We are educating the BGs - defense of property
This is a discussion on We are educating the BGs - defense of property within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I really hope bad guys are reading this. That would mean they understand they are putting their lives at risk coming after my stuff. That ...
December 6th, 2009 04:05 AM
I really hope bad guys are reading this. That would mean they understand they are putting their lives at risk coming after my stuff. That would mean they are making an informed decision when they do it. The choice is theirs.
Will I utilize all of my legal options to defend my property?
Is it in anyones best interest to find out?
I doubt it.
Are they gambling with their lives?
Without a doubt.
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
December 6th, 2009 07:25 AM
December 6th, 2009 07:27 AM
December 6th, 2009 07:58 AM
Don't forget that in SC that "Castle Doctrine" is based on "inequality/equality" of use of force. The second he turns around and walks/runs away from you, the encounter is over. You cannot shoot a fleeing perp.
Originally Posted by Keltyke
Kimber UC II
SA XD-45 SC
1948 16g Remington Model 24
Mossberg .410g shottie
December 6th, 2009 09:27 AM
No flames required here, as I am stating my opinion, as you have done in your post. I find it interesting that you describe yourself as a 'rightwinger', and yet espouse the very base of liberal idealogy, which is your being disturbed by the 'good guy/bad guy mentality', and the 'black and white' syndrome. Excuse me, I believe that at the moment one chooses to take what is not their own property, and do violence to others, other than in a self defense action, then at that moment the person has 'chosen' to be a 'bad guy'. That is the 'choice' the person made, TO BE A BAD GUY!!!!!!!!. 'Right' and 'wrong' are not debatable theories, any more than the fact of gravity is. Living in a state of viewing life through 'gray colored glasses', by it's very nature, can only lead to being unable to see reality, as the reality of life is color, and texture, and positives, and negatives. How, in the name of sanity, could my stealing from someone else, or doing them harm for my own enrichment, or egotistical agenda, be anything other than wrong? Serious question, there. These things, to me, seem, as much wiser ones than myself have stated, 'self evident'! Just sayin'.......
Originally Posted by ImChad
Extremism in the Defense of Liberty is No Vice--Moderation in the Pursuit of Justice is No Virtue. - Senator Barry Goldwater
December 6th, 2009 09:46 AM
Exactly how I feel
Originally Posted by gottabkiddin
Thumbs up to you also
Originally Posted by carry ok
Ron Paul 2012
There are three kinds of Yankees: Yankees, Damn Yankees, and Floridians
December 6th, 2009 10:18 AM
Originally Posted by DBRideout
This happens in Mi. ALL the time, up north in cottage country, in the bigger cities,; everywhere.
The thugs even break into homes occupied by the elderly and infirmed, beat them, and take belongings and valuables, multiple times.
I find the good guy bad guy mentality to be disturbing to be honest. Not insulting anyone, it just bothers me that poeple can see it in black and white so easily.
Seriously, You have a hard time distinquishing betrween right and wrong, offensive, obtrusive behavior, and upon see an illegal act upon another, its GREY to you?
Your moral compass may be broken , I'm just sayin
"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it."
Last edited by oneshot; December 6th, 2009 at 10:22 AM.
Reason: add info
I would rather die with good men than hide with cowards
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans
Don't ever think that the reason I'm peaceful is because I don't know how to be violent
M&Pc .357SIG, 2340Sigpro .357SIG
December 6th, 2009 10:47 AM
I think the issue is the magnitude of the response. I don't think we have a lot of Christians on this board but here's what Jesus has to say on the topic: Mathew
Originally Posted by oneshot
December 6th, 2009 10:57 AM
Idaho makes this nice and easy for us:
Justifiable homicide by any person. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in either of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mortal combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
I pretty much agree that someone in my home is going to elicit an automatic response, because no one should be in my home uninvited.
For protection of personal property, I would give the perp a moments grace to run, but if there was any hostility whatsoever towards me or my family, it would be another automatic response.
