Constitutional Carry tracker.

[Hoover]

The discussion was property in general.
I agree that shooting someone over low value stuff is BS. An percussive instructional session - sure.
As soon as the theft involves direct or implied threat of violence then the only correct response should be lethal force

Implied?

How about post theft deadly force? A kid in high school stole my jacket (he’s actually a cop now). Can I kill him? True story too, that ass stole my jacket.

 

[Hoover]

Man it would be easy to kill people you didnt like when no one else was around.

Extend it to girlfriends or wives too. People should be taught not to mess around with peoples wives or girlfriends.

 

[pastera]

Implied?

How about post theft deadly force? A kid in high school stole my jacket (he’s actually a cop now). Can I kill him? True story too, that ass stole my jacket.

Did he beat you for the jacket?
If so then yes, while in the act you should have had the option to use any and all levels of force needed to protect yourself and your property.

But that's not what you are getting at with your example trying to push off retribution as property defense.

 

[pastera]

Man it would be easy to kill people you didnt like when no one else was around.

Why?
Where in anything I said did I imply no investigation when force is used.

 

[pastera]

Extend it to girlfriends or wives too. People should be taught not to mess around with peoples wives or girlfriends.

Never understood the need to go after the guy when it's the woman who cheated.

 

[Hoover]

Never understood the need to go after the guy when it's the woman who cheated.

If the guy or woman knows the other person is in a relationship, most of the cheaters I’ve known, the one they cheated with knew they were in a relationship and didn’t care. In fact many became the new gf/bf and were cheated on by that person a year or two later. Shocking the cheater cheated on them

 

[Hoover]

Did he beat you for the jacket?
If so then yes, while in the act you should have had the option to use any and all levels of force needed to protect yourself and your property.

But that's not what you are getting at with your example trying to push off retribution as property defense.

To protect yourself yes. If someone is using force to rob you, a mugging, carjacking, etc deadly force wouldn’t be a crazy policy although the details of the policy would matter.

Unrestricted deadly force for property theft is not wise.

 

[Tim_McD]

I thought the official NES policy was, “shoot, shovel and shut up”

 

[KBCraig]

I have finite life.
In order to have property, I must give up a portion of that life to get the property.
The thief is willing to take that property that represents that lost portion of my life, they are also willing to take the entirety of my life to have my property.

So in fairness if the thief is willing to take my life to attain my property, why should I not be willing to do the same?

Philosophical discussions are fun. I agree that if someone steals my money or property, they have stolen the portion of my life that I worked to acquire what they stole.

Now ask yourself the reverse question: what portion of your life are you willing to pay to defend your actions?

Just because something is made "legal", doesn't mean there will be zero repercussions for you if you do it.

 

[Dench]

Never understood the need to go after the guy when it's the woman who cheated.

What investigation? It be your words vs a dead guy.

 

[Boghog1]

So if some 14 yr old breaks into a car and steals toll change and trinkets, it’s legal to shoot them?

Yes, a car window is a few hundred to replace, and hours of my time. You are not required to shoot someone stealing your shit but I shouldn't be stopped from protecting mine.

 

[pastera]

If the guy or woman knows the other person is in a relationship, most of the cheaters I’ve known, the one they cheated with knew they were in a relationship and didn’t care. In fact many became the new gf/bf and were cheated on by that person a year or two later. Shocking the cheater cheated on them

Exactly - their punishment is pursuing a worthless companion.

 

[pastera]

Philosophical discussions are fun. I agree that if someone steals my money or property, they have stolen the portion of my life that I worked to acquire what they stole.

Now ask yourself the reverse question: what portion of your life are you willing to pay to defend your actions?

Just because something is made "legal", doesn't mean there will be zero repercussions for you if you do it.

I agree - protection of property should be justified under the law.
The level of justifiable force should depend on circumstances - grabbing a bird feeder off the front lawn is very different than stealing a car or breaking into a locked home to toss the place looking for valuables.
Levels of evidence required to show justified use of force would be very similar to self defense requirements (sans any duty to retreat BS)

 

[pastera]

What investigation? It be your words vs a dead guy.

So we just take everyone's word for events?
Please, if you're going to debate a position at least put some minimal level of thought into it.

 

[Dench]

So we just take everyone's word for events?
Please, if you're going to debate a position at least put some minimal level of thought into it.

Big dog, you're the guy saying you should legally be able to kill people for theft and I'm the one that needs to put more thought into it?

If you steal from me I won't kill you. I'd just do the worlds most rad suplex and move on. Win-win. Hows that for thoughts?

 

[pastera]

Big dog, you're the guy saying you should legally be able to kill people for theft and I'm the one that needs to put more thought into it?

If you steal from me I won't kill you. I'd just do the worlds most rad suplex and move on. Win-win. Hows that for thoughts?

Did I say kill?
No, I support legal deadly force use for protection of property.
Might seem like there's no difference but it's a huge difference.

 

[Broc]

The discussion was property in general.
I agree that shooting someone over low value stuff is BS. An percussive instructional session - sure.

Everyone seems to be arguing two different points. So I divided your quote in two parts.

One point is shooting someone just becuase they jump a fence or break a window or some other stupid sh*t. That is pretty dumb and not worth everything that comes after.

The other point is someone threatening you with violence. Your life or your kids lives can't be replaced.

As soon as the theft involves direct or implied threat of violence then the only correct response should be lethal force

Edit to add:
I get your point thst you support the use of deadly force but don't necessarily think it is a good idea.

