Wrong door shootings.
- Thread starter shemp
- Start date
We know. It's been mentioned a time or sixty.
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
We don't have any laws that favor armed victims over unarmed criminals. Unless the criminal is capable of killing you with his bare hands.
Finster
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 1,208
You a very wrong. There are plenty of laws on the books that allow deadly force against theft without any requirement for the thief to be armed or posing any threat to a person. And … there are a number of posters on this forum that have expressly defended the idea. It is not just acceptable to shoot someone in the back if they are running away with your stuff, it’s something to be celebrated.
For example -
“Texas Penal Code Section 9.421 states a person can use deadly force to protect tangible, movable property from another’s imminent commission of theft during the nighttime or to prevent another who is fleeing immediately after committing theft during the nighttime and is escaping with property if the person reasonably believes the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or that a use of force other than deadly force to recover the property would expose them to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.”
(To be fair, most states don’t explicitly allow deadly force to protect property but in practice there are loopholes.)
Last edited:
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
Well Texas is kind of crazy as they allow you to use deadly force to prevent someone from stealing your toaster.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
For me, I'd interpret the bit "if the person reasonably believes the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means" to mean the property isn't covered by insurance, or couldn't be. Like: if they're running away with my television, car, elegant coffee table, or my beautiful dishes (they're Corelle!) I shouldn't shoot at them (especially if it's the dishes, Corelle is largely bulletproof) but if they're running off with the framed photo of my grandpa getting bit by a donkey, one of my mom's lovely cross-stitches, or my childhood teddy bear I could in good conscience explode their spine with a fusillade of bullets (if I had a gun, which I don't, so I'd have to throw the Corelle at them, discus-style).
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Yes indeed, and retreating from your home is not the same as retreating to it.
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,862
The Sisters of Oriza would approve.
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
Yeah, but if some terrorist goes to Aransas Pass to plant mines, and they see that mother, they're gonna think twice, and go up to Rockport, where they don't have a MRAP, and plant them there! And my wife's sister lives in Rockport! I suppose you think it's OK if she gets blown to pieces by a mine, eh? Why should Aransas Pass have a MRAP but not Rockport!? EVERY town should have an MRAP, so everyone can be safe from goddamn terrorist mines!
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
Of course. An MRAP is always appropriate if there might be a gun involved.
Take off and nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
I think Joe may have got it wrong. I think that's the new school bus for the district.
Ryan O'Dine
OD’ing on Damitol
Count me as one who doesn't understand the glib attitude about killing. If you shoot and kill someone -- even a bad guy, even someone threatening another's or your life -- don't you realize you're going to feel morally and psychologically devastated for the rest of yours? If you're incapable of feeling that -- good god, what kind of person are you?
I mean, how is that not giving your trigger finger just a little pause?
I mean, how is that not giving your trigger finger just a little pause?
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
Deadly Force does not mandate you kill someone, only that the force you are using COULD kill someone. That means using a knife, bat, sword, gun, etc. However if someone is pointing a gun or knife at you or a family member in your house after trying to burglarize you, what is the moral objection to shooting them? I don't get it.
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
Can you connect this to the topic of the thread - you know, Wrong Door Shootings - where the shot person was doing none of the actions you describe? Do you see any moral objection to such shootings? Do you think that the shooter in such cases is likely have no remorse, no following ptsd, and will just carry on with their life as if they never shot anyone?
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
This calls to mind an actual case that we discussed here years back, one I have never forgotten. Pretty sure this happened in Florida. Someone came to the wrong door and attempted to open it. The occupant then got their handgun and, without any interaction, shot and killed the 'intruder.' It turned out there really had been no threat, but because the shooter was convinced there was one they were not charged with any crime.
Some months later a news reporter sought to contact the shooter through their attorney in order to arrange an interview for a news story. The attorney responded that his client was not doing interviews and did not want to meet with media. The attorney said words to the effect, "He's actually not doing too good. He's having a lot of problems processing all this. It hasn't played out the way he thought it would."
Thermal
August Member
I don't want guns at the ready in my home for exactly this reason. That's not the kind of blood I want on my hands. I've had strangers walk right through my front door on several occasions, none of which were actually a home invasion (summer renters walking in the wrong house, plumber working on the next door neighbors house, teen boys who probably thought it was empty during major remodeling), and I likely could have killed like a half dozen or more so far and have faced no charges. There may come a day when a real invader comes to do us harm, and I guess I'll be throwing my dice then. But just like I don't have a nuclear fallout shelter in place, I don't want the nuclear option readily handy. I couldn't live with the consequences of a bad guess.
Ryan O'Dine
OD’ing on Damitol
The moral objection to shooting someone is in potentially taking their life.
Even if justified -- even if it's kill or die -- it should be morally repugnant. You should have to overcome a deeply ingrained resistance to it, whatever the circumstances.
In the cases presented in this thread, where it's nowhere close to kill or die, I don't know how you can avoid the implication that there's something fundamentally lacking in the shooter on a very deep, ethical level.
Thermal
August Member
*Kyle Rittenhouse sips champagne and smirks*
God love ya, Ryan, we all wish that "should" was an ingrained "will" in human nature.
Many a killer, convicted murderer or decorated hero, will tell you how easy it is to take a life.
A few members of this forum could do it.
Thermal
August Member
There's a Netflix show about a convicted murderer who gives some kind of Silence of the Lambs advice about killers, and on the trailer he says something about "everyone can murder. It just takes crossing paths with the right person and circumstances"