December 6th, 2009 11:45 AM
Thanks for the kind words regarding my Grandpa; as an FYI, he was a graduate of the law school at Tulane university, class of '29; he was a trial lawyer for a couple of years before the war started; he joined the Marines and earned a commission as a Marine Lieutenant and did various assignments before deploying to the pacific war where he participated in the battles of Bougainville and Okinawa, where he was wounded and then assigned to the occupation forces in Japan after the war. He had received 2 battlefield promotions and ended the war as a Captain, and continued to serve, retiring at the rank of Colonel. He was awarded a couple of purple hearts and a Bronze star for his efforts. Throughout his life, one thing that stood out for me was his very clearly defined sense of right and wrong. I guess his experiences as a lawyer also helped in this because it was impossible to argue with him, especially where history was concerned.
Sounds like a great guy. Kinda reminds me of my granddad, who definitely shaped my life and was also a WWII vet.
He passed away valentine's day in 1993, after suffering from several illnesses. I still wish he was around, he would love this forum....
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry
December 6th, 2009 11:50 AM
WARNING - another long winded post by yours truly
2 or more BG in on your property, one as lookout, the other loading up. Their intent (most likely) is to take what they came for and not get caught. The one watching out is going to sound the alarm and they will both take off running. If they intended to kill you or do you harm, then they will be coming into your home, or both laying in wait for you in the transition from off your property to inside.
Originally Posted by tiwee
This is your property, I would hope that you know the lay of the land (even if it a standard city lot). You already know where the hidey holes are, and where the shadows fall. I would also presume that you would not just go strolling out to confront them. If you do surprise them, then they have a choice, and you have a choice as to the outcome.
They (BGs) started the action, you set the terms by how you are going to react.
Originally Posted by tiwee
Now, I have never dealt with insurance on major theft. My truck did get broken into a few years back, got my stereo, a little cash, 6 cell Mag-light, and various other items. I had a $100 deductible and that only covered the stereo. All the other items in the truck had to fall under my homeowners insurance at the $1k deductible, so I was SOL on that stuff. It also took me almost a month before I realized the extent of every thing they took.
Originally Posted by gottabkiddin
My truck was trashed. They went through everything (glove box, center console, ashtray, under the back seat…) Take the entire contents of you everyday transportation, throw it all in a trashcan, stir it up so all the individual pieces of paper, napkins and so on get separated and stirred, then just dump it back into your car, then stir it up some more. That is what I walked into at 5:30am. I was 3 hours late to work that day waiting for the police to show and file the report.
It took a month to get the stereo replaced. I had to provide proof that it was after market, then they (ins) had to find a “like” replacement, then arrange for an approved purchase and install.
Anybody here played with an insurance company to replace a vehicle, especially one that is 5 or more years old?
My experience getting a vehicle replaced via insurance… Motorcycle accident. I was the victim of a hit and run, totaled the bike. Colorado Law - Repair or replace. Pretty simple you’d think, even with a lawyer involved.
First offer was $4k for the bike based on their book value. Market value for the bike and accessories was $13k. Second offer 2 weeks later was $6k. I suggested that they needed to find another Gray ’89 Honda Goldwing Interstate w/46k miles and the aftermarket accessories or get mine repaired to pre accident condition (which I had photos to prove). Another 2 weeks went by and now the offer was $11K (they will not budge on accessories). OK, I’m tired of waiting, cut me the check. 2 weeks later I got the $$. Total of 6 weeks of fighting my own insurance company on this. I lost a total of $4k between original purchase cost and aftermarket goodies. Now the lawyer get's his cut.
Now take a look at your vehicle. Look up the market value of it (not book value) Read the papers and check the dealerships for how much your vehicle is worth.
My truck. I paid in total $32k in 2002. I have added probably $10k in accessories and performance upgrades). Current market value of my truck is approx $17k (There is no value on aftermarket accessories). So even if I get lucky and fight my insurance for another month to get market value (and I am not entirely sure that there is not a “waiting period” for the vehicle to possibly be recovered), I am still out $25k from my original outlay if I had opted to let the BG steal my keys/truck rather than trying to stop them/refusing to give up my keys.
