary to protect your property. If you shoot someone in the back just because you see him fiddling with your car door, that would be murder. Before using force, you should attempt to call the police, confront and warn the thief, and give him every opportunity to leave. If the guy is so out of his mind that he ignores a gun pointed at him, he's obviously crazy and you're justified in fearing for your life.

Jeremy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom