User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 7:01:12 AM EDT
[#1]
Look up Innis v. Tennessee.
I might be wrong but I think this case is the one that defines what is and is not necessary force (at least from the LEO aspect). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 7:04:21 AM EDT
[#2]
I'm not sure where this thread is going to go, most likely in the dumpster. I believe that anyone not authorized to be in my house is a threat to my life and the life of my familiy. All such people will be met with deadly force once they have entered my home. Now the question of leo's who come to serve warrant(arrest) me for "illegal weapons" or some bs, is complicated. Since I have no illegal weapons of any kind, there actions are illegal. If I submit and go quietly they might take some of my cleaner out from under the sink and find a pipe in the garage and charge me with bomb making materials. You see where this is going. Whats the point of me going quietly when most likely I'm going to get screwed over nothing and will be portrayed in the media as a terrorist with a cache of arms and bomb making materials. We have all seem this happen before and it never turns out well for the homeowner even though he or she is clearly in the right. What is the right thing to do? I'm really not so sure.
Bill3508 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 7:18:09 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted: Use of deadly force simply to protect your PROPERTY is a no-no, regardless of WHAT that property is or WHO is doing the stealing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In some cases military sentrys are allowed to use deadly force to protect property - what we call "special weapons" - chemical, biological and nuclear - and levels of classified material. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 7:22:58 AM EDT
[#4]
First, in many states you can use deadly force to protect property. However, to use deadly force against an LEO because you think he is violating your rights is another story and I don't have an answer for it. I feel it is better, at least at this point in time, to fight it in court, because to open fire in such a situation is a no-win situation. That's when you will really be labeled a nut and you will lose in court, if you survive the incident. Of course, some people, especially libertyof76, have been advocating firing upon LEO for some time now and it seems that these same people are praying for a revolution. It may eventually come to that, but I sure hope it doesn't have to.
In fact, libby has it wrong anyway. You CAN fire on 'any man', as he puts it, trying to steal your property, moreso than you can on an LEO, even if the LEO is carrying out an unconstitutional order. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 7:24:19 AM EDT
[#5]
I think that the question gets harder to answer if you realize that, as the citizen, you have very little time to decide if your life is in danger.
The examples that have been used all assume that the citizen somehow had foreknowledge of the LEO's reason and intent prior to the LEO's actions. This is an absurd assumption as there is no way to honestly know why the JBT's are kicking in your door. OK, right here I am going to exclude some of the possible scenarios thatwould contaminate this stance. - People currently breaking the law should probably expect a visit from the JBT's at some point. - If you are at a public demonstration and the LEO's move in to PEACEABLY break it up, do not fire! (Unless you are in demonstrable fear for your life). - If you are pulled over for a traffic stop, don't shoot! (Unless you are in demonstrable fear for your life). It should be understandable that if an armed citizen feels his or his family's lives are in danger, he will open fire to protect them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 7:42:21 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: The examples that have been used all assume that the citizen somehow had foreknowledge of the LEO's reason and intent prior to the LEO's actions. This is an absurd assumption as there is no way to honestly know why the JBT's are kicking in your door. Right there we have a dangerous assumption that all cops showing up at your door are "Jack booted thugs (JBT)" Fact of the matter is that the average cop is a regular guy trying to do a job and then go home again at the end of shift. Usually a reliable chain of events, but not always. Assuming that cops are JBT's is tactical error number one and sets up a predisposition toward violent resistance or at least a negative attitude that is likely to escalate the situation, whatever it may be, much further. The basic JBT assumption makes it much more likely that a negative chain of events will ensue. What if the police officer is coming up the steps to inform you that your child was involved in a motor vehicle accident? If you assume that they are a JBT coming to take your guns, then you just escalated the tragedy unnecessarily. Persecution complex thinking is tactically dangerous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 8:00:28 AM EDT
[#7]
I see lots of irrelevent tangents here, so back to the original question.
As far as I know, no, you are not wrong. I know there have been some court cases where citizens have killed leos, but only in self defense. If your life is not in danger, you generally do not have the right to kill someone, leo or not. (Although in Colorado at least, I can legally kill you if you break into my house.) If your rights have been violated, that is what the court system is for (and spare me arguements about getting screwed by the courts. I'm just reporting what is commonly accepted by our society.) Even the FFs didn't rebel until they had no other recourse (ie representation and courts in which to redress grievences). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 8:02:50 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Quoted: The examples that have been used all assume that the citizen somehow had foreknowledge of the LEO's reason and intent prior to the LEO's actions. This is an absurd assumption as there is no way to honestly know why the JBT's are kicking in your door. Right there we have a dangerous assumption that all cops showing up at your door are "Jack booted thugs (JBT)" Fact of the matter is that the average cop is a regular guy trying to do a job and then go home again at the end of shift. Usually a reliable chain of events, but not always. Assuming that cops are JBT's is tactical error number one and sets up a predisposition toward violent resistance or at least a negative attitude that is likely to escalate the situation, whatever it may be, much further. The basic JBT assumption makes it much more likely that a negative chain of events will ensue. What if the police officer is coming up the steps to inform you that your child was involved in a motor vehicle accident? If you assume that they are a JBT coming to take your guns, then you just escalated the tragedy unnecessarily. Persecution complex thinking is tactically dangerous. Note that wiggy was talking about a JBT [b]kicking in your door[/b], which means they are probably not there to tell you your child was in a motor vehicle accident. I think that the question gets harder to answer if you realize that, as the citizen, you have very little time to decide if your life is in danger. Which can be translated as: if someone kicks in the door, The person is not going to have a lot of time to think "is this a LEO coming to carry out an 'unconstitutional' order, or is some thug breaking in to attack my family and ransack the house?" The first reaction will be self-defense. If it ends up being LEO, then the problem gets bigger, especially since they are most likely better armed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 8:03:41 AM EDT
[#9]
Iceman,
I agree completely with you and was using the abbreviation to illustrate my point. You were much more eloquent in your post than I. It is exactly that type of thinking that can escalate an incident. But, is it only the citizen that has this thought process? It seems that LEO's have much more of this ideology and can 'assume the threat' until innocents are injured or killed. I realise in their dangerous jobs they are the pointy end of the spear and have real threats to their lives on a daily basis. But, and I'll run the risk of profiling here, how many of these deadly attacks on LEO's are carried out by citizens that can legally own firearms? Most LEO's need to differentiate the threat. I think that LEO's beat the drum of 'assume the threat' too much and can contribute to the escalation of violence in an otherwise peaceful situation. LEO's must realize that legally armed, law abiding citizens are guaranteed the right to protect themselves and their family against a perceived attack. In addition to assuming the threat, LEO's need to make sure that THEY are not the threat in these situations. Sorry for the ramble on. BTW, I was a Paramedic for 12 years and have seen the best of LEO's and consider many of them my friends. I would not have been able to do my job without them. I am not a LEO basher. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 8:04:33 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: If your life is not in danger, you generally do not have the right to kill someone, leo or not. (Although in Colorado at least, I can legally kill you if you break into my house.) In Texas, you have the right to use deadly force to protect property, personal and real. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 8:12:57 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Quoted: If your life is not in danger, you generally do not have the right to kill someone, leo or not. (Although in Colorado at least, I can legally kill you if you break into my house.) In Texas, you have the right to use deadly force to protect property, personal and real. What is the law in Louisiana?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 8:14:15 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Quoted: Use of deadly force simply to protect your PROPERTY is a no-no, regardless of WHAT that property is or WHO is doing the stealing. In some cases military sentrys are allowed to use deadly force to protect property - what we call "special weapons" - chemical, biological and nuclear - and levels of classified material. Here is the text of the "deadly force card" that I was issued in the Marine Corps. I had to walk armed firewatch at the CommElec school at 29 Palms during Desert Storm: [red]Deadly force is any force that causes or that the user knows has a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. Deadly force is authorized when: A. Protecting DOD assets designated as vital to national security.[/red](as Paul said, nukes/chem/bio, and classified information)[red] B. Protecting DOD assets not vital to national security, but inherently dangerous to others. C. Performing official duties when you reasonably believe yourself or others to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. D. Preventing serious violent offenses which could result in death or critical bodily harm. E. It reasonably appears necessary to arrest or apprehend persons suspected of committing an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs A, B, C or D above. F. Competent authority may specifically authorize the use of deadly force when it reasonably appears necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner who threatens serious bodily harm or death to escorting persons. During an escape attempt, you must have probable cause to believe that the prisoner is in fact attempting to escape and that the escaping prisoner poses a threat of serious bodily harm either to yourself or others.[/red] Also, in Texas it is legal to use deadly force after dark to prevent property crimes. Completely separate from that issue though, is the notion of whether a police officer confiscating guns is in fact committing a property crime or violating your basic rights. Why were the redcoats at Lexington Green fired upon? Was it over property or rights? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 8:24:00 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Quoted: If your life is not in danger, you generally do not have the right to kill someone, leo or not. (Although in Colorado at least, I can legally kill you if you break into my house.) In Texas, you have the right to use deadly force to protect property, personal and real. Getting back to McCallan's original statement: deadly force to protect PROPERTY is a no-no. The question is more along the lines of "is it moral to kill someone for taking your stuff?" as opposed to a legal right which is different for each state. It boils down to this: a person's life is more valuable (even a thief's) than material possessions that can be replaced. It comes from a morality that values human life over material objects and calls for porportionality in defense. (use the least amount of force needed) The common good is sought after, not the "mine & me, to hell with thee" mentality of so much of today's individualistic selfishness. So, The_Mcallan is right. "Use of deadly force simply to protect your PROPERTY is a no-no, regardless of WHAT that property is or WHO is doing the stealing." So, the homeless man who hasn't eaten in a week (and I'm not talking about the drunks, here) steals a loaf of bread from your store. You can't morally shoot him because his right to that bread for survival is greater than your right to make a profit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 8:26:18 AM EDT
[#14]
Let me say this.....
