Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/20/2004 11:49:42 AM EST
that comes into my yard and destroys my property?

Why or why not?

Sgatr15
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 11:52:26 AM EST
Yes, it is your property.
The law most likely says something different though.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 11:53:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
that comes into my yard and destroys my property?

Why or why not?

Sgatr15



If you got the money for a good lawyer. Sure.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 11:53:17 AM EST
For the sake of argument lets take the "law" out of this.


I mean in your own personnal beliefs.


Sgatr15
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 11:53:47 AM EST
depends if your life, or someone elses life, is in danger.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 11:54:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
that comes into my yard and destroys my property?

Why or why not?

Sgatr15



No. Killing in defense of property is just not justified. Legally or morally.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 11:55:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/20/2004 12:17:50 PM EST by livefreeordieNH]
should be you be able to? yeah i think so. i mean the criminal destroying your home or vehical could have chosen to leave you alone but instead he chose to engage you.

should you ethically? not so sure.

it depends. is it a kid playing an inning of mailbox baseball? or is it an arsonist burning down your house?

legally? no of course you can't.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 11:55:49 AM EST
I think we should be able to shoot people for many reasons --
shit make it like the old west - law of the gun .
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 11:56:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By Boog:
depends if your life, or someone elses life, is in danger.




Just property


SGtar15
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 11:56:09 AM EST
YES, if a person/or persons is on your propertie, and destroying/damaging your place, then YES, I believe you should have the right to improve the gene pool.

They are commiting a crime against you, and your belongings, who or what is to say they will not come after you, and do you and your family phyisical harm.

PREVENTIVE MAINTIANCE, thats what I call it.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 11:58:30 AM EST
then no.

I would not be willing to kill for property.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 11:59:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By cyanide:
I think we should be able to shoot people for many reasons --
shit make it like the old west - law of the gun .



I don't think you would like the old west thing, for many reasons.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 11:59:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/20/2004 12:02:05 PM EST by arowneragain]
yes.....
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:00:13 PM EST

Should I be able to, or ist it legal to?


Where I live, no shooting until they enter my home or (attached) garage. Not much to keep a large dog from clamping his jaws on their ass, though
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:10:07 PM EST
killing someone to protect your property is wrong. leaving a reminder in his ass is fair game.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:10:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By magnum_99:

No. Killing in defense of property is just not justified. Legally or morally.



While not legally justified (at least in most states).

Morally I think it depends. What if that vandal was going to destroy the crops you just harvested? Or kill your herd?

Is it Ok to destroy a persons (and family's) life and income through vandalism?

I used to think it was never OK to shoot someone over property. Now I'm not as definate over that, depends on the circumstances.

I think if such people were shot more often (and the homeowners rewarded for it) we'd see ALOT less crime.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:14:21 PM EST
I'd have to say that depends on a few things....

If you have teenagers... and his/her friends are teepeeing your yard... then you should be shooting them with a 12ga and rock salt or a good pellet gun.

Now if you catch someone destroying your car, attempting to steal it, spraying paint on your house, or otherwise "destroying $hit" then hell yea!!! blast away!!! 12ga and fed tac 00 buck comes to mind.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:14:56 PM EST
only if it is a cat





Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:16:08 PM EST
If it is a person, yes.

If it is a cat, NO!

Geeze, some of you people are slow.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:20:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By AR-10:
If it is a person, yes.

If it is a cat, NO!

Geeze, some of you people are slow.




That's what I was getting at. I never said person, just intruder.

And I wondered how many advocate shooting a person but not shooting a cat when they are both destroying your porerty.


SGatr15
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:25:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By AR-10:
If it is a person, yes.

If it is a cat, NO!

Geeze, some of you people are slow.




That's what I was getting at. I never said person, just intruder.

And I wondered how many advocate shooting a person but not shooting a cat when they are both destroying your porerty.


SGatr15



sarge, first time i see a cat trying to burn my house down you're damn right i'm gonna shoot his ass.

Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:25:24 PM EST
If it is just outside, then no. If someone came into your house and was destroying property, then yes.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:27:35 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:29:17 PM EST
Since I don't feel like participating in the seven page mind-fuck currently bobbing up and down the page, I will say this here.


If some cat prowls around my property, I will treat it like an intruder.

Whether it is little suzy's pet from down the street or some rabid fleebag. My experience leads me to believe that a large number of cat owners think their little darlings "need" to roam on my property as they are free spirits.



Fuck em.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:32:13 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:33:06 PM EST
In my core, no I would not shoot an intruder who was just destroying my property...

I do feel it should be justifiable to break their knee caps, fingers, toes, teeth, nose, jaw, ears etc. etc. Anything short of puncturing the perpetrators body or gouging *both* of their eyes out. How much of the previously mentioned retribution is dished should depend on what the inruder was destroying. That IMHO would seem like an acceptable amount of force in the defense of property.

Sly.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:33:36 PM EST
Stop the intruder: Yes, absolutely.
Kill the intruder: No.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:35:17 PM EST
I thought in Texas thats legal (Correct me if I am wrong). But it has to be in the action of the perp doing it like if he's in the middle of throwing a toilet paper roll on your trees or such situations.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:36:38 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:38:26 PM EST
What good reason is that?

