So what's wrong with using a gun to protect property

[Perplexed]

I'm just trying to figure out how the law came about. Way back when if you shot someone that was steeling your horse you were good regardless if he was armed or not. I see absolutely nothing wrong with killing a scumbag that is caught steeling something I worked hard to get. I can sorta understand the idea that a life is worth more than things but it would really piss me off if I saw someone on my property driving off with one of my tractors and I had to stop short of killing the bstrd because I'm afraid of going to jail.

Because back in the day, a horse could mean the difference between life and death. If you were out in the sticks and the loss of your horse meant you'd likely die, you were within your rights to defend your life and the means which allowed you to do so.

Fireworks generally are not necessary for survival in an urban setting.

 

[deerwhacker444]

Because back in the day, a horse could mean the difference between life and death. If you were out in the sticks and the loss of your horse meant you'd likely die, you were within your rights to defend your life and the means which allowed you to do so.

Fireworks generally are not necessary for survival in an urban setting.

While a horse is beneficial, Native people walked from the tip of N. America to the tip of S. America and managed to flourish long before horses showed up. Horses definitely made an early settler's life easier and more profitable, but an argument could be made that having acess to a horse is not a true life and death proposal. If you had a string of 5 horses and I stole 1, is your life at danger? No, but I would have been hung nonetheless.

IMO, most people wanted to immediately kill a horse thief for the same reason we seek quick justice for a murderer, it's an emotional issue. The notion that a horse was "life or death" was created to circumvent the court and allow for speedy justice and a quick hanging, and probably more for deterrent than anything.

It should make no difference. Unless a man is stealing for bread, water, or medicine, truly life and death scenarios, all thieves should be treated equally and harshly whether a box of fireworks, your Grandfathers Rolex, or your SSN#. If thieves don't fear the repercussions, where is the deterrent?

 

[caojyn]

It should make no difference. Unless a man is stealing for bread, water, or medicine, truly life and death scenarios, all thieves should be treated equally and harshly whether a box of fireworks, your Grandfathers Rolex, or your SSN#. If thieves don't fear the repercussions, where is the deterrent?

Agreed, especially when it comes to unjust civil assest forfeiture.

 

[deerwhacker444]

Agreed, especially when it comes to unjust civil assest forfeiture.

Uh Oh, that particular wording makes me think there's an axe to grind.

Tell us a story.....

 

[caojyn]

Uh Oh, that particular wording makes me think there's an axe to grind.

Tell us a story.....

Lol, nope, nothing personally. Just against theft, presumption of guilt, and having to prove innocence.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I see nothing wrong with protecting one's property with deadly force. We shouldn't have to buy insurance to replace that which might be stolen from us. Insurance actually makes it easier for crooks to "justify" stealing someone else's property: "They're insured. They'll never miss it."

Nothing will put a halt to someone's bad behavior like death, and it is the only real insurance that a thief will not steal from someone else. At that rate, anyone who would likely steal from you would already be dead.

Woody

 

[Pokinfun]

insurance in general should be made illegal.

 

[adamsredlines]

While I believe we should have the right to defend ourselves against someone robbing you, I'd personally be hard pressed to shoot someone who is running away. If someone breaks in, you bet your ass I'd pull my weapon to prevent further harm as you have no idea what their intention is...but I dont think I'd shoot a guy running away with my Nintendo.

 

[Chuckie]

What's the problem? An ax murderer is still an ax murderer, regardless of which direction he's walking.

One would think, if a cop surrounded by 2 other officers, can be scared for her life and is allowed to kill an unarmed man, strictly out of fear for what might happen, a business man can be in fear for his life whilst in the back of a speeding away vehicle driven by an armed thief that has just robbed him, no?

So your rational is that if "a cop surrounded by 2 other officers, can be scared for her life and is allowed to kill an unarmed man, strictly out of fear for what might happen" then that should also be allowable for anyone, but the truth is that anything can happen if a suspect is 'cornered' and therefore liable to do anything to escape ('fight or flight' response).
Shooting a fleeing suspect in the back is little more than murder (or attempted murder) being that the shooters life, unlike the cop cited above, is most likely no longer in immediate danger considering that the suspect has chosen flight over fight.

 

[CHenry]

While a horse is beneficial, Native people walked from the tip of N. America to the tip of S. America and managed to flourish long before horses showed up.

And the number of those who perished is high, thus making it a life or death situation.