Defending Property

AR10ShooterinNC

Happy to be here
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
12,966
Location
High Point
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
I have a serious question about defending property with deadly force. Why do people think it’s so wrong to kill or use deadly force to protect property? Is this because of the current state of self-defense laws and rulings?

I personally have no problems with the idea of using deadly force to protect, my family, and property. When did we as a society change from being able to protect ones property. I remember my grandfather talking about in 30’s and 40’s people being shot for stealing cars and horses. In today’s day and age, the police do not have the time or resources to investigate home break ins or auto damage. It’s seems everything is pushed to just pay for insurance and use it to cover the lack of protection by the government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JT
I think of it as a permanent vs temporary thing. I am fortunate enough to have the means/insurance to recover from the loss of most of my stuff, so the loss is temporary while killing someone is permanent. May not make a lick of sense, but there it is.
 
The idea is based on reasonable force. Nothing you own is worth a humans life. Its not reasonable to think property is on the same value scale as a human.

Granted we all can find a lowlife human and by his / her actions we can calculate that a knitted hat has higher value then they do. But life is not full of such black and white contrasts.

In NC and some other states we have a occupancy dwelling clause that shifts this idea. Meaning if someone attacks your occupied home, you can defend it. Same as occupied tents, vehicles and other dwellings you are right fully to be in. The idea is a reasonable person cannot separate a attack on ones dwelling without assuming its a attack upon ones self.

John
 
Last edited:
This is tricky and each person does (not might) see it differently. I work to buy what my family needs and wants. If someone were to steal from me would that not be taking hours from me?

What if it was water or food, it's just things... A house, shelter, $ that you need to survive?

It's not a simple yes or no.
 
This may be more of a sociological than legal or moral perspective, but I submit some of the attitudinal change is due to decades of material ease: that is, our "stuff" is so easily replaced, even for our poor (to distinguish from truly destitute). Nowadays, why heck, our stuff should just come to us for "free." Against this, then, as above, a thief isn't stealing our life's tangible worth, its just stuff that will be replaced by insurance or ... On the other hand, before the post-war (WWII) prosperity boom, one's hard-earned and perhaps irreplaceable material goods were effectively inseparable from one's person and livelihood. The perpetrator's action of theft was thus viewed as an attack against the victim's person.
 
I despise a theif. Ive had a vehicle broken into before...... Bad enough they stole my stereo but also broke my window. Deadly force for defending property is ok with me.
 
This is tricky and each person does (not might) see it differently. I work to buy what my family needs and wants. If someone were to steal from me would that not be taking hours from me?

What if it was water or food, it's just things... A house, shelter, $ that you need to survive?

It's not a simple yes or no.

Its not tricky at all. Its the law.

Very black and white. Any other view is a direct path to having rights stripped from ones self while in prison.

Under lawlessness, well its called that for a reason. But beyond a lawlessness phase of time its ill advised.
 
Today sadly it depends on what you mean by what "People think" and their roles. Me, I think proven thieves should be strung up in the town square as a deterrent.

Aside from that @NCLivingBrit explanation is on the money. A guy who works three jobs and ruins his health to provide for his family so they have housing and some amenities gets robbed - its not just dollars that are gone, its real, personal sacrifice. Not some beige insurance company loss that will get swilled in with all the others . I won't state the obvious about whom I'd rather have as a neighbor or whether even replacing the TV, etc. makes the victim whole. ( they're not, perhaps they missed their kids graduation to work to be able to buy that TV)

But well all know that the legal system today would rather vilify some law abiding citizen protecting their property than effectively prosecuting any sleaze attempting to steal such property. The foxes are guarding the hen-house.
 
BTW I still recall the instructor for my concealed class pumping us for scenarios: "You wake up, and standing at the foot of your bed is a man holding your television. He says -thanks for this- and runs away. Under NC law, can you shoot him ? If prosecuted or indicted , will you win in court ?

Counter that with: You hear a noise and investigate- someone appears to be attempting to break into your home and they are making intimidating threats and continue attempts to break in, etc.

Me: so...hes in my bedroom but not a threat to life and limb, I give him a cookie and wish him safe travels ? Yeah basically. Uh, um.

But he's not in yet and I just don't like the banging noise and figure he's up to no good and might not be my friend I can respond differently ? Yes, under NC law that's different.

Me: Can I buy a vowel ?
 
Last edited:
TO ME, I’ll defend whatever property my family and/or myself are occupying but I will not go running to defend property where I am not ... I’ve got insurance for that. I am not bulletproof and while not scared to die am in no rush to do so. Do not fool yourselves into believing any shooting will be automatically ruled justifiable and you will not feel any further ramifications ... that’s why it should be drilled into you and anyone in your family what to do in the aftermath of a shooting (which should be in another thread because it ain’t that simple). You’ll be grilled by the LEOs which won’t be anything compared to what the media could do along with the whispering of neighbors, coworkers, friends, fellow church members, etc. A threat to my family or my life or safety ... DRT! ... but possessions aren’t that important to me.
 
Last edited:
Without going into the whole story again, I have been on the wrong end of a home invasion by 3 grown folks bent on No Good. I managed to hold one for the Poleeece as the other two escaped. MANY wondered why I did not shoot them. I could have shot all 3 before they got off my property. The reason was...there was no reason TO shoot them.
Not trying to be hard against anything one way or the other But if you have this happen, it will affect you and not in a good way. You can discuss back and forth But unless you have had it happen believe me it is only a discussion.
 
