Auburn, WA - Man who tried to steal running car shot by homeowner

[bradsteen]

Well, I don't mind going to court, as long as that doesn't include me going to jail. I don't think they have my style of decor there.

They just didn't get the memo that vertical bars clash with horizontal blinds.

 

[gmerkt]

We've been telling them for years that if you let the illegals in, more will come, if you let the bums in, more will come, if you let the thieves steal stuff, they'll steal more stuff. It's one of the simplest, most basic traits of humanity, but some folks just won't listen.

One of the moms in my childhood neighborhood had a phrase for it: "Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile."

 

[Mr J]

Please forgive me the dumb question because I'm a bit new to this group.

Is the general consensus around here something to the effect that it should be ok to use deadly physical force solely for the protection of property?

If that's truly the case then I think I need to just peace out and move along.

Morally, ethically, and legally, there's no justification for the use of deadly force unless there's a reasonable risk of serious injury or death from an assailant.

I figured this would be a place where that was generally we'll understood and agreed upon.

Frankly, I ain't ever going to be friends or business or partners with anyone who doesn't share this particular creed.

Life is precious. Stuff is replaceable. No amount of moral relativistic rhetoric will change that particular fact.

 

[Knobgoblin]

@Mr J , there is no general consensus around here about ANYTHING. Exactly the way things should be.

 

[Member 53328]

We've been telling them for years that if you let the illegals in, more will come, if you let the bums in, more will come, if you let the thieves steal stuff, they'll steal more stuff. It's one of the simplest, most basic traits of humanity, but some folks just won't listen. And why? Best I can tell it's so that they can feel like they're good people.

Good ol' Broken Window Theory.

 

[Ruger Rich]

Generally, people here are a bit more red than blue, and that's the political part of it.

Mostly, however, folks are 2A and gun/shooting directed. As in most groups there

is a wide diversity of personalities. If you are seeking folks in number that are the

same as you, you'll likely not find them here. We're all different and here we mostly respect that.

Above answer is to Mr J

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Please forgive me the dumb question because I'm a bit new to this group.

Is the general consensus around here something to the effect that it should be ok to use deadly physical force solely for the protection of property?

If that's truly the case then I think I need to just peace out and move along.

Morally, ethically, and legally, there's no justification for the use of deadly force unless there's a reasonable risk of serious injury or death from an assailant.

I figured this would be a place where that was generally we'll understood and agreed upon.

Frankly, I ain't ever going to be friends or business or partners with anyone who doesn't share this particular creed.

Life is precious. Stuff is replaceable. No amount of moral relativistic rhetoric will change that particular fact.

Something to consider here....

Morals and ethics...can be seen as personal...
And as such...subject to someone's personal views , experiences , etc...
So....
What is your moral and ethical view...may be different for someone else.

Speaking only for myself here...

While I have views on what is justifiable in regards to shooting someone...
They are mine...based on my life experiences...and they work well , for me.
For someone else...maybe not so much.

In any event...
It ain't good for me to push my views...morals , ethics , what have you , on someone else.
Or to expect others to think the same as I do.
Andy

 

[Flopsweat]

Please forgive me the dumb question because I'm a bit new to this group.

Is the general consensus around here something to the effect that it should be ok to use deadly physical force solely for the protection of property?

If that's truly the case then I think I need to just peace out and move along.

Morally, ethically, and legally, there's no justification for the use of deadly force unless there's a reasonable risk of serious injury or death from an assailant.

I figured this would be a place where that was generally we'll understood and agreed upon.

Frankly, I ain't ever going to be friends or business or partners with anyone who doesn't share this particular creed.

Life is precious. Stuff is replaceable. No amount of moral relativistic rhetoric will change that particular fact.

@Mr J , there is no general consensus around here about ANYTHING. Exactly the way things should be.

We've got a few very judgmental people though, so if you can get over this first issue, you may find yourself a comfortable place here.

 

[Member 53328]

Please forgive me the dumb question because I'm a bit new to this group.

Is the general consensus around here something to the effect that it should be ok to use deadly physical force solely for the protection of property?

If that's truly the case then I think I need to just peace out and move along.

Morally, ethically, and legally, there's no justification for the use of deadly force unless there's a reasonable risk of serious injury or death from an assailant.

I figured this would be a place where that was generally we'll understood and agreed upon.

Frankly, I ain't ever going to be friends or business or partners with anyone who doesn't share this particular creed.

Life is precious. Stuff is replaceable. No amount of moral relativistic rhetoric will change that particular fact.

Just have thick skin and you'll be alright. We all love guns.

