'When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?'

Reminds me of a movie.
They Shoot Horse Thieves Don't They?

 

And we have felon surplus.

 

Enjoy your friends.

 

Oh I will.

 

it should not be legal to use deadly force to protect a toaster oven from theft.

 

What if the property in question has far greater potential for danger than a toaster oven? What if the property is a motor vehicle or a firearm, and can be used in the commission of a violent felony?

 

The founders didn't know about that at the writing of the constitution.
So, are you saying there should be restrictions to the rights? No nuclear weapons, etc?

 

Who makes that decision? 1 single person, judge, jury, and executioner? Toaster oven or car. To each has different value. What if the toaster oven is the person's only asset?

 

Cease and desist bringing up household appliances for the sake of the discussion, as they are not what is at issue. Actually answer the question as it was presented to yourself.

 

What is being ignored here in such arguments over intrinsically valueless home appliances, is that many criminals have killed their victims even after the victim complied with all demands, this is another facet of the failure that is gun control, even after victims of gun control have complied, there are still further demands for more Gun Control with the same results, failure to affect crime in any substantial manner.

 

It is what is the sake of discussion. Personal property vs human life vs who gets to determine value and life? Does NOT matter in the least what the personal property is.
You don't like it because it shoots holes in your argument.

Who determines what value of personal property is justifiable in killing another human?
Hint, not the victim. We have a justice system for such crimes.

Can be used in a felony is NOT being used in a felony.
NO killing unless it's self defense or saving anothers life.
And in each killing, a investigation needs to be done by the system to determine just or not.
That did not happen in this case.

 

'
At what point does a victim know for sure that someone is just a thief and won't commit potentially lethal violence upon them?

 

If the person is holding your tv and you are holding a gun pointed at him, I think it's fairly safe to assume he's not much of a threat. So no need to shoot him. Now, if he makes a quick move to drop the tv and step towards you? All bets are off. Shoot.
If said person is fleeing your home, I think it's fairly safe to assume he's not much of a threat. As he's fleeing you obviously keep your gun on him just in case, but there's no need to shoot at that point.

 

t
I agree with your scenarios, but it's a limited subset of possible encounters. I prefer not to give an intruder the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not going downstairs to accost one, either. All of my precious goods will be upstairs in their bedrooms, and given the really cool stuff that a thief can take is all downstairs, anyone coming upstairs isn't looking for a quick grab and run for drug money.

 

And pray tell what is the certainty, the guarantee possessed by the individual who is being victimized, that simply letting their property be taken from them will allow them to escape the incident unscathed? How does a person know that a simple property crime will not immediately escalate and lead to their well being and life threatened by the person that has made the conscious decision to victimize them for their own benefit? Explain such.

 

Yes, it was a limited subset of possible encounters. I don't have the time nor the inclination to list off every possible scenario : )

And I agree about your precious goods being upstairs as that is where all my precious goods would be too in the middle of the night. As a result I'm hunkering down and anyone who dares to show his face at the top of the stairs will lose their face because as you pointed out...they ain't looking just for my tv or computer at that point.

 

Sorry any forcible felony such a rape, setting or trying to set a building on fire or planting a bomb or pulling you out of your car can and I have no problem with anyone using lethal force to stop those events and or stopping the guilty party from getting away.

Next if I wake up in the middle of the night and find a stranger carrying my TV out the door I am going to assume he is a danger to myself and order him to freeze and if he does not I am going to open fire.

 

Why are you asking me?

 

i think the courts should decide these issues

 

Because you keep referencing "theft" when the subject is actually "intruder".

 

It is up to the situation of course.
And then the law to decide if killing was warranted. That didn't happen in this case, AFAIK.
And killing for a tv or truck isn't justified, IMO. Because where is the line drawn?

Why don't you tell us what one can kill one over vs not killing one over. What is the $$$ value of the item you deem the cutoff point?

 

The courts aren't in session in your home in the middle of the night.

 

Fine, and then let the justice system sort out if justified or not.

 

Theft, IMO, is not a self defense issue, and killing others for theft should not be justified.

 

As an example, a person fears someone may steal his truck, so he makes a booty trap and it kills a theif attempting to steal his truck.

People doing that have been tried and convicted of premeditated murder.

However, if you hear a noise in the middle of the night and go investigating the cause, and somone is stealing your truck, and you tell them to stop, that is a different situation entirely.