is it better to be dead(maybe in heaven)...or is it better to be in jail for being a suspected terrorist on Illegal charges? forget the legality of it and think aobut the logic of it!!! Dead or Alive? which is better? If my life is Threatened, THe Life of someone I love, or the life of an innocent bystander, I will do what I must to save that life... I couldn't live with myself if I didn't! NOW IF MY RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED, That does not Give me the Right to shoot the SOB. It DOES GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO SUE THE SHITE OUT OF SOB!!!! I have a co-worker who has threatened to sue the juvenille court judge b/c he had his gun on in court and the judge ordered him to take it off. He Already had a stack of violations that would get this judge in front of the Judicial Qualifications Board! To this suit the Judge Replied, " I don't Care about your constitutional rights" .... ONe more Disqualification material!!! (MY Friend was there b/c his son has been behaving unruly, no charges against my friend Himself). Threatening to sue the Government is almost as effective as shooting the officer. That's my .02 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 8:33:43 AM EDT
[#15]
If deadly force can't be used to protect property than why do Brinks drivers wear/need guns?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 8:35:55 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: It boils down to this: a person's life is more valuable (even a thief's) than material possessions that can be replaced. It comes from a morality that values human life over material objects and calls for porportionality in defense. (use the least amount of force needed) The common good is sought after, not the "mine & me, to hell with thee" mentality of so much of today's individualistic selfishness. As far as my material possessions, they were bought with money I earned by working, doing something I would otherwise not if not paid. If those possessions are then stolen by another, that person has stolen my time, a part of my life that I can never get back. So, The_Mcallan is right. "Use of deadly force simply to protect your PROPERTY is a no-no, regardless of WHAT that property is or WHO is doing the stealing." So, the homeless man who hasn't eaten in a week (and I'm not talking about the drunks, here) steals a loaf of bread from your store. You can't morally shoot him because his right to that bread for survival is greater than your right to make a profit. Oh, that poor homeless man who can't get to the shelter or the soup kitchen for food or to the post office to pick up the check that a percentage of the fruits of my labor already provide him? That guy? How do I know if it's him or if it's the other homeless guy who's stealing a loaf of bread, but also looking over the family portrait to see if there are any attractive women worth coming back and raping? If you can invent characters, so can I. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 8:44:26 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: As officers, we're basically instructed to use deadly force only to protect our life or someone else's. I feel as strongly as many of you do about violation of constitutional rights, but if it is an LEO in violation, you will have your day in court. I can't speak for anyone but myself. I'm sure there are officers who act outside their authority either on purpose or by mistake. Most of us know our boundaries and we strive to stay within them. We are a not a separate society. We are you. Our kids play on the same fields, go to the same schools. We pay taxes and try to keep up with bills just like you. We are not perfect and we do make mistakes just like you. Your rights are our rights. What you are denied, so are we. We cringe more than anyone when a cop is arrested for drug dealing or theft or whatever. It makes all of us look bad and gives ammunition to our detractors. I've always tried to go to the nth degree in investigation when serving a search warrant and respecting people's rights. It saddens me to think that normally rational men and women would think of harming or killing a police officer. The officers I know are not out to oppress anyone. We do a job we believe in to try and protect society from those who would prey on it. Like you we feel that drugs, murder, theft, rape, and other similar acts are wrong and ought to be combated. Thanks rn45. IMHO, the infamous 'jbt' is the modern, grown up 'boogyman' for the tin foil crowd. Sure, there are bad apples in the local pd, the FBI, ATF, armed forces, etc., but I think most are regular people trying to do their best. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 9:28:54 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Quoted: It boils down to this: a person's life is more valuable (even a thief's) than material possessions that can be replaced. It comes from a morality that values human life over material objects and calls for porportionality in defense. (use the least amount of force needed) The common good is sought after, not the "mine & me, to hell with thee" mentality of so much of today's individualistic selfishness. As far as my material possessions, they were bought with money I earned by working, doing something I would otherwise not if not paid. If those possessions are then stolen by another, that person has stolen my time, a part of my life that I can never get back. Still doesn't mean it's ok to use deadly force to protect material possessions, even if they're your material possessions that you've worked hard for. Just because you work hard for things doesn't mean a thief's life is less valuable. So, The_Mcallan is right. "Use of deadly force simply to protect your PROPERTY is a no-no, regardless of WHAT that property is or WHO is doing the stealing." So, the homeless man who hasn't eaten in a week (and I'm not talking about the drunks, here) steals a loaf of bread from your store. You can't morally shoot him because his right to that bread for survival is greater than your right to make a profit. Oh, that poor homeless man who can't get to the shelter or the soup kitchen for food or to the post office to pick up the check that a percentage of the fruits of my labor already provide him? That guy? How do I know if it's him or if it's the other homeless guy who's stealing a loaf of bread, but also looking over the family portrait to see if there are any attractive women worth coming back and raping? If you can invent characters, so can I. I didn't invent anyone. That guy actually exists in my home town, where there is no shelter and no soup kitchen. And I wasn't aware anyone can walk into a post office and pick up a check just because they're homeless. That's news to me, and I bet a lot more homeless folks would like to know it, too. Care to explain that a bit more? How do I know if it's him or if it's the other homeless guy who's stealing a loaf of bread, but also looking over the family portrait to see if there are any attractive women worth coming back and raping? Ah, so if you [b]think[/b] he might attack your family at some future point, then go ahead and shoot him now? It's still wrong. All you know is that he is taking the bread, which gets us back to the point of his right to survival over your right to profit. It's not enough to justify using [i]deadly[/i] force. Now if he attacks your wife with that loaf of bread (some of those French baguettes can be pretty hard clubs)... edited to get the #*%@$ quotes right! