Tree thieves shot

This is a discussion on Tree thieves shot within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Valid point in these days Duk, but I still would not shoot. We can cancel and change credit card numbers pretty easily. Our door locks ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 59

Thread: Tree thieves shot

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Valid point in these days Duk, but I still would not shoot.

    We can cancel and change credit card numbers pretty easily.
    Our door locks can be rekeyed same day or next, and it's not all that costly to do.

    I would not shoot a man over a stolen purse or thing, _IF_ I or we or mine were not placed in danger by means of real threat. A purse snatcher action would be such a crime though knowing myself and that I'm not slow on my feet, I'd likely run guy down at a short distance and take the purse back. But I would not shoot a person over taking of property. And yes I work hard for my stuff too just like anyone else.

    BTW my view is not affected by the fact that the state I currently live in does not allow use of deadly force toward defense or recovery of property anyway.
    Even if I lived in say Texas I would feel the same on this.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Member Array flaboatbum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    105
    Have to agree 100% with all of Jang's comments. A $100 tree in exchange for a human life does not compute morally or legally. The Texans here who feel it's OK to pop someone for a sack of oranges or a bycylce....well, worry me.

  4. #33
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,486
    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    And this would be where I disagree. Would I shoot someone over trees or "petty property"...? Given our current political and more importantly legal climate, No. Do I feel it's immoral in any way...? No. The only limits I have on active theft and/or robbery of my person or physically on my property is legality.

    As to the killing someone for $100 comment, your statement couldn't be more twisted. Defending from the unlawful taking of what is rightfully yours against your will is not killing for $100. As to stealing for survival...who's to say that that $100 wasn't an elderly person's only source of food for the next 3 months? Still want to talk survival?
    The $100 dollar tree was not for surivial, if you are trying to steal a 1 cent match that I need for my family I will kill you. If I don't need it I'll give it to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    In this particular case though I don't see even how I would have shot without knowing all the facts. Supposedly he shot them while they were not on his own land and without any property in possession.
    That's right he shot (accordding to the story actual facts might be different) them becuase he thought they were stealing something valued at $100 to him, that he did not need to survive.

    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    Clearly something has gone horribly wrong and twisted with our country over the last 150 years or so, which is why we're in the pickle we're in now. Why we live in fear and let criminals rule because all life has value? How often would we see articles like this if the criminals knew folks were allowed to protect was was legally and morally theirs to any end?
    I believe that all life has value and not just human life. Does this mean that I don't eat meat, nope I think that plants have a value too. This is a religous belief of mine That God created all things and everything that he gave the breath of life to has value and should be treated with respect. I treat animals with respect and be sure that they are treated humanely before I kill and eat them. I geniuely give thanks for the food that I consume plant or animal.

    Does this mean that I am against the Death Pleanty, No but I do believe we should treat those that we execute with respect even if they have done nothing other than being born to deserve our respect.

    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    At any rate, in principal...I can't disagree with the rest of you any more than I already have. So I'll just agree to disagree for the rest of the night.
    Now if eveyone couldn't just agree to disagree and we would have peace.
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

  5. #34
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by flaboatbum View Post
    Have to agree 100% with all of Jang's comments. A $100 tree in exchange for a human life does not compute morally or legally. The Texans here who feel it's OK to pop someone for a sack of oranges or a bycylce....well, worry me.
    The amount of money is not the point. I exchange a significant portion of my life to earning a paycheck. With that money, I enter into a voluntary exchange for products produced by others. By saying that property is not worth somebody's life, I only answer, who's life is it not worth?

    The thief is the worst of all people. He not only steals property, but he steals a part of my life equal to the amount of time it took me to earn that which he thinks he can just take. He also steals a sense of security from his victim.

    One of my favorite quotes from the greatest speech of all time:
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him-by force.

    It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own.