I will have gone a month or more without my truck and contents (fair chunk of tools in the tool box, again under homeowners). Now I need to decide on finding a used truck in the same condition as mine (mileage, body), and start saving up for the after market items if I want them back + the items inside (tools, tool box, stereo, etc…). NEW!! $56k easy just for the truck, and I only have $17k. Goody, add another $300 or more in monthly payments to my bills for the next 5-7 years never mind the jump in my insurance rates.
Now, if it is my company truck with my tools in it. HOLY !!!! Not only can I not work, ergo no income, I have to replace $20k in tools (after I prove what I had via receipts, pictures, inventory – yes I do have it well documented and on a separate ins policy) plus my time in finding them all. Not exactly a one stop shopping place for everything I have picked up over the last 6 years.
Insurance companies DO NOT 100% free and clear return you to pre incident condition at no additional cost to you. If yours does (please check with them, get it in writing in no uncertain terms or fine print) let me know so I can change insurance companies. This illusion that the insurance we all pay for will give us a new replacement is fantasy. Kind of like a gun free zone. Makes us feel good until reality sets in.
I’ve played their game on a small scale, not fun. To willingly subject myself to that again by allowing them (BGs) to take it because I do not want to risk trying to stop them physically, with a distinct possibility that it may escalate to extreme violence in some form, under the illusion that my friendly insurance agent will hold my hand and take care of everything for me…Makes me part of the grass eating herd on a whole new level.
I agree. No, I do not have documentation to back up my claim that the BGs are reading this. It is a safe presumption. Do the BGs know where we live as we post these comments, a couple real smart ones may be able to figure that out, but as Janq said, they are probably going for the electronic theft on a grand scale.
Originally Posted by DBRideout
However, reading various threads, one can get the overall feel of the membership. I am not an educated man, but I can safely say that 50% or more of the average CC citizen based on the replies to threads, will give up their items if confronted, or stay in the safety of their home while their property is being taken from them, so long as their life is not in immediate danger.
This forum is dedicated to the Concealed Carrying of a firearm to stop crimes against life. That is the #1 reason we carry. That is the #1 reason I carry.
Crimes against life are not only limited to those BGs that set out to kill someone. If the only reason we carry is in the event we run across a sociopath is a waste of time and money.
BGs who threaten to injure or kill to take something from someone, they are out there in bulk. Who knows what the number is that are willing to follow through with that threat. That is why we carry.
So why is it that a large percentage of us are only willing to stop a criminal act upon us only when it threatens our physical well being, or that of family/friends. The rest of it, leave it to 911.
Take my vehicle, take my wallet/purse/money, take anything you want from my garage or shed. You have enough time for the police to respond after I call them to get clear. Just do not threaten my physical well being.
You do not have to shoot someone to stop the theft. I pity those members that live in states that do not allow the property owner the option to attempt to stop a BG while in the commission of a crime on their property.
If I see someone trying to take what is mine, I will do what I can to surprise them, and detain them until the police to arrive. If kneeling on their neck for 15 minuets is what it takes, then I’m all for it.
If the situation is a little more in the BGs favor (bigger than me, more than one, has acquired anything that can be used as a weapon) I am not going to worry about the possibility of prosecution that I brought a firearm into the situation. I may be wrong on this (part of what I intend to talk to the DA about), but I think it is paranoia that I am going to get crucified for holding 1 big dude or 2 BGs at gunpoint while stopping them from the commission of theft of my property until the police arrive. If that is the case, then America has officially finished circling the drain.
I may end up face in the dirt and cuffed for a while, but at least the police also have the BGs in the same position. Now the professionals can sort it out. If I screwed up and get charged, for protecting what is mine, the BGs are not going to get a free pass either.
You will note that my intent here is to stop them with what ever means necessary. In the last part where I may use my firearm, I did not shoot them, I hope to leave them with the distinct impression to either comply with my instructions or drop everything and run.
Those are the two choices they have. They can ignore me and continue (it would be just as foolish of them to turn their back on me as it would be for me to turn my back on them), and I can them or use some other physical means of necessary force to stop them without shooting them even though I have my firearm.