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 9:58:57 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Still doesn't mean it's ok to use deadly force to protect material possessions, even if they're your material possessions that you've worked hard for. Just because you work hard for things doesn't mean a thief's life is less valuable. According to the state of Texas, it is. If the thief steals my possessions, he is stealing part of my life that can never be recovered or regained. I didn't invent anyone. That guy actually exists in my home town, where there is no shelter and no soup kitchen. And I wasn't aware anyone can walk into a post office and pick up a check just because they're homeless. That's news to me, and I bet a lot more homeless folks would like to know it, too. Care to explain that a bit more? You haven't heard of Welfare? Social security? In case you haven't, they re federal programs that send out checks once a month. Ah, so if you [b]think[/b] he might attack your family at some future point, then go ahead and shoot him now? It's still wrong. Nope, that's not what I said at all. You gave us an example of the most pitiful, haven't-eaten-in-a-week, wouldn't-hurt-a-fly homeless guy, and I proposed an alternative, but no less likely case. All you know is that he is taking the bread, which gets us back to the point of his right to survival over your right to profit. It's not enough to justify using [i]deadly[/i] force. No one's talking about profit here. Possessions aren't profit. They're sweat and time. What if you had lost your job, and either the homeless guy gets to eat, or you and your family does? What's more important in that case? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 10:03:57 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If your life is not in danger, you generally do not have the right to kill someone, leo or not. (Although in Colorado at least, I can legally kill you if you break into my house.) In Texas, you have the right to use deadly force to protect property, personal and real. Getting back to McCallan's original statement: deadly force to protect PROPERTY is a no-no. The question is more along the lines of "is it moral to kill someone for taking your stuff?" as opposed to a legal right which is different for each state. It boils down to this: a person's life is more valuable (even a thief's) than material possessions that can be replaced. It comes from a morality that values human life over material objects and calls for porportionality in defense. (use the least amount of force needed) The common good is sought after, not the "mine & me, to hell with thee" mentality of so much of today's individualistic selfishness. So, The_Mcallan is right. "Use of deadly force simply to protect your PROPERTY is a no-no, regardless of WHAT that property is or WHO is doing the stealing." So, the homeless man who hasn't eaten in a week (and I'm not talking about the drunks, here) steals a loaf of bread from your store. You can't morally shoot him because his right to that bread for survival is greater than your right to make a profit. [puke] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 10:13:48 AM EDT
[#21]
There is no right, implied, constructive, common law or otherwise to use force to prevent a police officer from serving a warrant.
The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution enumerates a right to be free from unreasonable searches. It also provides for the issuance of search warrants. If the police come to your house to serve a search warrant, and some kinds of arrest warrants, they have a duty and an authority to enter the residence to conduct their searches and arrests. The occupants have no legal standing to resist the lawful execution of a search warrant, and the officers have the authority to forcibly enter. In some circumstances, almost always when specifically authorized by the judge issuing the warrant, officers may break and enter into a residence without first anoouncing their intentions. There is no legal right to resist. This is all very clearly established in case law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 10:50:16 AM EDT
[#22]
rn45 I don't by that answer, If I go the bank to make a deposit why is not ok for me to protect my life and money from the same Democrats that they fear?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 11:53:59 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: So, the homeless man who hasn't eaten in a week (and I'm not talking about the drunks, here) steals a loaf of bread from your store. You can't morally shoot him because his right to that bread for survival is greater than your right to make a profit. I most certainly CAN morally shoot him. That scenario is WELL within my personal ethos. His right to that bread ended when he denied me the right to make a profit from it. I don't give handouts. I might could be persuaded to sell it "at cost", but he didn't bother asking, he just took it from me. There are no "greater" rights. All rights are equal. His station in life doesn't make his wants and needs more important than mine. I worked for what I have, and he is stealing my work from me. That's time lost, permanently. He can't just give that back to me. For lack of better phrasing, his rights just ended when they infringed upon mine. the_reject |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 12:03:50 PM EDT
[#24]
This is how it is done: you can use reasonable nondeadly force to protect property. For instance, if some guy is breaking your fence, you can push him away from the fence. When he fights back, you reasonably fear for your life and kill him. This is legal.
