In response to:

Fighting Crime with a Vodka Bottle in Place of a Gun

Seiche Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 11:48 AM
CommonSense08 wrote an hour ago that I would be wrong to shoot an unarmed person I caught stealing tools out of my garage and added that the police won't even do that. That's the problem. First of all, those tools (or my TV or my car) I bought with money I earned. Further, my insurance policies have deductibles and don't pay replacement cost, especially for older items. The point here is that my property/assets & the insurance are a manifestation of my labor, i.e. part of my limited time on this earth. So, when you steal my stuff you are actually stealing a part of my life. I consider that a direct assault on my person and I will meet it with deadly force.
Tionico Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 6:06 PM
depends on where you live. Washington State does not allow the use of lethal force to protect property, some states do.. I believe Califormia is one. SO... suitably armed, stand your ground denying the perp the opportunity to escape... when he then threatens YOU, you can draw and fire. At the point YOUR OWN live/health is in danger, lethal force becomes legal. Know your local laws. Eash state is different. Some allow lethal force to be used to attempt to stop a felony crime in progress... a burglary might qualify. Armed robbery, almost certainly.
1Falcon1 Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 12:04 PM
you argue the point wrongly, if the thief is in your house he may or may not be armed , it is that threat that you may meet with deadly force no other. The theft of property alone may not be meet with deadly force
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 2:36 PM
which nullifies your right to own property.
the thief is SAFE to take it any time he wants.
OTOH,you have to risk your life to try to detain him.
(instead of putting a bullet into him and discouraging that thievery by making it too risky for the thief to try.)

the law PROTECTS him more than it does an ordinary decent citizen.(ODC)

If we raise the risks of property theft high enough,then thieves will not try it,it won't be worth it to them.
Right now,their risk is NIL,and that's why it happens so much.
Once thieves start getting rock-salted,shot,or badly hurt,they will stop stealing.
Doug3370 Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 12:02 PM
It's a question of proportionality. In Biblical terms, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. Here, you're taking a life for somewhere between a fingernail and a finger, depending on the value of the tools. At some point, there's a moral case for sparing the criminal's life. He'll get caught the next time, if the scare he got this time didn't stick in his mind.
Seiche Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 12:18 PM
Doug- The problem in Oregon is that many of our rural counties are going bankrupt because of public employee retirement liabilities and entitlements (recent State est. of $1 billion/yr for illegals alone). Hence, they are shutting down the jails and people convicted of grand theft are being let loose and lesser thieves don't even get tried. As a result thievery is increasing exponentially. So, the law won't scare them into not stealing. On another note, what if a thug forces a woman to preform oral sex at the point of a knife. What's the harm? It was just a little of her time. Oh, you say she has to live with being violated. So what, apparently me feeling violated by some thief ransacking my home doesn't justify killing him.
ReddestNeck Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 1:31 PM
Some places are more permissive about what you can do against a burglar, someone who has broken into a living space (which can include a car). That's more of a right balance, vs. someone who stole the pink flamingo from your open yard.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 2:29 PM
IMO,it's not "eye for an eye",it's putting the risk on the criminal and _not_ the property owner.
Let the criminal bear the risks,because today's criminal "justice" system protects criminals FAR better than it does ODCs,and that is not right nor just.
Under today's legal system,the criminal has little risk,and that is why property thefts are so high. they even steal copper wire from public lighting and metal from plumbing fixtures. People have to put bars over their windows and live in gated communities and they're still not safe from the thieves and criminals. it's well part the time we reverse that.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 2:30 PM
you can't even use rock salt on a thief stealing your property.

you can't use non-lethal projectiles,like beanbags,wax bullets,or paintballs.
Or else YOU get sued or jailed.
magnetar Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 11:58 AM
shoot the effer dead, than drag him away from your house and leave the garbage in the gutter where it belongs, if not then a shovel and 40 lbs of quicklime do the job. next time he may come for your wife because he liked her and wanted that too or your kids or your life. Criminals don't deserve any slack
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 2:24 PM
it's not wise to alter a crime scene. it's criminal.
drag marks will be noticed,and that puts YOU in jeopardy.
Luscious Lars Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 11:58 AM
there's another aspect to this. What if the theif stealing tools from you garage is also a rapist, a violent felon, or a murderer? If you let him go and he later commits another rape, beating, or murder, then you have not benefitted society by not stopping him while in the commission the crime on your premises. Whether killing him or not is the "right" thing to do may be open for discussion. But let's not pretend that all people who enter your property and break in to steal something are just first time offenders or someone stealing to feed a needy family. Often times they are career criminals and have been engaged in violent felonies such as rape and aggravated assault, if not murder.
magnetar Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 12:01 PM
correct on all points my friend, repeated offenders, no angel comes in to steal your things. Most of them come prepared and are armed themselves just in case.
1Falcon1 Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 12:05 PM
DoctorRoy Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 11:51 AM
You could extend that to the guy who embezzles money from his employer too couldn't you?
1Falcon1 Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 12:05 PM
DoctorRoy Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 12:07 PM
Mr. Moron to you, Chuckles.
Seiche Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 1:09 PM
Falcon - You apparently missed my first post about an hour ago. A group of us in Oregon rural counties are pressing the State Legislature to change the wording in an existing law that allows us to protect our property with force, but not deadly force. We want the law to include deadly force, for theft of our hard earned property/assets is a form of assault, and we are no longer going to tolerate these catch and release parasites sucking away at our life blood without consequence.

It happens probably nightly. A citizen fights off a criminal in order to protect his property. But it doesn't always make the nightly news. In this case it did.   


How much easier and safer would have been this takedown of a punk in New York City if the clerk had been equipped with a hand gun rather than just a vodka bottle?  How much less of a burden to the taxpayer too, who will now have to incarcerate the criminal?

And just think of chilling effect it would have on criminals if shootings of miscreants during crimes like this were on the nightly...