TexasCHLforum.com

jmra wrote:Lots of discussion about this lately in this forum so I thought I'd create a poll.
For the sake of simplicity, either there was never a threat to your safety or the threat to your safety has passed. The item taken does not contain your personal info and will not lead someone to your home to do unspeakable things to your family.
This is simply a question of if you are willing to shoot someone solely for the purpose of retrieving property.
Thanks.

In that case, for the sake of simplicity, I'm also assuming whatever action I choose is legal and there's no threat of being arrested or any legal troubles. It's simply a question of if I'm willing to shoot someone to protect property.

Like many other people, the dollar amount is not the deciding factor for me. My dog is a mutt with no papers, but I would shoot to protect my dog without even stopping to think, even though I could get another dog the next day at little or no cost. On the other hand, if someone was stealing fruit or vegetables off the plants because they were hungry, I couldn't shoot someone for that, even if it would be another season before more grows.

I didn't vote. None of the choices seem to fit for me. I don't have anything, including our vehicles, that is worth $20K. I'm with Bald Eagle in that if they are inside or coming inside my house, lead will be coming their way. Outside I think that it might boil down to what my threat assessment is. If I can retreat safely, that is my first choice. If not, it is going to depend on, at that instant, how much of a threat I believe the situation is to me.

I'm reading "The Unthinkable: Who survives when Disaster Strikes" The description of denial is very sobering in light of this conversation. I worry about whether I will really perceive a threat for what it is. According to the author, that isn't usually the case. I'm not sure that I could add an evaluation about property into that equation at that critical moment.

We all have the Natural Right to defend Ourselves, our Liberty and our Property no matter what anyone tells us. These three things predate the Law of Man and are above them. Property is an extension of Man's "finite labor" on this Planet. I will Protect Myself, my Property and my Liberty from any Criminal who wishes to Forcibly take either of them from me. However this Criminal chooses to cease his activity is completely up to him and him alone...

I didn't vote at all. Shooting another Human Being no matter how vile they are is not a simple "one size fits all" decision to take lightly. Each individual places his own value on his Property and that is left to him alone in a just Legal System. I'm sure a mechanic could care less about a fisherman's boat or nets. I bet the fisherman could care less about a mechanics tool box.

Since I don't drink beer I would never shoot a Criminal for a twelve pack. Scotch? How old is it and who made it?

rbwhatever1 wrote: Since I don't drink beer I would never shoot a Criminal for a twelve pack. Scotch? How old is it and who made it?

Single Malt. Balvenie Portwood or Lagavulin. Both 21 year old!!
If you miss, you may want to reload...

krieghoff wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote: Since I don't drink beer I would never shoot a Criminal for a twelve pack. Scotch? How old is it and who made it?

Single Malt. Balvenie Portwood or Lagavulin. Both 21 year old!!
If you miss, you may want to reload...

Never had the first two, but I have a bottle of Lagavulin in my cabinet right now. I always keep some Lagavulin on hand........for medicinal purposes.

I would go after ny property to recover with the intent of using "FORCE" as it gives me the opportunity to do in 9:41

9:42
(in the last paragraph) tells me I may use deadly force if any force less than deadly for would endanger me or another to death or serious bodily Injury as I am trying to recover my property.

It is really diffficult to use deadly force in theft or any other property misappropriation, when the perp is fleeing with the property..
You cant shoot in the back on a fleeing thief. Just my longtime undertanding..

I know a lot will disagree..

I voted that I would not shoot, regardless of the value. I stand by that, however, I'm not going to hold myself to this post if someone were to break in my house tonight. Each situation is unique. If someone tries to break into my home and I perceive him as a potential threat to my family, sorry buddy, I'm not taking any chances. At the same time, if my car is getting burglarized, I'm staying inside my locked home, calling the police, and filing an insurance claim in the morning. I will do everything I can to avoid a violent outcome because I do not value an object over a human life, yet I would be in condition yellow/red. The second that very thin, grey line is crossed and the possibility of a threat to myself or a loved one arises, such as a home invasion, my rules/guidelines go out the window. It's fight or flight, and the right decision is the one that keeps us alive, whether tactical ambush or escape/barricade. I'm not worried about the threat's intentions at that point.

If you loose in court then you go to jail and loose everything you have
home cars family all gone it is not worth the risk. Even if you win in court
the financial loss would be extreme

Rrash wrote:I voted that I would not shoot, regardless of the value. I stand by that, however, I'm not going to hold myself to this post if someone were to break in my house tonight. Each situation is unique. If someone tries to break into my home and I perceive him as a potential threat to my family, sorry buddy, I'm not taking any chances. At the same time, if my car is getting burglarized, I'm staying inside my locked home, calling the police, and filing an insurance claim in the morning. I will do everything I can to avoid a violent outcome because I do not value an object over a human life, yet I would be in condition yellow/red. The second that very thin, grey line is crossed and the possibility of a threat to myself or a loved one arises, such as a home invasion, my rules/guidelines go out the window. It's fight or flight, and the right decision is the one that keeps us alive, whether tactical ambush or escape/barricade. I'm not worried about the threat's intentions at that point.

rotor wrote:What if you had a crystal ball that told you a year from now the perp was going to kill someone in a robbery- just like what happened last week in my city where two guys all with long rap sheets went into a convenience store, held it up, shot one of the clerks in the chest ( who died) and ran off. Good videos of the guys and the shooter is already in jail.
Would I have shot to retrieve property- no. But.... the person who steals from you today probably isn't going to become a priest tomorrow.

You might want to take another look at the penal code's list of defenses for lawful use of deadly force. I don't think you'll find killing someone to prevent possible future crimes in order to make the world a better place is in there - which means if you do so, you're most likely going to lose everything you have, including your freedom.

o b juan wrote:I would go after ny property to recover with the intent of using "FORCE" as it gives me the opportunity to do in 9:41

9:42
(in the last paragraph) tells me I may use deadly force if any force less than deadly for would endanger me or another to death or serious bodily Injury as I am trying to recover my property.

It is really diffficult to use deadly force in theft or any other property misappropriation, when the perp is fleeing with the property..
You cant shoot in the back on a fleeing thief. Just my longtime undertanding..

I know a lot will disagree..

Partly right.

The police can no longer shoot a person who is running from them.

In the past, if you ran from police they could shoot you to prevent your escape. This was known as the "Fleeing Felon Doctrine". The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional a few decades ago.

As a private citizen, though, Texas law makes no distinction on where your bullet placement must be in regards to using deadly force to protect property in the night time.

That said, the only property I would use deadly force to protect is that which is unable to be replaced. The only thing I can think of as far as that goes is my dogs. I love my dogs almost as much as I love my son, and if I catch a person stealing my dogs I will shoot.

If someone is burglarizing my house, I will fear most that they are after my "toys" which could be deadly in a second. So, I will use deadly force to stop the crime.

Too many variables come into play with this kind of question. Way too broad for me to answer.

One thing to add, while one thinks they can or cannot use deadly force, they will not know for sure until they do. Better have a back up plan when one realizes they can't and they have injected themselves into a situation. As we teach trainees, there is always at least one gun present, yours.

No. If there were no threat to my safety I would not shoot. This was definately my vote!!!