Under the common law, you could use reasonable force against an unlawful arrest. Regina v. Tooley, 2 Ld. Raymond Rep. 1296, 1299-1301 (Q.B. 1709). This is no longer the case in [i]most[/i] US jurisdictions, because the police and courts are so trustworthy now. [;)] No really, that is what they think. States vary widely in when and how force can be used. For instance, in my state, by statute, you can kill anyone who sneaks or breaks into your house. No "reasonable fear of death or serious bodily unjury" is necessary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 12:06:33 PM EDT
[#25]
So far I haven't seen a strong justification to shoot LEOs serving search warrants that "might" be unconstitutional. And it amazes me to hear those who rationalize shoot-to-kill for penny-ante shoplifters. If "all rights are equal" then why not have the same penalities for crimes where those rights are violated? Why not shoot the LEOs who shut off your microphone and try to break up a peaceful protest rally? Why not shoot the LEO who tries to remove an obscene bumpersticker from your car? Why not shoot the LEO who begins to search your car without your permission? Why not shoot the LEO who does ANYTHING that you perceive as an infringment on ANY of your rights? If all rights are equal, then not reading you your Miranda rights should be a capitol offence for the LEOs and they should be summarily shot BY YOU on the spot, right? [b]Houston[/b], if that's what the law says in Texas, so be it. I doubt that law applies to LEOs serving warrants though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 12:14:00 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Show me the law or court case that allows you to kill someone simply for "violating your rights"!??[size=3][red]Court Cases are NOT the supreme law of the land. The Constitution is, and the second ammendment is there for that EXACT REASON.[/red][/size=3] If you are at a legitimately organized protest march at your state capitol and the LEOs begin to shut it down early (in violation of your 1st Amendment right to peaceably assemble), does that justify you pulling out your CCW and shooting them dead because they pulled the plug on your microphone a few hours early??[size=6][red]YES[/red][/size=6] If a LEO pulls you over for speeding and then tells you that your bumper sticker is obscene and begins to tear it off your car (in violation of your 1st Amendment rights), does that give you license to kill him on the spot??[size=6][red]YES[/red][/size=6] If you are pulled over for a traffic stop and the cop begins to search your car without a warrant (in violation of your 4th Amendment right), does that give you the right to draw down on him and kill him right there??[size=6][red]YES[/red][/size=6] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 12:19:00 PM EDT
[#27]
Here in SC, we have an "open season" law.
If someone is in your house and posing a threat to you or your family, you have the right to shoot them, AND a presumption of self-defense, unless the facts show otherwise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 12:45:39 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: So far I haven't seen a strong justification to shoot LEOs serving search warrants that "might" be unconstitutional. And it amazes me to hear those who rationalize shoot-to-kill for penny-ante shoplifters. If "all rights are equal" then why not have the same penalities for crimes where those rights are violated? Why not shoot the LEOs who shut off your microphone and try to break up a peaceful protest rally? Why not shoot the LEO who tries to remove an obscene bumpersticker from your car? Why not shoot the LEO who begins to search your car without your permission? Why not shoot the LEO who does ANYTHING that you perceive as an infringment on ANY of your rights? If all rights are equal, then not reading you your Miranda rights should be a capitol offence for the LEOs and they should be summarily shot BY YOU on the spot, right? [b]Houston[/b], if that's what the law says in Texas, so be it. I doubt that law applies to LEOs serving warrants though. Yes that is the law in Texas. I really wasn't addressing the LEO question, but I too doubt that it would apply. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 12:47:34 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: So, the homeless man who hasn't eaten in a week (and I'm not talking about the drunks, here) steals a loaf of bread from your store. You can't morally shoot him because his right to that bread for survival is greater than your right to make a profit. I most certainly CAN morally shoot him. That scenario is WELL within my personal ethos. the_reject Reject, If your personal ethos allows you to kill a man who is not offering you or someone else direct bodily harm, over a loaf of bread, then you are psychotic and need to seek professional care IMMEDIATELY. You are a murder waiting to happen. The nice thing about being a rational, thinking being with the ability to understand and implement moral codes is that we can choose when and where to implement them, whether the situation warrants taking certain actions, legal or not, etc. For instance: At Ruby Ridge, Lon Horuchi had a clear directive from his commander stating that all adults in the compound could and SHOULD legally be fired upon, especially if they were armed. He followed the letter of that directive and killed Vicky Weaver. The other 8 snipers on site at that time chose not to fire, finding that the situation did not warrant lethal force. By your statement above, you basically illustrate that you would have made the SAME choice Horuchi made, following the letter of the law to the most extreme choice available. Lots of folks around here get all hot and bothered over what happened at Ruby Ridge (justifiably so I might add) but are perfectly willing to apply the same standard of lethal force in their own lives. You may legally be able to use lethal force in defense of your property, but I guarantee you that if you fire on a thief and wound or kill him or her and cannot demonstrate that your life or the life of someone else was not in imminent danger from that thief, you will do time. And if you pop a homeless person for stealing 10 dollars in groceries, and still manage to get away with it legally, you are still a homicidal scum bag. There is sometimes a pretty big gulf between what is legal and what is moral. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 12:56:10 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: You may legally be able to use lethal force in defense of your property, but I guarantee you that if you fire on a thief and wound or kill him or her and cannot demonstrate that your life or the life of someone else was not in imminent danger from that thief, you will do time. I wouldn't put money on that guarantee. As I stated above, it is legal in Texas, and other states, to use deadly force in defense of property. If you didn't feel threatened, would you let a thief steal anything from your house? The loaf of bread scenario is an extreme example. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 12:57:51 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Quoted: So, the homeless man who hasn't eaten in a week (and I'm not talking about the drunks, here) steals a loaf of bread from your store. You can't morally shoot him because his right to that bread for survival is greater than your right to make a profit. I most certainly CAN morally shoot him. That scenario is WELL within my personal ethos. His right to that bread ended when he denied me the right to make a profit from it. I don't give handouts. I might could be persuaded to sell it "at cost", but he didn't bother asking, he just took it from me. There are no "greater" rights. All rights are equal. His station in life doesn't make his wants and needs more important than mine. I worked for what I have, and he is stealing my work from me. That's time lost, permanently. He can't just give that back to me. For lack of better phrasing, his rights just ended when they infringed upon mine. the_reject I usually try to be understanding of other viewpoints, BUT: Dude, that is just plain twisted sick. Maybe you and FNG should migrate to ASSWEB. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 1:16:45 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Reject, If your personal ethos allows you to kill a man who is not offering you or someone else direct bodily harm, over a loaf of bread, then you are psychotic and need to seek professional care IMMEDIATELY. You are a murder waiting to happen. Your scenario points out property rights. I WILL defend my property, whether it be a loaf of bread at a store I own, my car at my house, or anything else for that matter. It has nothing to do with being psychotic. I am not a "murder waiting to happen". Especially in this case, because I don't even own a bread store. The nice thing about being a rational, thinking being with the ability to understand and implement moral codes is that we can choose when and where to implement them, whether the situation warrants taking certain actions, legal or not, etc. And the nice thing about being me is that I'm not as wishy-washy as you when it comes to implementing my moral codes. For instance: No, I have not illustrated that I would have made the same choice. You are illogically painting me in the same corner as Horuchi. The only thing I have illustrated is that if a starving homeless man walks into my store and tries to steal a loaf of bread, that I would indeed use lethal force to shoot at him, and that this action is within my ethos. [b]THAT[/b] is what I have illustrated. Look at the picture that I am showing to you. It's easy to see. It's not one of those damn stereograms or whatever that require you to stare at it for 15 minutes before you can see the picture. Lots of folks around here get all hot and bothered over what happened at Ruby Ridge (justifiably so I might add) but are perfectly willing to apply the same standard of lethal force in their own lives. I'd say that some folks on here are perfectly willing to make two examples that are totally unrelated fit together. They don't. Vicky Weaver wasn't a starving bum in Lon Horuchi's bread store. You may legally be able to use lethal force in defense of your property, but I guarantee you that if you fire on a thief and wound or kill him or her and cannot demonstrate that your life or the life of someone else was not in imminent danger from that thief, you will do time. Depends on local and state laws. It's been said at least 20 times today in several different threads that [b]YOUR[/b] thesis does not apply everywhere, e.g., in Texas. In other locales, if I cannot prove to a jury of 12 of my peers that I was in immediate danger or was in any other way justified in my course of action, then, yes, I will do time. Thanks for your concern. And if you pop a homeless person for stealing 10 dollars in groceries, and still manage to get away with it legally, you are still a homicidal scum bag. There is sometimes a pretty big gulf between what is legal and what is moral. So anyone who defends their personal property rights with lethal force is a homicidal scumbag? There is not necessarily a pretty big gulf between what is legal and what is moral. For you, what I'm advocating is repulsive. To others, including myself, I make perfect sense. the_reject |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 1:18:41 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: I usually try to be understanding of other viewpoints, BUT: Dude, that is just plain twisted sick. Maybe you and FNG should migrate to ASSWEB. Love the edit job. First I was just sick and twisted, now I should also join ASSWEB. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me. I'm just answering a question. the_reject |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 1:29:33 PM EDT
[#34]
FYI for Arizonans... here is [url=http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/title13.htm]Arizona Revised Statutes Title 13: Criminal Code.[/url] Chapter 4 is where the justifications for use of deadly force are spelled out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 1:35:18 PM EDT
[#35]
I think you fellas who would kill for a loaf of bread should seriously consider the emotional impact of killing. It will be with you always. Whenever I kill an elk, it always leaves me unsettled, and I can only justify it because I eat the meat.
So only kill a guy unless if are prepared to eat him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 1:39:42 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: I think you fellas who would kill for a loaf of bread should seriously consider the emotional impact of killing. It will be with you always. Whenever I kill an elk, it always leaves me unsettled, and I can only justify it because I eat the meat. So only kill a guy unless if are prepared to eat him. But an elk isn't trying to steal your property. As I stated above, the loaf of bread scenario is extreme, but would you allow a thief to take all of your property as long as you didn't feel personally threatened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 1:41:29 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Quoted: So only kill a guy unless if are prepared to eat him. But an elk isn't trying to steal your property. BTW, that was a joke. My wife does not think I am funny either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 1:46:08 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: But an elk isn't trying to steal your property. Honestly, I'd rather the elk give it a try... The elk might not understand me when I say, "Drop the loaf of bread before I drop you," leaving me no recourse but to use lethal force, but I doubt the elk would be as stringy as the homeless starving bum... [:D] the_reject |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 1:59:12 PM EDT
[#39]
Love the edit job [:D]
-legrue |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 2:02:45 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Love the edit job [:D] -legrue Hey, what can I say? [:D] 400+ posts, and I [b]STILL[/b] can't get the quotes thing right all the time... [stick] Bad the_reject, no donut... the_reject |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 3:42:51 PM EDT
[#41]
It is legal to shoot on sight any and all suspicious individuals and their family members that appear to be of middle eastern descent because we are at war. [b]RAHOWA[/b]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 3:57:49 PM EDT
[#42]
As far as the emotional impact that occurs to someone when they have to shoot another, I feel worse for shooting the dear and other animals that I love to eat. They have done anything to me to deserve being shot. On the other hand I would feel nothing for shooting some pos that had the nerve to break into my house. For any person that breaks into my house it will be assumed that the subject is there to harm me or my family, and I won't stop shooting till the said person stops moving. And after that I will frequently repeat the phrase, "I was in fear of my life and the life of my family."