If they try to rob me in public without a weapon, I did not bring the firearm into the situation. They put themselves there. If they attack me bare handed, that was their error. They did not provide me with a resume outlining their physical skills, so I have to presume that if they think that they can take me, they probably have more H2H skills than I do, JAM is met. It does not mean I will shoot them if evade and hold at gunpoint is sufficient. The ball is back in the BG court. Comply or run. Attack again…definitely in fear of my life. I don not play poker, so I do not know how to bluff. I have never been in this type of situation before either, so I don't know how I will react at that crucial moment. I pray to the gods I never find out.
These are the actions I am entitled to under CO law and these are the possible actions I believe are necessary to stop them. If they attack me, they changed the situation, not me. They put my life in danger by trying to stop me from stopping them in their criminal act.
I did not escalate the situation by confronting them while they are breaking the law. A smart criminal will comply or run and if caught by the police, receive a lesser charge (hand slap) because they did not change the misdemeanor theft or trespassing into a felony.
My intent is to not be a victim. That does not mean that because I have a CCW permit and a gun owner that I am absolutely, without fail, responding to any criminal act against me and mine with my weapon first and only. Everyone has options available to them. So why don't we use them?
Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
See also Sheep
December 6th, 2009 12:45 PM
NO! The fool stealing the grill decided that HIS life was worth your BBQ grill. You didn't make that decision and should never think that you did. That's backwards thinking.
Originally Posted by Ramen
I don't have much trouble with this. I don't really believe much in the sanctity of life. I believe that how you choose to live your life is what is important. If you've chosen to waste your life stealing my grill, and probably lots of other people's stuff as well, then I'm not going to feel much remorse weeding the garden of you.
December 6th, 2009 01:28 PM
I believe life is important and my grill isn't worth a life. It's worth defending with force, but not lethal force till it becomes necessary. I have no problems walking out of my house after calling the police and trying to stop them. If they choose to use force I'll meet it with like force, I won't kill him until he creates a risk to life. If I'm a coward for my views whoopie, other peoples opinion of me don't matter. Each person has to decide for themselves how to conduct their lives and what choices they make. I choose life for life and death for death.
December 6th, 2009 01:38 PM
And don't forget, your property is used and probably insured.
Originally Posted by Ramen
Hey, take my rusty BBQ and my old low def, non digital 50 pound TV, they're insured.
A lawyer will cost me $$$ too.
But if the burglar or robber wants my life or the life of my family, then I must prevail.
I am not a lawyer, but it would seem that since a citizen is allowed to make an arrest and force, but only such force as needed, may be used to make an arrest and lethal force can only be used [in most states and circumstances] in defense of life: If you start to make a citizen's arrest and the BG resists it has changed from defense of property to defending your life.
But, back to the money, why not take a defensive position to defend your family/self, call 911 and let the armed, armored and equipped officers with back-up do the dangerous work. [when it is safe to do so]
The People Think the Constitution Protects Their Rights;
Government See IT as an Obstacle to be Over-come.
December 6th, 2009 01:46 PM
This has been a great thread. Thanks for the thoughts on this topic.
For me, planning includes all known choices and all possible outcomes. Once the outcomes are fleshed out, I make a plan. Same as most people.
I never plan a fair fight. If I control the location of the confrontation, the other group or person won't have a chance(legally or tactically). In my tactical space, there is less risk I will be wounded, killed, or successfully prosecuted. More chance my opponents will be killed, wounded, or prosecuted.
If I don't control the circumstances of the confrontation, then it is a different story. I am forced to respond on their terms. It is possible they are not planning a fair fight. That always figures in my decision making.
The possibility that they might run from confrontation is included in my thought process. As are other outcomes. Hopefully, none of us will ever have to execute any of our self defense plans.
By mr.stuart in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Last Post: April 18th, 2009, 04:36 PM
By Headshrinker in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: March 11th, 2009, 04:02 PM
By C9H13NO3 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Last Post: January 6th, 2009, 10:07 PM
By Hydrashok Glock in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: December 1st, 2008, 06:00 PM
By NKMG19 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Last Post: April 15th, 2008, 11:52 AM
Search tags for this page
sc defense force bg david h krumwiede coin
Click on a term to search for related topics.