With that being said whether it be guns, legalities, regulations, compliance, politics, ethics, morals, etc. we are all on a spectrum. We aren't going to agree on everything.

There is a lot of talk (it's the internet). Just sift through the bull sh!t, use the ignore feature if you feel like it's needed. Just don't take things personally and know we won't all see eye to eye on everything and it will be all good.

If you want a safe space or an echo chamber you will in fact be challenged here. Which is a good thing in my opinion. Differing opinions force us to look at why we believe what we believe. It's also a very good way to learn or solidify your beliefs.

A lot of different experiences and knowledge here.

 

[Alexx1401]

Please forgive me the dumb question because I'm a bit new to this group.

Is the general consensus around here something to the effect that it should be ok to use deadly physical force solely for the protection of property?

If that's truly the case then I think I need to just peace out and move along.

Morally, ethically, and legally, there's no justification for the use of deadly force unless there's a reasonable risk of serious injury or death from an assailant.

I figured this would be a place where that was generally we'll understood and agreed upon.

Frankly, I ain't ever going to be friends or business or partners with anyone who doesn't share this particular creed.

Life is precious. Stuff is replaceable. No amount of moral relativistic rhetoric will change that particular fact.

If you are looking for complete consensus you are never going to find it in large groups. Many feel scum should be free to take anything they want and be allowed to do so. Some do not. I fall in the do not group. If you are happy to let scum take what you worked for you are in good company, many feel the same way.

 

[The Heretic]

Life is precious. Stuff is replaceable. No amount of moral relativistic rhetoric will change that particular fact.

It isn't that simple:

Auburn, WA - Man who tried to steal running car shot by homeowner

Auburn police said that shortly before 6:30 a.m., the suspect got into a Toyota Camry that was left running and tried to steal it from the driveway. The homeowner, who was inside, saw what was happening on his security cameras and then ran outside, confronted the suspect and then shot the man...

www.northwestfirearms.com

Nothing is.

And it is getting more complicated, as I pointed out in some other posts. As some have an agenda (at least it seems) to allow more and more crimes of all kinds to take place with less and less consequences, if any.

As I stated, for no small number of people, some things cannot be replaced because increasingly they are not able to replace them, or restoration is difficult. Additionally, some things are needed to survive - even if they are just material. As such, it can become an issue of survival and increasingly will.

Also, this becomes a "slippery slope" where we are increasingly expected to just stand by and let criminals run rampant taking those things we earned, many of them needed/acquired, to survive.

I am not saying shoot to kill someone running away with a garden gnome, but I depend on my vehicles to survive (to a point) and with society degrading (and other issues), I will increasingly depend on them for survival. I cannot afford full comprehensive insurance on them, as at a certain point the insurance costs more over time than the replacement value of the vehicle. A lot of people have the legal minimum insurance for this reason, and it does not cover theft or vandalism.

So it isn't so black and white as you make it out to be.

 

[Flopsweat]

It isn't that simple:

Auburn, WA - Man who tried to steal running car shot by homeowner

Auburn police said that shortly before 6:30 a.m., the suspect got into a Toyota Camry that was left running and tried to steal it from the driveway. The homeowner, who was inside, saw what was happening on his security cameras and then ran outside, confronted the suspect and then shot the man...

www.northwestfirearms.com

Nothing is.

And it is getting more complicated, as I pointed out in some other posts. As some have an agenda (at least it seems) to allow more and more crimes of all kinds to take place with less and less consequences, if any.

As I stated, for no small number of people, some things cannot be replaced because increasingly they are not able to replace them, or restoration is difficult. Additionally, some things are needed to survive - even if they are just material. As such, it can become an issue of survival and increasingly will.

Also, this becomes a "slippery slope" where we are increasingly expected to just stand by and let criminals run rampant taking those things we earned, many of them needed/acquired, to survive.

I am not saying shoot to kill someone running away with a garden gnome, but I depend on my vehicles to survive (to a point) and with society degrading (and other issues), I will increasingly depend on them for survival. I cannot afford full comprehensive insurance on them, as at a certain point the insurance costs more over time than the replacement value of the vehicle. A lot of people have the legal minimum insurance for this reason, and it does not cover theft or vandalism.

So it isn't so black and white as you make it out to be.

Well, now, garden gnomes happen to be quite precious to some of us here.

 

[ma96782]

Awww......Come On Man.
The guy saw the car running and only went inside it to get warm.




Is that you Brandon?

Aloha, Mark

 

[Koda]

Please forgive me the dumb question because I'm a bit new to this group.

Is the general consensus around here something to the effect that it should be ok to use deadly physical force solely for the protection of property?