Bill3508 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 4:26:03 PM EDT
[#43]
First off why is it that it is not a crime for an LEO to knowingly (or should have known as ignorance is no excuse) violate your rights? If you are deprived of life it is a life term (supposedly) why not a life term for deprived of liberty? And for those who want to bring up Title 42 sec 1983 it is a civil case with no prison time. It must be brought by the victim and is very costly as I have a good 1983 case against a dept here in NC but can not afford the $25,000 it will take. I would say deadly force is authorized to defend life and liberty (not nessecarily violating individual amendments). An example of this is if you have committed no crime and are being detained without warrent and you decide to leave I believe you should be allowed to use any means possible including lethel force. If you are wrong your F*cked just as if you are wrong in a self defense situation you are F*cked.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 4:29:14 PM EDT
[#44]
A thief is someone who enslaves you. Someone who attempts to take by force your G#d-given Constitutionally guaranteed rights is attempting to enslave you. To resist being enslaved is MORALLY,(if not always legally), justifiable. It is up to each individual before G#d to choose for themselves where the line is drawn. Some have drawn it differently than others.I pray some of you are not sitting on my jury if I am forced to excercise my choice. Those who do not attempt to enslave me are at no risk. May you all give it serious thought, this is a thought provoking topic. You guys got off track with the bread. Mac, I suggest you read some good history books, then our Declaration of Independence....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 4:33:38 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Quoted: Reject, If your personal ethos allows you to kill a man who is not offering you or someone else direct bodily harm, over a loaf of bread, then you are psychotic and need to seek professional care IMMEDIATELY. You are a murder waiting to happen. Your scenario points out property rights. I WILL defend my property, whether it be a loaf of bread at a store I own, my car at my house, or anything else for that matter. It has nothing to do with being psychotic. I am not a "murder waiting to happen". Especially in this case, because I don't even own a bread store. It's one thing to defend your property rights, it's another to do so with force out of scale to the offense. A loaf of bread costs what some of us make in about 5 minutes and others in about 15 minutes. You are willing to kill a human being for that? I will absolutely shoot an individual torching my car, my house, etc. or doing something on a similar scale. But over a loaf of bread? No way. That's zero tolerance in action. That sort of thinking is EXACTLY the same sort of thinking that gets an eagle scout and honor student expelled from high school a few weeks before graduation causing him to lose his college scholarships. Replacing judgement with rules is what democrats do. The nice thing about being a rational, (snip). And the nice thing about being me is that I'm not as wishy-washy as you when it comes to implementing my moral codes. Using one's own judgement to adjust a response to the scale of the offense is not "wishy-washy" it's moral and ethical. Those who cannot use their own judgement in this way typically LACK judgement. For instance: No, I have not illustrated that I would have made the same choice. You are illogically painting me in the same corner as Horuchi. The only thing I have illustrated is that if a starving homeless man walks into my store and tries to steal a loaf of bread, that I would indeed use lethal force to shoot at him, and that this action is within my ethos. [b]THAT[/b] is what I have illustrated. Look at the picture that I am showing to you. It's easy to see. It's not one of those damn stereograms or whatever that require you to stare at it for 15 minutes before you can see the picture. That is a picture of force being applied to the maximum allowed by law simply because you can, not because it is appropriate to the situation. That is EXACTLY what Horuchi did. The ROE said he could shoot, so he did. The guys around him used their judgement and chose not to shoot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 4:35:19 PM EDT
[#46]
I'd say that some folks on here are perfectly willing to make two examples that are totally unrelated fit together. They don't. Vicky Weaver wasn't a starving bum in Lon Horuchi's bread store. No, she was a starving woman in a survivalist cabin with a husband who was an avowed racist, seperatist fleeing from legal jurisdiction for doing something he knew damned well was illegal and resisting arrest. She was a victim of circumstances way beyond her control and she was slaughtered for no real reason other than some asshole who was allowed to slaughter people by a set of rules that require little justification for slaughter. You may legally be able to use lethal force in defense of your property, ..snipped...you will do time. Depends on local and state laws. It's been said at least 20 times today in several different threads that [b]YOUR[/b] thesis does not apply everywhere, e.g., in Texas. In other locales, if I cannot prove to a jury of 12 of my peers that I was in immediate danger or was in any other way justified in my course of action, then, yes, I will do time. Thanks for your concern. So how does a homeless man who statistically is likely to be drunk, malnourished, infected with numerous infections that will eventually kill him, likely to be quite weak and uncoordinated and if he had a weapon would likely have pawned it immediately to buy booze, pose an immediate danger to a well organized guy like you? How can you justify killing a guy over a $1.50? Since most homeless guys never travel more than a few blocks in any direction (they are too tired and the browse is known to them in their home zone. Finding the guy again is not going to be hard. Just find him call the cops and let them handle it. Or you could just waste the guy because the law says you can. And if you pop a homeless person for stealing 10 dollars in groceries, and still manage to get away with it legally, you are still a homicidal scum bag. There is sometimes a pretty big gulf between what is legal and what is moral. So anyone who defends their personal property rights with lethal force is a homicidal scumbag? There is not necessarily a pretty big gulf between what is legal and what is moral. For you, what I'm advocating is repulsive. To others, including myself, I make perfect sense. the_reject No, anyone who defends personal property with lethal force is not a scumbag. Protecting your personal property from people offering serious and substantial damage, major theft, and who may pose a reasonable threat of violence to you and yours is one thing, shooting some poor bastard over a loaf of bread is another. It's a question of scale and a measured, balanced response. You chose to hang your hat on an example of petty theft rather than grand larceny or burglary assault. A MUCH more apropo example would have been some asshole trying to loot your store during a riot. Then I'm right behind you, but shooting a person over a loaf of bread is just plain psychotic, whether it is technically legal or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 4:38:05 PM EDT
[#47]
Well, in PA, deadly force is allowed for a police officer, a citizen, or a citizen helping a cop in order to serve a warrent or arrest. This includes if the arrest/warrent is illegal, as long as the cop/person doesn't know that in advance.
