TexasCHLforum.com

Texas_Blaze wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Texas_Blaze wrote:The perp's life is more valuable than my stuff. the perp is made in the image of God. My stuff ain't.

Seems to me the value of my life is a judgement for me to make; and the value of a thief's life is a judgement for him to make. If he's stealing under circumstances where the law allows him to be shot, or just under circumstances where it is possible, then he made the decision that the stuff he's stealing is more valuable than his life. In order for him not to get shot for stealing something he simply has to refrain from stealing.

you know i agree with you. this is what is allowable by law, and like any good parent, i tell my kids, dont make stupid decisions, since consequences could be more severe than you know. we have to be wise as serpents.

however, speaking from an eternal perspective, misjudgment in value, doenst mean value is not there. because man's law allows it, doenst make it right in the sight of God.

I agree. And not only do I agree, I believe we are headed towards a time when the difference between man's law and God's law is going to force some of us to make some very hard choices. All I was speaking to is that since it is allowed, the miscreant has placed a value on his life that is less than the property he is stealing.

Texas_Blaze wrote:but think about this...if the perp is caught and brought to trial or in front of a judge, should he face the death penalty as punishment? i venture to say that most people would so no. even if the person has stolen millions of dollars like bernie (i think that is how you spell his name), so why shoot him when your life was not in danger? just because the law allows it?

This is the same in any encounter that doesn't end in a killing. If someone has a knife, you pull a gun, and he puts the knife down and runs away, you're not going to shoot him either. And if he's caught, he's not going to get the death penalty. If you take what you're saying here to its logical conclusion, it would suggest a woman not shoot someone attempting to rape her, since rape doesn't result in the death penalty. Also, consider the application of your analogy in a state that doesn't have the death penalty. Even defending your own life then would be imposing a greater penalty than what the law would impose; and I would maintain, furthermore, that a state without the death penalty has valued a murderer's life above the lives of every citizen.

I'm not talking about shooting someone running off with something he stole. What I was referring to in my previous posts is discovering someone stealing, and challenging them in some way...such as "hey, that's my car and I've called the police," with the intent of causing them to flee (I wouldn't even be displaying a weapon at that point). Shooting would only come into it if instead of fleeing they attacked me and forced me to defend myself.

Texas_Blaze wrote:The perp's life is more valuable than my stuff. the perp is made in the image of God. My stuff ain't.

Seems to me the value of my life is a judgement for me to make; and the value of a thief's life is a judgement for him to make. If he's stealing under circumstances where the law allows him to be shot, or just under circumstances where it is possible, then he made the decision that the stuff he's stealing is more valuable than his life. In order for him not to get shot for stealing something he simply has to refrain from stealing.

OldGrumpy wrote:So bottom line is there is no one answer. The answer lies in you, your personality, background, etc.
2. Others would call police and try to monitor from a safe distance. They would only present arms if faced by a direct challenge from the BG. They view CHL as only to be used to protect life. They also evaluate risk versus reward of the situation.
t:

I don't think this is either/or. You could believe in protecting your property within the law and only present arms if faced by a direct challenge from the BG. For instance, you could stand back, yell out, "hey, that's my car and I just called the police," and only present arms if he subsequently attacks you instead of running off. That's more like what I might do, depending on the particular situation. I wouldn't pull out my gun and approach the guy at the vehicle. If he runs off, fine, I'm not pulling a gun or shooting him; but if he comes after me threatening my life, then I will defend myself.

E.Marquez wrote:

VMI77 wrote: Really, a $150 radar detector would be covered by your insurance? You must have really expensive insurance and no deductible, or the best and most generous insurance company I've ever heard of.

Yes really, no not that expensive. And yes I like my USAA coverage.
Oh and I don’t buy cheap radar detectors so it's more like $400 https://store.valentine1.com/store/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As well as the scenario was more than a $150 item taken with no other covered event.. It was hundreds if not thousands of $$ damage to the car itself caused during the break in, which would be covered as well.

I've got USAA and my coverage isn't that good. Granted, I chose a higher deductible, but back when it was lower and someone broke a window out to get in my car, I got zero dollars from USAA. I don't use a radar detector now though, like I did in my younger days. I just try to stay within the limits.

E.Marquez wrote:

bdickens wrote:

CainA wrote:

bdickens wrote:

CainA wrote:I wouldn't shoot the perp even if justified. Material things aren't worth the legal headache.