If that's truly the case then I think I need to just peace out and move along.

Morally, ethically, and legally, there's no justification for the use of deadly force unless there's a reasonable risk of serious injury or death from an assailant.

I figured this would be a place where that was generally we'll understood and agreed upon.

Frankly, I ain't ever going to be friends or business or partners with anyone who doesn't share this particular creed.

Life is precious. Stuff is replaceable. No amount of moral relativistic rhetoric will change that particular fact.

I probably don't fit the mold here, I fully support gun rights and self defense rights but do not think deadly force is ok in a response for protection of property. This is an old hot topic within the gun rights community and it doesn't help promote gun or self defense rights.
But the problem is, the "Overton Window" for how the state handles crime is severely out of balance now and thats the root issue of everyones frustration, that will cause people to take matters into their own hands right or wrong. And thats not the fault of gun rights supporters who are frustrated with being victims of theft or other non felony crimes.

 

[bradsteen]

+1 to @1775usmc 's comments. I disagree with many of the fine folks on this forum on many things, and yet on several occasions I have found that after considering their arguments my position was indeed wrong. Disagreement is healthy. Conflicting points of view are healthy. It's how we grow intellectually.

Personally I'm very much in the "use deadly force only when facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm" camp because legally that's the bar we have to meet to claim self defense. To roughly paraphrase attorney Andrew Branca, 5 conditions must be met in order for a self defense claim to be valid:

• Innocence (you did not instigate the conflict)
• Imminence (you are facing a threat of death or serious bodily harm at that moment)
• Proportionality (your actions and force used are proportional to the threat you face)
• Avoidance (you are unable to retreat or avoid the threat - this is only necessary in states and under circumstances where a duty to retreat exists)
• Reasonableness (your actions are subjectively reasonable based on your observations and experience at the time, and objectively another reasonable person facing a similar situation would likely react in similar fashion)

Where it gets murky is that you have a right to protect your personal property, so you can absolutely intervene and try to stop the guy from stealing your stuff. However, doing so opens you up to potential danger from the perpetrator. That's what makes defense of property cases a challenge - at what point does defense of property turn into defense of self, and under what conditions can a gun be introduced when you don't know if the bad guy is armed?

If you intervene and they pull a gun, you're now facing a deadly force threat but probably won't have time to draw your gun before getting shot. On the flip side, bring out the gun too soon and now you may legally be considered the aggressor. Or, maybe they will be considered the aggressor because they were actively committing a crime when everything went down. There's a whole lot of grey there, and politically motivated prosecutors have been known to go over the top in pursuing a conviction in defensive gun use cases just to make a statement.

The police are there to respond when laws have been broken, but they aren't superman. They can't be everywhere at once, and most likely won't be able to do anything about the issue until weeks or months later, if ever. Many crimes are outright ignored because police don't have the staffing necessary to investigate every crime. In other cases criminals are simply released and not prosecuted due to lack of public defenders. By the same token, people can't be expected to just let themselves be victimized time and time again. Something has to give.

is it right to just blast away at a perpetrator? I would say no. Others on this forum may disagree. However, I do think a case could easily be made that there should be more leniency for victims of crimes who are intervening to protect their property, particularly when it comes to brandishing. A criminal being confronted may escalate and use force in commission of their crime, so a victim should probably have the benefit of the law on their side when attempting to intervene. Just my $0.02.

 

[Koda]

+1 to @1775usmc 's comments. I disagree with many of the fine folks on this forum on many things, and yet on several occasions I have found that after considering their arguments my position was indeed wrong. Disagreement is healthy. Conflicting points of view are healthy. It's how we grow intellectually.

Personally I'm very much in the "use deadly force only when facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm" camp because legally that's the bar we have to meet to claim self defense. To roughly paraphrase attorney Andrew Branca, 5 conditions must be met in order for a self defense claim to be valid:

• Innocence (you did not instigate the conflict)
• Imminence (you are facing a threat of death or serious bodily harm at that moment)
• Proportionality (your actions and force used are proportional to the threat you face)
• Avoidance (you are unable to retreat or avoid the threat - this is only necessary in states and under circumstances where a duty to retreat exists)
• Reasonableness (your actions are subjectively reasonable based on your observations and experience at the time, and objectively another reasonable person facing a similar situation would likely react in similar fashion)

Where it gets murky is that you have a right to protect your personal property, so you can absolutely intervene and try to stop the guy from stealing your stuff. However, doing so opens you up to potential danger from the perpetrator. That's what makes defense of property cases a challenge - at what point does defense of property turn into defense of self, and under what conditions can a gun be introduced when you don't know if the bad guy is armed?