Why does it seem soooo much safer just to let them arrest me, and then clear it up in the courts. People seem to forget that deadly force and your firearm are supposed to be your last resort. The cop pulls a plug, or rips off your bumper sticker? Get his badge number and start hounding his supervisor. Christ, some of you bastards are a bit twitchy on the trigger. I always thought that me pulling a weapon and killing somebody was if I felt I had no other option. In all the scenarios described, you HAVE other options. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 4:49:59 PM EDT
[#48]
Someone said they would feel worse about killing an elk than they would about killing an intruder.
Horsepucky! While I've never had to do it, I know guys who have, both in wartime and in civilian life. What you THINK you may feel now, and what you would feel after the fact are entirely different issues. So unless you have actually shot at someone with the intention of killing them, your opinion as to how you would feel on the matter is less valuable than several centuries of reports of after action remorse and nightmares. You may feel justified, you may be justified, but most people who kill other people, whether in self-defense or not, are marked by it. And like I've said above, killing an intruder who breaks into your home is one thing. Killing a homeless wino over a loaf of bread is something else entirely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 5:05:52 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Christ, some of you bastards are a bit twitchy on the trigger. I always thought that me pulling a weapon and killing somebody was if I felt I had no other option. In all the scenarios described, you HAVE other options. Yes, there are indeed other options. But we aren't exploring them. I think perhaps I should, before you all think I'm psychotic, because I am not. [whacko] To get back around to [b]icemanat95's[/b] posts... Would I shoot a starving homeless man who grabs a loaf of bread and starts to sneak out the door without paying, [b][i]without saying a word to him first?[/i][/b] No, I would not. To do so would deny myself as a human being. What I [b]WOULD[/b] do in this situation, exploring [b]ALL[/b] options (or, the ones that I think of right now, feel free to toss others in), is call him out. I'd warn him that he might want to either put that bread back, or pay for it. That being done, if he refused to pay for it or put it back, I would ask him again, and let him know the consequences of his actions should he ignore me again. Second scenario, he breaks down and tells me his sad sad story. Depending on my mood, I could either A) give him the bread or B) lower the price or C) accept a trade ("just this once, and only once, mister"). If he buys the bread at the lower cost, trades, or if I give it to him for free, then this second scenario is over. Another scenario: if he bolts out the door, I won't shoot him. I [b]WILL[/b], however, catch him. But, if he starts to jump my shit, and the situation escalates to where I am under physical threat from him, I would indeed pull the trigger on him. Yes, over a loaf of bread. Which was your question, and my ultimate answer. Perhaps now you can see why I answered the way I did, and, if not agree with, at least understand my reasoning. But don't just assume that I'd blow his head off as he snuck out the door while I hand another customer's change back at the register, as if there was nothing peculiar about it. the_reject |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2002 11:05:51 PM EDT
[#50]
If you allow the theft to occur regardless of the dollar amount without responding to it decisively, it will encourage other, possibly violent criminal acts. That bum will then go and tell 10 of his buddies that the bakery at 1234 N. 1st Street is easy pickings.
Legal rights aside, one needs to employ PROGRESSIVE response to the situation. You don't consider shooting somebody for stealing a loaf of bread as your *first* option but you don't remove it from possible responses altogether as the situation may escalate. Depending on how early you catch the theft, such as if a homeless man reaches over the counter to steal a loaf of bread, the reasonable and moral course of action is to 1) order him to stop 2) draw your weapon and repeat #1 3) aim your weapon, repeat #1, and make it clear what will happen if he doesn't stop. At this point several possibilities come into play. First off if a homeless man steals a loaf of bread and you point a loaded gun at him, most if not all of the time he'll stop. If he still continues and makes a run for it, pursue him. If he's homeless he's not going to be in top shape and you should have no problem catching up to him. At this point he will either give up or will fight and become a threat to you, justifying deadly force. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
