Police did handle the situation. What part of that is troubling you?
So Much for "Live Free or Die"
- Thread starter jimby82
- Start date
Police did handle the situation. What part of that is troubling you?
IF they were 'handling' these situations, they would not occur. They are unable to protect the public and keep them safe. That is a fact of life. I have both the RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to protect and defend my family, my self and my property.
They only arrived AFTER the fact, they did NOTHING to protect or defend the lives or property of anyone involved. They seldom do.
I notice you have moved from defending your neighbor's property to just your own property. That's a good start.
Then, you aren't satisfied with the police response because they didn't stop this alleged burglary from happening. Police are not clairvoyants. Moreover, they cannot be everywhere at once. Police have no way of knowing a farmhouse is about to be burglarized. The police acted properly. They responded to the alleged crime. The alleged burglar was arrested and the victim has or will be reunited with any stolen items. Is there another outcome you would prefer?
You are right, police are NOT clairvoyants and there for NOT able to protect or defend 100% of the houses, property or people of this country 100% of the time.
It is the duty and the right of the people to protect themselves.
I would also be willing to bet, though I don't know if I can prove it, that armed citizens do FAR more to deter crime than the police do.
The ONLY outcome was there not to have had a crime committed.
MY home has been invaded, twice. Once in England, where the police are unable to protect the homes or property of the people. Once here, this house, where the police are unable to protect the homes or property of the people.
It is unfortunate that I was not home in either case. I CAN and WOULD defend my home, life and property.
You see, I have the RIGHT to OWN property. I have the RIGHT to defend it. Period. Those RIGHTS are basic, human rights. No one has a RIGHT to steal it. There is no right to criminal behavior.
Explain, if you would, how you would respond to a teenager stealing a car in your driveway at home. Suppose you look out your bedroom window to see your car slowly being backed out of your drive. Obviously being stolen. For all these protestations about defending your property... do you think you could go after this car thief with a gun?? Even on your own property?? Do you feel entitled to kill this person for a property crime?
Under today's law, not likely. I would do it though. He has NO right to steal my property. I DO have 100% right to own it. ONLY when the police find a way to stop 100% of crime, property or other wise, will I have NO need to use force, deadly or other wise.
Got a better one for you. Let us assume I was carrying my .357 revolver, as I have a legal right to do, and was at that gas station where that old man was car jacked and beat up was at. Should I have shot the thug to stop that crime?
When someone makes a life threatening gesture towards me it doesn't matter if they are on my property or not. The fact I am threatened and in fear for my life gives me the right to defend myself. Depending on law enforcement for anything beyond investigation after a crime is depending on the wrong thing. It's the liberal's solution to crime, but it's no solution at all. It's vaccinating for the disease once the patient is in the morgue.
LOS, are you saying you would kill a teenager who was stealing your car? I think I am not reading you correctly.
That 'teenager' would be inside, with access to my house. That is an invasion. That 'teenager' would likely be a 'crack head' as the one who DID break into my house was. Crack heads, in or with access to my house are a threat to the lives of my wife and my self. I both can and will defend our lives.
Please show me which part of the US or Michigan Constitutions gives the 'teenager' the 'right' to enter my garage, have access to my house and steal my truck?
Under the US Constitution I have the RIGHT to own property and therefore the RIGHT to protect that property.
What about my questions?
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Thank you, that is my point completely.
The liberals call them "teenagers", these 17, 18, 19 year old adults with upwards of a decade of criminal history to their credit. The ultra liberals call them "children", actually including up to 22 or even 25 years of age depending on which group and which study. Now, technically, based on base ten arithmetic, they are teenagers but only numerically. They are adult far beyond their numerical years otherwise.
When I worked at a youth prison I have ONLY teenagers. Many of them were there for murder, attempted murder, assault, rape, armed robbery etc etc etc. Good 'kids' every one.
In the scenario I gave you, the teenage car thief was outdoors stealing your car. Not a home invasion at all. The right to own property in the United States does not come with a right to legally kill someone over theft of property. We have courts to make you whole if a loss occurs.
To your question... if you shot an assailant at a gas station in defense of another person's life you would find yourself on trial most likely. Lots more information would be needed to make a determination. Lots of factors come into play. Was the assailant armed? Did the assailant make an actual effort to kill his victim or simply punch and push him to the ground? Did the assailant make an actual attempt to harm anyone else? Was the assailant in the act of fleeing?
My pick up is always in the garage when at home. There for to steal it that thug would have been inside with access to my house. The courts NEVER make that loss 'whole'. Insurance rates go up due to crime. There is never 100% compensation for the loss. There is never 100% compensation for the stress.
In that carjacking the thug, who likely started his life of crime as a 'teenager', attacked an 86 year old man, from behind, beat him, kicked him, broke his leg and stole his van. Under Michigan law I have the RIGHT to use deadly force to stop that crime. The entire crime was on video.
I have the right to protect and defend my property though the use of my RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms.
Again, show me where that THUG, SCUMBAG has a RIGHT to STEAL.
I was a 'teenager' when I went into the Army. I was NOT a criminal. Criminals, like in ever other 'profession' have certain 'dangers' involved in the practice of their trade. Acute, sudden lead poisoning is just one of the many dangers.