If you intervene and they pull a gun, you're now facing a deadly force threat but probably won't have time to draw your gun before getting shot. On the flip side, bring out the gun too soon and now you may legally be considered the aggressor. Or, maybe they will be considered the aggressor because they were actively committing a crime when everything went down. There's a whole lot of grey there, and politically motivated prosecutors have been known to go over the top in pursuing a conviction in defensive gun use cases just to make a statement.

The police are there to respond when laws have been broken, but they aren't superman. They can't be everywhere at once, and most likely won't be able to do anything about the issue until weeks or months later, if ever. Many crimes are outright ignored because police don't have the staffing necessary to investigate every crime. In other cases criminals are simply released and not prosecuted due to lack of public defenders. By the same token, people can't be expected to just let themselves be victimized time and time again. Something has to give.

is it right to just blast away at a perpetrator? I would say no. Others on this forum may disagree. However, I do think a case could easily be made that there should be more leniency for victims of crimes who are intervening to protect their property, particularly when it comes to brandishing. A criminal being confronted may escalate and use force in commission of their crime, so a victim should probably have the benefit of the law on their side when attempting to intervene. Just my $0.02.

(emphasis mine)
YES, but the problem is the state currently favors protecting the criminal. Its as if they expect people to confront a theif unarmed since theft isnt a deadly threat in itself (even though its not unreasonable to suspect a thief is armed). There is too much protection for criminals is the problem. But on the flip side to this then it would be way too easy for a theft victim to just indiscriminately go out there and blow the theif away and claim self defense (in the absense of other evidence) and get away with it.

 

[Provincial]

The difference with "this strain" was who it killed. The "normal" yearly bug that circles back is known to kill the very young, the very old, and the very weak. This new one seemed to only go after the very old and weak. Really thinned out the aging population as it spread. Ever since man learned how to manipulate a virus he has learned they are playing with fire and do get burned now and then.

Now consider this post when you understand that China has a big demographic problem, with not enough younger working people to support a huge number of elderly, no longer productive folks. Most of the developed world is in a similar situation, with the huge bulge of the "Baby Boomers" at or reaching retirement, and placing a correspondingly huge burden on the pension systems.

What a convenient happenstance that a virus that almost selectively kills the elderly would escape the labs where weaponized viruses were being developed. Almost a godsend for politicians that had overpromised!

 

[gmerkt]

Is the general consensus around here something to the effect that it should be ok to use deadly physical force solely for the protection of property?

First of all, consider the nature of this site. It's fair to say that lots of "gun people" are right wing oriented and tend to favor law and order principles. With all due respect, if you have thin skin, you may be in the wrong space.

Second, for law and order types, property security issues are a hot button subject. So expect the more reactionary members to sound off. So when you see a concentration of trigger happy comments, don't be surprised. Even if, as I suspect, a good many of members who post them wouldn't actually pull the trigger in the instance.

Third, the contemporary erosion of respect for property rights just amplifies the indignation of law and order types. The idea of shooting looters is no more revolutionary than anarchists running rampant in Portland streets destroying and stealing things. It's not an evolution that we might've foreseen ten or fifteen years ago. And complicated by increasingly permissive public policy.

On a personal basis, I am not for shooting people for less than mortal issues. Your morality mileage may vary on this. But primarily I'm thinking of me. I don't want to go to jail over an object, nor do I want to lose my house to a civil lawsuit. The majority in our society has decided that property doesn't rate killing transgressors so I'll live with that. As to the morality of it, I think I'd feel bad for killing a dirtbag who was stealing from me. I'm just that way because I have a conscience that would nag me about it.

 

[Alexx1401]

Now consider this post when you understand that China has a big demographic problem, with not enough younger working people to support a huge number of elderly, no longer productive folks. Most of the developed world is in a similar situation, with the huge bulge of the "Baby Boomers" at or reaching retirement, and placing a correspondingly huge burden on the pension systems.

What a convenient happenstance that a virus that almost selectively kills the elderly would escape the labs where weaponized viruses were being developed. Almost a godsend for politicians that had overpromised!

When I watched at who the new bug was killing off I did have to wonder, "did they do this by design"? Humans are capable of some really deranged stuff so it would not be out of the realm of possibility sadly.

 

[Flopsweat]

When I watched at who the new bug was killing off I did have to wonder, "did they do this by design"? Humans are capable of some really deranged stuff so it would not be out of the realm of possibility sadly.

The whole global vaccine mandate thing is starting to look pretty sinister too.