Anyway, I think we should focus on getting constitutional carry or some sort of permitless carry in most States before worrying about stuff like shooting someone breaking into a car. I am tired of having to do 2hrs of research every time I want to travel and still not be 100% sure if I can carry a gun in some other State. It is annoying AF that one foot over an imaginary line you are breaking the law, but one foot the other way you are perfectly legal. And even with all the research and following the law, States like NY and NJ can f*ck you over and make you spend a bunch of money with no negative repercussions for them.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

This thread has gone full retard. Start a new one about killing your wife's boyfriend's sister's teenage nephew over stealing ashtray change out of your unlocked car so this one can go back to being useful.

 

[pdm]

This thread has gone full retard. Start a new one about killing your wife's boyfriend's sister's teenage nephew over stealing ashtray change out of your unlocked car so this one can go back to being useful.

 

[Hoover]

Philosophical discussions are fun. I agree that if someone steals my money or property, they have stolen the portion of my life that I worked to acquire what they stole.

Now ask yourself the reverse question: what portion of your life are you willing to pay to defend your actions?

Just because something is made "legal", doesn't mean there will be zero repercussions for you if you do it.

I believe Rittenhouse’s defense cost over $1 million, I believe his bail was $2 million which limited his jail time to a few months. Zimmermans defense cost more than Rittenhouse.

Just a few days ago there was an armed home invasion. The resident disarmed one of the perps, was shot in the stomach doing so, and shot one of the perps dead. The middlesex DA arrest and charged the resident/victim of the armed home invasion with assault with a deadly weapon and possession of a gun without an LTC. Because he was unlicensed and used the perps gun to defend himself, he was charged for not government permission slip.

Suspect in fatal Woburn shooting case arguing self-defense

The district attorney's office has identified both parties, including the 22-year-old man who lost his life.

www.wcvb.com

A DA can and will charge you for 100% legal actions and at minimum try to financially ruin you.

 

[Hoover]

I agree - protection of property should be justified under the law.
The level of justifiable force should depend on circumstances - grabbing a bird feeder off the front lawn is very different than stealing a car or breaking into a locked home to toss the place looking for valuables.
Levels of evidence required to show justified use of force would be very similar to self defense requirements (sans any duty to retreat BS)

Breaking into a home is castle doctrine and deadly force is legal in some states, it really varies a lot from state to state.

 

[xtry51]

Lack of legal use of lethal force to protect property is exactly what drives up property crime.

There should be no limitation on shooting someone who is stealng anything from you. Period.

If you don't want to shoot thieves, don't. If you don't want to own guns, don't. No one is forcing you to shoot criminals. Stop forcing other to NOT shoot criminals.

 

[pastera]

Breaking into a home is castle doctrine and deadly force is legal in some states, it really varies a lot from state to state.

So why it the location of theft relevant?
If property crime doesn't rise to deadly force response outside the home then why should you be able to use it to protect property within the home?

 

[Hoover]

So why it the location of theft relevant?
If property crime doesn't rise to deadly force response outside the home then why should you be able to use it to protect property within the home?

That’s the law and cast doctrine goes back be for the US was a country.

Let’s get back to what this thread is about

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

What was I going to post, ah yes something topical...

South Carolina House OKs permitless carry of handguns

The South Carolina House voted on Wednesday to allow lawful firearm owners to carry handguns openly or concealed without a state permit.

www.wistv.com

 

[Hoover]

What was I going to post, ah yes something topical...

South Carolina House OKs permitless carry of handguns

The South Carolina House voted on Wednesday to allow lawful firearm owners to carry handguns openly or concealed without a state permit.

www.wistv.com

Let’s see if the senate will pass it this time. Even if they don’t, it’s almost guaranteed SC, FL, La and NC will be constitutional carry within 2 years

 

[jek]

So why it the location of theft relevant?
If property crime doesn't rise to deadly force response outside the home then why should you be able to use it to protect property within the home?

I think it is the difference of being confined in your home vs. being able to run away outside. There are others here that are waaaay more qualified to answer.

 

[pastera]

I think it is the difference of being confined in your home vs. being able to run away outside. There are others here that are waaaay more qualified to answer.

Was a rhetorical question but there is no difference.
If a thief wants to take your property from you, location shouldn't matter.

 

[Howland]

What was I going to post, ah yes something topical...

South Carolina House OKs permitless carry of handguns

The South Carolina House voted on Wednesday to allow lawful firearm owners to carry handguns openly or concealed without a state permit.

www.wistv.com

The Constitutional Carry bill that passed the House again also does away with Duty to Inform.

Let’s see if the senate will pass it this time. Even if they don’t, it’s almost guaranteed SC, FL, La and NC will be constitutional carry within 2 years

Sponsors are hoping that increasing the mandatory minimum sentences for crimes with a firearm will bring around some of the RINOs (9 of them, minus one who died) who killed it in the Senate last time. That and the fact that their reelection is closer. We'll see. I'm not holding my breath. The RINOs here are too deeply entrenched.

 

[Mesatchornug]

The Constitutional Carry bill that passed the House again also does away with Duty to Inform.

(it gave me an American flag; work with what you've got)

Sponsors are hoping that increasing the mandatory minimum sentences for crimes with a firearm will bring around some of the RINOs (9 of them, minus one who died) who killed it in the Senate last time. That and the fact that their reelection is closer. We'll see. I'm not holding my breath. The RINOs here are too deeply entrenched.

Good luck.