Should you be able to shoot anyone tryng to steal your property?

Ron DeSantis has told people that looting in Florida is a "2nd ammendment state"

The veiled threat here is that if you try and steal something, he supports the citizenry in shooting said thief. To be clear. I DO NOT SUPPORT LOOTING NOR VIOLENCE. And I am in no way calling for either.

I personally believe that you should ONLY be allowed to shoot someone if you are in imminent danger. I think Stand your Ground laws are nothing more than a cover to murder someone ( and there has been plenty of evidence that this happens )

I personally thing that property is never worth life. And that someone stealing form you cannot be killed as long as they pose no physical threat to you or those around you.

If someone grabs my wallet out of my hand and starts running and I cant catch them. It should still be illegal for me to pull out a gun and shoot them in the back as they run away. IMO.

 

I think Texas is the only State where its legal to shoot someone stealing your laundry.

In Florida you can kill only to defend yourself against a deadly attack.

DeSantis is saying the property owners might shoot you if you loot, but he should have added that its illegal to shoot to protect property,

In 2020 he was pushing for a law which would have legalized shooting of looters and vandals during riots but that did not fly, but it shows he is in favor of such things.

PS There is already a thread about this.

 

I think if a person should have a right to use deadly force to protect private property. The wallet example you have is something I will run on. How long will it take for said thief to order on Amazon with your credit card? How long until he sales your SS# if you had it in your wallet? Those acts can devastate one financially and should be justified to kill to protect it.

Doesn’t mean it should happen with impunity. Every death should be investigated. If it turns out there is evidence of you planting your wallet or lying then person should be charged with murder.

 

Interesting... I wonder, is it because you have insurance that you feel folks can just take stuff from you?

And I wonder why you created a duplicate thread? Not getting enough traction in the other one?

 

One is a poll. Ones a thread. Id think you would know this by now having been here long enough.

And even if I didnt have insurance, I still dont think propery is worth someones life.

Funny that most of the pro life crowd are also the pro shoot crowd. Iv never been able to figure out how you guys square that off.

 

So no comment on the folks taking your stuff because you have it insured?

 

I edited the post to include that.

And besides. You have no idea if I have insurance or not. Your simply speculating.

Property is not worth life. Period.

 

Hmm.. ok. Is land property?

 

Id like to se you try and walk away with my front yard.

What a stupid question.

 

Hmm.. Ok, Perhaps you'd like to share your observations with say the Ukrainians.. The question, really, is threshold. Where do you draw the line at which theft of your property constitutes a need to defend your self up and to include the use of deadly force? Still an open question.

 

Exactly my thoughts. Period. It just makes me sad to think there are people who would justify killing another human because they stole property from them. I don't own anything that is worth the life of another human, criminal or not.

 

Dead men tell no tales. "If" you are going to shoot, shoot to kill.

 

Amen

 

some people are just naturally cruel like that. Its sad.

 

The problem is this essentially makes it a crime (note I said essentially, not technically) to not insure everything. Theft is surviveable when its petty or the things you need to survive and prosper have been insured. But if someone doesn't pay extra for that insurance, theft can potentially ruin them. Being left destitute (homeless, starving, no healthcare) isn't meaningfully different from 'serious threat of bodily injury' for many people. I think we can all agree that shooting someone in the back for stealing your soda pop or hot dog is unjustifiable. However, I think far less of us would agree that shooting someone in the back who is trying to burn down your home, even when its unoccupied, is just as unjustifiable. In fact, I'd wager most people would find it very justified. Defining such differences in law is difficult, as both your hot dog and your home are just 'property' and their value can be pretty subjective to the individual. Consider you are retired and your savings you intend to live on is all in gold coins. An unidentifiable stranger running away with them is a pretty credible threat to your future well-being, even though they're not physically threatenning you with violence. What's needed is an objective way to make such distinctions in the law.

Seems to me a reasonable solution would be to define 'justified' shootings as shootings that can be demonstrated to have prevented a felony, and unjustified shootings to be shootings that can not be demonstrated to have prevented a felony. Until recently, this was also the metric by which citizens arrest laws were weighed (and afaik still are in some states)- you could forcibly detain someone for LE if you had witnessed them commit a felony (but you'd better hope it was proveable in court otherwise you're just kidnapping them and you become the felon).

 

I live in California and a "No Trespassing" sign is considered a Halloween decoration.

 

In the UK, the law states you should/can use reasonable force. If it's found that if was excessive, you would fall foul of the law. Someone running at you with a gun, looking to shoot you, shooting them would be reasonable. If you shot a fleeing thief, that's not reasonable force.

I get this sneaky feeling that some/many Americans feel it's their God given right to shoot at will, regardless.

 

Many years ago in the 50's and 60's during a hurricane the National Guard would be called out and all the news would report they had been given orders that looters could be shot. It is a state of emergency wherenlaw enforcement cannot be relied upon to protect people.

In the late 70's living in Louisiana and in particular New Orleans and Baton Rouge was having a huge problem with carjackings and people getting seriously injured and even killed by the carjackers. Theybpassed a law that said if someone was attempting to carjack you you had a right to assume they would use lethal force to do so and therefore use it to defend yourself. The ACLU and other groups cried out this would cause more deaths of the victims and criminals over just a car. Well shortly after it went into effect sure enough a law abiding citizen killed an attempted carjacker. Those groups cried out SEE we told you so. The carjackings stopped.

 

So much misunderstanding in that post.

In Florida, deadly force is only allowed if your life is in danger or to stop a violent crime such as rape or murder. Deadly force cannot be used just because someone is looting.

If someone goes into an occupied house and is looting (stealing) then deadly force is justified - not because the person is stealing but because the person has entered an occupied home with what can be assumed to be violent intentions. Are they there to rape the woman, kidnap children, murder? You don't know and cannot afford to give them the benefit of the doubt. Entering an occupied home is a very serious matter.

Stand your ground just means you don't have to retreat from certain places such as your home or car. It does not give you permission to kill, the same rules as above apply - your life or the life of another has to be in imminent danger. Stand your ground and castle doctrine laws were created because anti-gunners were putting people in jail for legitimately defending themselves (you are in your house on the second floor, instead of jumping out the window to escape you shoot the person who broke into your bedroom).

There is not "plenty of evidence" that stand your ground is nothing but cover for murder. Just the opposite.

If someone grabs your wallet and runs away, you cannot shoot them. As soon as they turn away and start to run away, your life is no longer in imminent danger. If you shoot them, you are going to jail.

 

As a very wise instructor once told us at Blackwater (I was there for basic firearms training), at some point it becomes better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 

If someone breaks in to my home I'm not going to ask what your intentions are...I'm just gonna gonna.

 

Probably though I believe that while I don't think someone should be prosecuted for using deadly force to retain possession of their property I do think people should be counseled to show restraint whenever possible.

 

true, shooting someone more than needed to stop them from committing a felony is poor form-restraint is using only enough rounds to stop the criminal

 

Yes, it would land you in prison for a long time.

The shroud know the law in order to avoid prison time.

 

My law teacher in college explained it this way when someone asked if he could shoot someone who was stealing his tv.

The instructor said "no". Because the criminals right to his life exceeds your right to your tv.