Poll: Would you shoot to retrieve property

[carlson1]

If they are in or coming in my house, yes, I will shoot. That said, if it is one of my vehicles and my family or myself is not in danger, or if it is just stolen property, probably not. However, if you put my family in danger you will be full of holes.

This is exactly my thought. After having an attempt to steal my truck a couple of years ago and running outside with my pistol now looking back I realized what a huge mistake that was.

[jiannichan]

I would never shoot over material possession unless the safety of my family or my own life was of concern.

[Abraham]

carlson1

What was your alternative?

Were you successful in stopping the theft?

Should we let criminals steal from us while we mildly stand by watching it happen?

I say this without sarcasm.

[carlson1]

carlson1

What was your alternative?

Were you successful in stopping the theft?

Should we let criminals steal from us while we mildly stand by watching it happen?

I say this without sarcasm.

First let me say I have some years under my belt as a LEO. I spent several of those years as working undercover narcotics. I have had quiet a bit of training, but with that said. . .

I believe the wise thing to do was for me to stay in my house and call 911. I was able to stop the theft although they tore up my ignition switch.

My incident took place around 3:00AM. When I went outside "guns blazing" I did not stop and think if there could be more than one, if it could have been a gang, if I could have been outgunned, etc. . . I believe it would have been much smarter on my part to let the police do their job. My truck was not worth my life or the life of some teenager wanting to take a joy ride.

As far as what "we" should do I believe each individual will have to make that choice.

[G0C]

the life of some teenager wanting to take a joy ride.

He probably just wanted a ride to the store to buy some iced tea and Skittles.

[Ruark]

I seriously doubt that I would just walk up and slaughter somebody stealing my weedeater, although by Texas law it's legal to do so if it's at night. But as has been pointed out, there are variables and "what about" questions, especially if somebody's stealing something valuable, like a car. Say you see somebody coming out of your house with a handful of your grandmother's jewelry. Kill him? What about just shooting to wound, even though you COULD legally kill him? What about yelling at him to drop the jewelry, and firing to near-miss him?

[Pecos]

For me I will only shoot when my life depends on it.Also depends on the situation. There's more to it than one might think. There the "Aftermath". A lot more costly than any of my stuff. They can have my weed eater! It's broken anyway!!!

[Abraham]

So, if a criminal/criminals come onto your property, but do so without exhibiting threatening behavior, he/they can steal at will while you stand by looking out your window while calling the police?

Do I have that right?

Without I hope sounding like a sourpuss, this approach reminds of what the U.K. is all about and other socialist countries that don't want the citizen to defend themselves be it from bodily harm to theft.

And yes, if you bail out at 3:00 in the morning to check out what's going on on your property, you're taking a risk, but the alternative just irks the devil out of me.

[Pecos]

Im just saying what I would do. If I killed an unarmed subject stealing something off my property I would go to jail for murder.
Our justus systen in USA is messed up.
Now- If they came into my house while I was home armed - thats a different story.
Im just saying this for my self.

[jmra]

Looks like this is winding down so I thought I would wrap up my thoughts.
Let me start by saying that I realize some of you were not comfortable with the elimination of a threat to safety from the senecio. I get that. I realize in real life people that are willing to steal must be viewed as a potential source of violence.
So, why remove violence from the equation? I did so because I believe that the vast majority of the members here are united in the belief that the safety of our family and our person is paramount and that we all would take the necessary steps to ensure that safety is not compromised. I don't believe that "Would you use deadly force to protect yourself or your family?" ever needs to be asked in a poll on this forum.
The results:
It's obvious that there are several lines of thought and factors in use of deadly force:
1. There is no doubt that many strongly consider the moral aspects of life vs property. It appears many do not believe that "things" (especially those of small monetary or sentimental value) are worth taking a life. There are others that believe very differently. I would use the term "eye for an eye" but I don't believe that applies here because the response to action seems to be much greater than an "eye for an eye".
2. The other line of thought appears to be the "Consequence" factor. I may be within my legal rights but what does it cost me in the long run? When considering my livelihood and the financial well being of my family, this is a great concern for me personally. My issue here is the "Law" and the "Courts" too often seem not to be on the same page. We have all seen cases that we felt never should have gone to trial end with the accused either in bankruptcy or even in an appeals court fighting for their freedom. Some would argue that using this as the basis of my decision to defend or not defend property makes me a victim before I'm ever a victim. My response is very simple, i prefer to limit my exposure to risk. I would much rather report a stolen can of gas to the police with a description of the guy who took it with the hope that he is caught than to spend a $100k defending myself in court (criminal or civil) for shooting him.
3. The final factor and one that is also a concern for me is compromising your own safety to protect property. My family needs me and I will not remove myself from a position of safety to a vulnerable position simply to protect property.

I understand that every situation is different and it is hard to know exactly how we will react until we are knee deep into the situation. I have enjoyed this exercise and do believe that discussing these issues helps each of us plan and evaluate how we will prepare for such events.

Thank you for participating.