    He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction. A holdup man seeks to gain wealth by killing me; I do not grow richer by killing a holdup man. I seek no values by means of evil, nor do I surrender my values to evil."
    Make no mistake about it, a theft is a violent crime and its a theft of not merely property. He threatens the use of force to take that which is not his. I can only assume that he has in his means, or believes he is capable of carrying out that threat.

    I do have a right to the fruits of my labor, and I have the right to protect such from those that would attempt to take it by force. While it may be 'just property' to you, it is MY property and the hours of my life that I devoted to its acquisition, I will never get back.

    That is not something I am willing to give up or surrender.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    Everybody has made valid points and people have stated what they feel.Just because a law allows something does not mean that it is morally ok to use that law in all situations,most laws have loop holes that weren't foreseen when they were written.The main point I see here is the fact that if you ever have to use your gun to stop a theft threat or whatever and take a human life will you be able to live with the after effects of that decision.I remember a story a few years ago in Tx,a guy was behind on truck payments and repo man shows up and hooks up the truck in the driveway as he's getting back in his tow truck the owner steps out of his house with a rifle and shoots the TT driver thru the back window,the tow truck driver took off and crashed a couple blocks away and died,the guy was not charged with any crime but his wife divorced him shortly afterward and most people were appalled at the guys actions.Legal ? YES, Moral ?HELL NO
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  7. #36
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,271
    Quote Originally Posted by dukalmighty View Post
    Everybody has made valid points and people have stated what they feel.Just because a law allows something does not mean that it is morally ok to use that law in all situations,most laws have loop holes that weren't foreseen when they were written.The main point I see here is the fact that if you ever have to use your gun to stop a theft threat or whatever and take a human life will you be able to live with the after effects of that decision.I remember a story a few years ago in Tx,a guy was behind on truck payments and repo man shows up and hooks up the truck in the driveway as he's getting back in his tow truck the owner steps out of his house with a rifle and shoots the TT driver thru the back window,the tow truck driver took off and crashed a couple blocks away and died,the guy was not charged with any crime but his wife divorced him shortly afterward and most people were appalled at the guys actions.Legal ? YES, Moral ?HELL NO
    That's a completely different case. The homeowner failed to verify that the tow truck was repossessing that which he did not own in the first place. Even I'll conceded that the homeowner should fry.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  8. #37
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,271
    Quote Originally Posted by pgrass101 View Post
    Does this mean that I am against the Death Pleanty, No but I do believe we should treat those that we execute with respect even if they have done nothing other than being born to deserve our respect.



    Now if eveyone couldn't just agree to disagree and we would have peace.
    I won't argue the morality/death issue anymore, but I have to say something on the respect statement. Respect should be EARNED and not blankly given out just because one is born. We're all born. We all die. That isn't a blank check for respect. Anyone that wants my respect can EARN IT and they can start by leaving me and mine to our own peace and not violating my rights in the first place.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  9. #38
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,967
    Quote Originally Posted by flaboatbum View Post
    Have to agree 100% with all of Jang's comments. A $100 tree in exchange for a human life does not compute morally or legally. The Texans here who feel it's OK to pop someone for a sack of oranges or a bycylce....well, worry me.
    Awww shucks. No need to worry about us. Unless you plan on coming to Texas and trying to steal our stuff!
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  10. #39
    Senior Member Array KenInColo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    991
    Were the palm trees public property? Do we all pay taxes? Ergo,they were stealing from the the guy.

    Sounds like the guy's in trouble but his heart was in the right place.
    An armed populace are called citizens.
    An unarmed populace are called subjects.

  11. #40
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    10,406
    A well-known gun writer got into the gun and shooting business because his family's business had been victimized by robbers so many times that insurance was unaffordable. More thefts meant losses to the point that there would be no food on the table. The default "insurance policy" thus became all family members armed while in the store.

    I'm not connecting this to the case under discussion in this thread, but I *am* offering this as a cogent argument as to why "it's only property which can be replaced" is not an applicable defense of using lethal force in ALL cases.