Well now, how about if those material things are either a) your livelihood, like the tools with which you make your living and feed your family, or b) rare and extremely difficult to replace like your left-handed Gibson Flying V?

Insurance.

Insurance. Why not just chuck the guy the keys to your house, too?

Because we are not discussing a house burglary.. it was a discussion on a car being broken into, an unoccupied car.. a car with relatively cheap items that can easily be replaced.. But even if you throw in the red herring of a "left-handed Gibson Flying V".. It's still just a non essential item and coved by my insurance.. Replaceable in money at least, with no more than a phone call.

Really, a $150 radar detector would be covered by your insurance? You must have really expensive insurance and no deductible, or the best and most generous insurance company I've ever heard of.

lrpettit wrote:

CainA wrote:

lrpettit wrote:

CainA wrote:

bdickens wrote:

CainA wrote:I wouldn't shoot the perp even if justified. Material things aren't worth the legal headache.

Well now, how about if those material things are either a) your livelihood, like the tools with which you make your living and feed your family, or b) rare and extremely difficult to replace like your left-handed Gibson Flying V?

Insurance.

In my case, insurance wouldn't cover the weeks of effort it would take to recover the loss and the resultant effect on my business if they steal my "tools". I would defend my property.

Okay, good luck to you if you ever encounter this scenario.

Just curious, would you also just rely on insurance if they were burglarizing your house? Would you go out the back door and let them take whatever they wanted if they left before the police arrived? It's a serious question. I might depending on the circumstances. I hope I never know the answer. Some people say they wouldn't use their weapon to defend property under any circumstances. I believe I would in some circumstances and accept the legal hassle that goes with it. I don't know that either position is "right".

I don't think that situation has much to do with property but with tactics. To me, going out the backdoor sounds like not such a good idea. How do you know there isn't an accomplice just outside the backdoor? I would attempt to take the best tactical position, without regard to whatever they're stealing. So, for example, assuming no children in the house, and my wife and I in our bedroom hear someone who has broken in trampling about the rest of the house, I would barricade us in the bedroom, call the police, and if the BG's tried to enter my bedroom, warn them that I am armed and that I will defend myself with deadly force.

bdickens wrote:

CainA wrote:

bdickens wrote:

CainA wrote:I wouldn't shoot the perp even if justified. Material things aren't worth the legal headache.

Well now, how about if those material things are either a) your livelihood, like the tools with which you make your living and feed your family, or b) rare and extremely difficult to replace like your left-handed Gibson Flying V?

Insurance.

Insurance. Why not just chuck the guy the keys to your house, too?

This notion that it is just "property" is the rational that the left uses to delegitimize self-defense and why in the UK defending yourself in your own home is illegal. It's a pernicious notion that starts from the practical and leads to the absurd. In a sense, the property itself is largely irrelevant --it's the principle of being deprived of property by force and the cost of such insecurity to individuals and society that is the real issue. Burglary, robbery, and most theft are acts of force that are only stopped or prevented by an act of counter force. If we follow the notion that a human life is worth more than property to its logical conclusion then we end up with a country like the UK where burglars can rob you while you're home and all you can do is watch and hope they'll be content with just taking your property. There is a salubrious effect on society when miscreants hesitate to commit a crime because they fear they may be shot. When the law embodies the concept that a miscreant's life is superior to the social contract represented by the ownership of private property, it creates an environment where criminals are emboldened, increases crime, and actually elevates the rights of criminals over the rights of citizens. If the law doesn't let you use necessary force to prevent someone from stealing your property, then the law essentially grants a thief a greater right to your property than it grants you. I think the law in Texas strikes a pretty good balance, but that isn't true in some other states.

Obviously there are degrees and practical considerations and each case requires the use of good judgement --so, would I shoot someone over a $150 radar detector? No, but if I walk out to my car and someone is inside it stealing something I'm not going to just run away either. However, the law is what it is, so I will act in accordance with the law, and I will weigh the potential consequences of whatever action I contemplate. I will try to avoid shooting someone if at all possible but without issuing free passes to thieves. In the case of a car burglary it would also depend on where the car is parked and when it's happening. In the Walmart parking lot I would tend to back off and just call the police; in front of my home, at night, on my private property out in the country where anyone inside my car had to come through my gate and venture 100 yards down my driveway, I will consider the threat to my family to be different, and I will respond appropriately to that threat.