[Pecos]

Looks like this is winding down so I thought I would wrap up my thoughts.
Let me start by saying that I realize some of you were not comfortable with the elimination of a threat to safety from the senecio. I get that. I realize in real life people that are willing to steal must be viewed as a potential source of violence.
So, why remove violence from the equation? I did so because I believe that the vast majority of the members here are united in the belief that the safety of our family and our person is paramount and that we all would take the necessary steps to ensure that safety is not compromised. I don't believe that "Would you use deadly force to protect yourself or your family?" ever needs to be asked in a poll on this forum.
The results:
It's obvious that there are several lines of thought and factors in use of deadly force:
1. There is no doubt that many strongly consider the moral aspects of life vs property. It appears many do not believe that "things" (especially those of small monetary or sentimental value) are worth taking a life. There are others that believe very differently. I would use the term "eye for an eye" but I don't believe that applies here because the response to action seems to be much greater than an "eye for an eye".
2. The other line of thought appears to be the "Consequence" factor. I may be within my legal rights but what does it cost me in the long run? When considering my livelihood and the financial well being of my family, this is a great concern for me personally. My issue here is the "Law" and the "Courts" too often seem not to be on the same page. We have all seen cases that we felt never should have gone to trial end with the accused either in bankruptcy or even in an appeals court fighting for their freedom. Some would argue that using this as the basis of my decision to defend or not defend property makes me a victim before I'm ever a victim. My response is very simple, i prefer to limit my exposure to risk. I would much rather report a stolen can of gas to the police with a description of the guy who took it with the hope that he is caught than to spend a $100k defending myself in court (criminal or civil) for shooting him.
3. The final factor and one that is also a concern for me is compromising your own safety to protect property. My family needs me and I will not remove myself from a position of safety to a vulnerable position simply to protect property.

I understand that every situation is different and it is hard to know exactly how we will react until we are knee deep into the situation. I have enjoyed this exercise and do believe that discussing these issues helps each of us plan and evaluate how we will prepare for such events.

Thank you for participating.

Well said jmra

[chasfm11]

So, if a criminal/criminals come onto your property, but do so without exhibiting threatening behavior, he/they can steal at will while you stand by looking out your window while calling the police?

Do I have that right?

Without I hope sounding like a sourpuss, this approach reminds of what the U.K. is all about and other socialist countries that don't want the citizen to defend themselves be it from bodily harm to theft.

And yes, if you bail out at 3:00 in the morning to check out what's going on on your property, you're taking a risk, but the alternative just irks the devil out of me.

We have become closer to those socialist countries than many of us want. Some of the sentiment on this thread appears to be recognizing the reality of that, not condoning it.

As was called out in the thread summation, most of us don't shy away from defending ourselves from bodily harm In fact, it is that exact sentiment that makes me want to avoid a confrontation over "things". If I'm safe in the house, why risk my life over something that I can replace? I do understand the "irks the devil out of me" feeling. Someone stealing my stuff takes me way beyond "irked".

I just finished reading two excellent books. "Deep Survivor" and "The Unthinkable" both deal with the mental aspect of survival but from different perspectives. The fascinating part was the balancing of our emotional responses to our cognitive ones. In some cases, each is correct.

There are several other ways to keep track of your property at 3:00am. IR cameras are one. I have a buddy who picks off coyotes on his remote property with a night scoped rifle. That's another.

[MechAg94]

I think it is important to also remember that in times past Property Was Life. Property was livelihood and sometimes made the difference between starvation and prosperity. We live in differnet times now where quality of life is generally high for most everyone and disposable income is high where most people have insurance to cover significant losses. In this atmosphere today, people don't value property especially small things the same as they used to. Just understand that is wasn't always that way and circumstances are different for some people. A man trying to hold down a job to keep food on the table might need his truck to get to work. He might have a hell of a lot more need or justification to stop a car thief than I would.

I don't want to shoot someone over property, but I can't imagine seeing someone trying to break into my truck and NOT going out armed to stop them or drive them off. Thankfully, I haven't had to deal with that. I guess that is another reason to pay attention to the jurisdiction in which you live and how the local prosecutors treat property owners in such cases.

[RoyGBiv]

I don't like the available poll responses... Nothing that fits for me.

My default is NO shoot. There are few "things" I value so dearly that they are worth possibly taking a life, even the life of a perp. Add on the possibility of missing my target, injuring an innocent, damaging other property, etc and the risk is pretty high with a too-low return. I have insurance that covers valuables. However, if the theft would leave me in physical danger (stealing my car and leaving me stranded in Death Valley, for example) or the theft of MY property was part of an event that had not ended (my wallet was stolen and an armed perp was busy stealing valuables from the guy next to me, or a family member, a situation where the property was stolen, but the danger had not ended), that's a very different situation that might call for a different action. The loss of property would/could not be the sold driver in my decision to shoot.

[jnichols2]

I voted that I would not shoot. But a clarification is in order.

My dog is not property, she's family.

Last month I backed down a charging pit bull while holding her in one arm.
So I already know I won't let anyone hurt her.