  12. #41
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Awww shucks. No need to worry about us. Unless you plan on coming to Texas and trying to steal our stuff!
    Great post. I'll have to look you up and have coffee next time in your neck of the woods.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  13. #42
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,767
    Quote Originally Posted by gasmitty View Post
    ... I *am* offering this as a cogent argument as to why "it's only property which can be replaced" is not an applicable defense of using lethal force in ALL cases.
    Can't imagine anyone would believe "insurance" always applies. Equally so, I have a hard time believing the principle that "insurance" never applies. It might well be the best option or no option, circumstances depending. Only the individual can decide.

    Quote Originally Posted by pgrass101 View Post
    Killing someone for $100 is killing someone for $100. If they were threating someone our stealing something that they needed to surivive then I can see it.
    Agreed, in principle.

    Shooting to stop theft of an orange from the produce bin is one thing.

    Shooting to stop someone feared to be the same person who has been stealing previously, though no proof exists, and nothing shows stealing has occurred with this person, is one thing.

    Shooting to stop theft of a horse when lost in the desert is something completely different.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  14. #43
    Member Array SleazyRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Middletown, New York
    Posts
    41
    Insurance protects property, guns protect people.

  15. #44
    Senior Member Array Frogbones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    967
    I'm financially challenged, and everything I spend my grip on is MINE and MINE only!! If one chooses to victimize me and breaks my security of what I consider mine or hold dear...I will choose to defend myself from theft.....I hold no respect for theft. Theft is theft....whether its property, a person’s innocence, life, or security it's all theft and should be dealt with in up most efficiency.

    The theive has absolutely no respect for me or my well bieng, my security, and my innocence, therefore I hold no respect for the theive's well being, and security.

    The act of theft against me is a threat to all I hold dear...I will stop that threat in whatever means I see fit.

    Just like another said "it my be just property to you"..but me MY property is who I am, and is very important to me. When you steal my property you're stealing a part of me. No go buddy.

    Now I wouldn't setup ambush ( like the shooter did) or entrap anyone into theiving from me..I'd also pretty much not kill...but no guarantees.

  16. #45
    Member Array SleazyRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Middletown, New York
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Frogbones View Post
    I'm financially challenged, and everything I spend my grip on is MINE and MINE only!! If one chooses to victimize me and breaks my security of what I consider mine or hold dear...I will choose to defend myself from theft.....I hold no respect for theft. Theft is theft....whether its property, a person’s innocence, life, or security it's all theft and should be dealt with in up most efficiency.

    The theive has absolutely no respect for me or my well bieng, my security, and my innocence, therefore I hold no respect for the theive's well being, and security.

    The act of theft against me is a threat to all I hold dear...I will stop that threat in whatever means I see fit.

    Just like another said "it my be just property to you"..but me MY property is who I am, and is very important to me. When you steal my property you're stealing a part of me. No go buddy.

    Now I wouldn't setup ambush ( like the shooter did) or entrap anyone into theiving from me..I'd also pretty much not kill...but no guarantees.
    Though I agree with you in principle, you stand a good chance of losing all that you hold dear when you are sued by the "victim" or the victim's estate. This has happened time and time again in the courts. It's not about justice, it's about who's going to pay. I urge you to reconsider your position on the use of deadly force to protect property; it just ain't worth it.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Thieves could go free while victim faces jail time (He shot one of them)
    By WhoWeBePart1 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 9th, 2010, 01:58 AM
  2. Mossy under the tree!
    By Flippinstk in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 26th, 2008, 05:22 PM
  3. Bad: Father Shot While Confronting Thieves
    By rhyfl in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2008, 03:41 AM
  4. Family Tree
    By WarHorse1961 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: January 25th, 2008, 04:37 AM
  5. Tree Hugger
    By MJZZZ in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 25th, 2007, 11:37 PM

Search tags for this page

thieves shot by victims

Click on a term to search for related topics.