Last edited:
Brother Joseph, you are so far afield I cannot reel you in. Despite your insistence that you have some imaginary right to kill over theft, you do not. This isn't the Old West where cattle-wranglers were hanged on the spot in some act of vigilante justice. Gun ownership does not bestow upon you the right to kill someone whenever you are displeased or inconvenienced by an act of theft.
I am not your brother, my brother's are named Dave and John, NOT, Aristotle.
No one has any right to take away my rights. Anyone who does is an enemy, either foreign or domestic. I kill my enemies.
You may choose to be a victim as dictated by laws written to make you into you. I do not.
Not that any of this matters. It is likely not to happen, and you are in no danger since you are not a criminal. Life is good.
I shot 5 birds today, and had assists on 3 others.
Okay. Sorry I couldn't find the right words to shed light on this subject. There's no where else to go with it.
Oh, I understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it, totally. No need to be sorry. This discussion was held without name calling, ridicule or other such silly stuff. I enjoyed it.
One thing is absolutely for certain, you do not have the right to use deadly force in the defense of uninhabited property. Well, in most cases and in most places.
Even if the teenage car thief invaded the dwelling (entered the garage) to steal the car, as soon a he started leaving and began backing down the driveway with the car, he can longer be considered a threat to attack someone inside the dwelling, and deadly force can not be used to protect the stolen car. Even if you caught him inside the garage and interrupted the theft, you couldn't use deadly force. You have to have a reasonable belief that the car thief actually intends harm on you or those inside the dwelling in order to use deadly-force.
Even non-lethal force cannot be used on a thief or burglar, if some other, reasonable means would have the same effect (like firing a gun into the ground, instead of into the burglar).
The only place I know of (and there may be more) that allows the use of deadly force to protect your uninhabited property, or even someone else's property, when the person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent someone from committing arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime, or to prevent a person from fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime, is Texas.
If your dwelling, garage and car were in Texas, you'd likely not even be charged, but if you were you'd almost certainly be exonerated. One of the more famous cases was Pasadena, TX resident Joe Horn, who shot and killed two men who were burgling his neighbor's home. He was inside his home and saw the men burgling his neighbor's house. The entire incident was captured on the 911 call audio recording, and despite the dispatcher pleading him to not go out of his own house with his shotgun, he did just that.
"I'm not gonna let them get away with this [expletive]," he repeats to the dispatcher at one point, before then saying, "I'll kill 'em."
After the 911 dispatcher again pleaded with him that property was not worth killing someone over, he told the dispatcher, "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."
The next thing you hear on the recording is Horn yelling to the burglars, "Move.... you're dead."
Immediately after hearing that, you hear the first of three shotgun blasts. Horn shot the two men in the back, killing both.
The Grand Jury refused to indict Horn, much to the horror of many people, including, I suspect, at least one philosopher.
Incidentally, the Grand Jury refused to indict him despite the fact that the two dead guys were illegal aliens. So there's another twist. LOL
Even if the teenage car thief invaded the dwelling (entered the garage) to steal the car, as soon a he started leaving and began backing down the driveway with the car, he can longer be considered a threat to attack someone inside the dwelling, and deadly force can not be used to protect the stolen car. Even if you caught him inside the garage and interrupted the theft, you couldn't use deadly force. You have to have a reasonable belief that the car thief actually intends harm on you or those inside the dwelling in order to use deadly-force.
Even non-lethal force cannot be used on a thief or burglar, if some other, reasonable means would have the same effect (like firing a gun into the ground, instead of into the burglar).
The only place I know of (and there may be more) that allows the use of deadly force to protect your uninhabited property, or even someone else's property, when the person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent someone from committing arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime, or to prevent a person from fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime, is Texas.
If your dwelling, garage and car were in Texas, you'd likely not even be charged, but if you were you'd almost certainly be exonerated. One of the more famous cases was Pasadena, TX resident Joe Horn, who shot and killed two men who were burgling his neighbor's home. He was inside his home and saw the men burgling his neighbor's house. The entire incident was captured on the 911 call audio recording, and despite the dispatcher pleading him to not go out of his own house with his shotgun, he did just that.
"I'm not gonna let them get away with this [expletive]," he repeats to the dispatcher at one point, before then saying, "I'll kill 'em."
After the 911 dispatcher again pleaded with him that property was not worth killing someone over, he told the dispatcher, "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."
The next thing you hear on the recording is Horn yelling to the burglars, "Move.... you're dead."
Immediately after hearing that, you hear the first of three shotgun blasts. Horn shot the two men in the back, killing both.
The Grand Jury refused to indict Horn, much to the horror of many people, including, I suspect, at least one philosopher.
Incidentally, the Grand Jury refused to indict him despite the fact that the two dead guys were illegal aliens. So there's another twist. LOL
I wonder how many of the DUDES that say I cannot protect what I own have been robbed or had their house broken into? Maybe they just have a 'soft spot' for criminals, since most law makers are criminals themselves. Sort of like, honor among thieves. Besides most of those who write the laws are, themselves, lawyers. the more live criminals in the system the more money their lawyer buddies make.