If you could live with yourself for shooting a teenager for TPing your trees, you're one hard mo fo.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:41:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/20/2004 12:43:32 PM EST by magnum_99]

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By magnum_99:

No. Killing in defense of property is just not justified. Legally or morally.



While not legally justified (at least in most states).

Morally I think it depends. What if that vandal was going to destroy the crops you just harvested? Or kill your herd?

Is it Ok to destroy a persons (and family's) life and income through vandalism?

I used to think it was never OK to shoot someone over property. Now I'm not as definate over that, depends on the circumstances.

I think if such people were shot more often (and the homeowners rewarded for it) we'd see ALOT less crime.



You might have a point.

If he's ready to burn your whole house down, and you aren't in it of course, then maybe. But isn't that what insurance is for?

In the old world, then yes. You whole year's crops and hence your livlihood and ability to eat through the winter IS a direct threat to your survival.

But now, those sorts of things are protected against through insurance and other devices.

So, mostly, no, killing is not proper merely to protect property.

But there could be a situation that warrants it.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:43:18 PM EST
Lethal force should be for defense of a person, not property.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:56:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/20/2004 12:59:06 PM EST by cyanide]

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:
Lethal force should be for defense of a person, not property.



Say a guy spilled gas in your home and is about to torch it --

you live in the country and have no neighbors ... you going to let him torch it ?

or shoot him -- to stop him, it is just property after all - say a 250,000.00 home.

For the sake of this question - you are in no danger whatever he does and no one else either.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 1:03:35 PM EST
Using lethal force to stop the arson of an occupied dwelling is justified in my state.

And in my state of mind.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 1:05:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By Boog:
Using lethal force to stop the arson of an occupied dwelling is justified in my state.

And in my state of mind.



see it is the amount of property that makes the matter questionable

shoot somebody for a bicycle no
for stealing a 200.00 beater car no
for stealing a 200,000 Lamborghini ---------- ?
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 1:07:55 PM EST
no, it's not the value of the property.

The key word in my last statement is "occupied" dwelling.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 1:14:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/20/2004 1:26:00 PM EST by Tortfeasor]
Deadly force in defense of property is not lawful in my state...and in my opinion, not moral in any state. If you make the argument that you can take a life to defend your property, then you should be able to have an abortion to protect your bling-bling. Same thing. So if you think abortion to protect your ability to afford FUBU is ok, then put a cap in his ass to protect that Olds 98 on blocks in your yard - same thing.

But people, what about the BLING BLING?
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 1:15:32 PM EST
You only take a life to save a life, sounds fucked up but it is the only right thing to do.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 1:16:55 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 1:18:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By Boog:
Using lethal force to stop the arson of an occupied dwelling is justified in my state.

And in my state of mind.



As a general rule, that is the case all over.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 1:20:56 PM EST
Personally, I say yes. The destruction of property is the taking of so much of the owner's life as was required to build or buy the property. It is an affront to simple decency. It is a deliberate intrusion on the homeowner's right to peaceabl enjoyment of his life and property. The offender is indubitably a piece of shit and a net loss to society so long as he lives.


Legally, under Fla law, I say yes. Burglary is a forcible felony. Forcible felonies may be terminated with deadly force. Burglary includes entry into a dwelling with the intent to commit an offense. Destruction of property is an offense known as criminal mischief. A dwelling includes the curtilage (adjacent yard, at a minimum) of the structure. Hence, the act you occured is burglary of a dwelling, punishable by 15 years if the offender is caught by the police and not punishable at all if he is caught by a motivated homeowner.

Having said that, it wouldn't be worth the trouble it would cause.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 1:20:59 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 1:23:25 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 1:24:59 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 1:26:49 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 1:28:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/20/2004 1:29:07 PM EST by 82ndAbn]
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 1:38:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/20/2004 1:39:26 PM EST by FLAL1A]

Originally Posted By Paul:

So it took me six minutes of pay to buy a rose bush for the front yard and you're willing to take all of some 16 year old boys life for cutting a flower to bring to his dying grandmother?




So, I worked my whole life to buy a home and a 46 year old multiple-convicted felon with an eyeball tattoed in the middle of his forehead is using a flamethrower and a front-end loader to destroy my house, yard, outbuildings, vehicles, dogs, cats, goats, pigs, chickens, treasury bills, jewelry and religious icons, and you think I should stand by and watch? Google reductio ad absurdum.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 1:39:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By cyanide:

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:
Lethal force should be for defense of a person, not property.



Say a guy spilled gas in your home and is about to torch it --

you live in the country and have no neighbors ... you going to let him torch it ?

or shoot him -- to stop him, it is just property after all - say a 250,000.00 home.

For the sake of this question - you are in no danger whatever he does and no one else either.


As has been said, arson is one of the exceptions under the law.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 1:40:17 PM EST
Have the kids from the elementry school been walking on your grass again?
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 1:48:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
A person's life, an animals's life - it doesn't matter. If someone enters my property unwarranted, their life becomes gravely endangered.



+1

Link Posted: 8/20/2004 1:50:15 PM EST
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top