Stealing property may not be worth taking any ones life, but the criminals know that and they just keep doing it since there is no deterrent. Being shot dead is a helluva deterrent.
 
A thief should be shot in my opinion but I am also not inclined to go outside if I hear my car window being broken. I don't know who or how many people are out there and running out there to become a target is not a smart move in my book. I have two Huge reasons (Wife & Daughter) to stay inside and protect them at any cost. If I am dead outside that leaves them exposed. I have the upper hand by staying inside and they have zero chance breaking in at that point.
 
Being robbed is not just a loss of material. It's a violation. That trauma stays with you. On top of that insurance is a racket and will never make you whole. You will pay back every penny you receive in premiums and then some. Plus, you won't get what it takes to cover the actual loss. Even if they catch the thief, the courts won't make you whole either. The system is a broken thing.

I personally think we should hang 'em high or shoot them down like the dogs they are...
 
As has been mentioned above, in part, what is “right” and “what is legal” are not always the same thing.

I personally wouldn’t shoot someone who was carrying my TV out the door, or driving off in my car. >Unless< they turn the car towards me or mine OR they drop the TV and come towards the same. But I don’t think I would hold it against anyone who would.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If you are in the process of stealing from my home, or forcing your way into my home or are found in my home or on my property aggressively threatening me or my family, I am going to do my best to teach you a lesson you should have learned at an earlier age, albeit with much more, possibly severe consequences. Not trying to be BBA, but you gotta go.
 
Theft is not a capital crime. Where would you draw the line? Shoot to kill if the value of the item is above $500, 1000, 5000, 50?

We all have the right to defend ourselves and family with deadly force if necessary, but none of us are judge, jury, and executioner for theft of just property.
 
Theft is not a capital crime. Where would you draw the line? Shoot to kill if the value of the item is above $500, 1000, 5000, 50?

We all have the right to defend ourselves and family with deadly force if necessary, but none of us are judge, jury, and executioner for theft of just property.

What if someone is taking the final delicious bite of food from your plate that you were saving for last?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Me.
Defending property with a gun is a big no-no, letting your well trained non-discriminatory big beagle chew ass usually has the thieves dropping your goods and wishing they had chosen another vicinity.
 
I've always used the "shark tank" analogy.

If your wallet/watch falls into the shark tank at an aquarium, do you jump in?

What if it was your wife or kid?

Kind of my manner of thinking of whether it's worth it or not. I'm not trying to get in a gunfight over a rarely used Xbox or soon to be outdated television.
 
I've always used the "shark tank" analogy.

If your wallet/watch falls into the shark tank at an aquarium, do you jump in?

What if it was your wife or kid?

Kind of my manner of thinking of whether it's worth it or not. I'm not trying to get in a gunfight over a rarely used Xbox or soon to be outdated television.

Sharks are cool with me. The jerks at the DMV are not... I may dive in after my wallet. Been in the water with sharks before...
 
Just buy insurance. That’s when people changed. Most everything you have of value was bought with money, and it can be easily replaced with money. Insurance takes care of that.

When you say “protect property” are you “protecting it” or just “keeping it in your possession”.


If all you are “protecting” is “keeping my stuff”.... get insurance. Insurance covers you all the time, not just when you’re there to draw down on the bad guy.



Heck, I don’t own anything (other than dogs) that I’d even get in a fight to try to retain from a bad guy.

Insurance.


Plus, you can’t just shoot a flood or fire.



No, I’m not an insurance salesman.
Insurance cost money. Deductibles are another financial burden, all of which are derived from same sacrifices of life to gain.
Its not and never will be "just property"
 
I'll pose a interesting philosophical debate.... Hasn't the continued establishment of more laws actually caused what is essence socially acceptable lawlessness?

I am legally not allowed to shoot someone stealing my property, which in turn the theif knows, so there is a lower assumed risk to them based on the assumption that even though they are breaking the law, I will follow it.

I'd argue that a criminal is less likely to rob another criminal because there is a higher assumed risk to them because neither individual is following the law, hence you getting shot for ripping off your crack dealer for $20, however I am not able to shoot you for attempting to rob me of the same amount of money, even if it is the last $20 in my pocket I have to buy my child medication to prevent their demise.

There are probably a multitude of different factors that affect the crime rates, but I would argue you were less likely to steal Farmer John's tractor in the 30s or 40s because that was his livelyhood and would defend such appropriately.

The whole "armed society is a polite society" approach if you will...
 
What has changed to make people not want to kill to defend their property? I would have to say that pre-1940's killing people for stealing property was not a not a big deal. Criminal know the rules better than most people, they know they can steal with very little punishment.

Insurance is a joke, it's all about paying out the least amount money. As others have stated, insurance doesn't make you whole, once you make a claim the rates go up. I went through a shit ton of work to get replacement value for my guns, scopes and accessories, plus reloading equipment.
 
If all you are “protecting” is “keeping my stuff”.... get insurance. Insurance covers you all the time, not just when

I'm not calling out @Me. specifically, it's a good point. If you look at 'insurance' it doesn’t cover everything all the time. You have deductible and other policy stipulations, along with the price of the policy. I'm not even sure if you can get a '100% for any reason' policy. If it's available show me where and the cost.

If your possessions are not worth defending they why lock your car, lock your garage or house. Just put a sign out in the yard "don't threaten me and you're free to take anything".
 
I'll pose a interesting philosophical debate.... Hasn't the continued establishment of more laws actually caused what is essence socially acceptable lawlessness?


I am legally not allowed to shoot someone stealing my property, which in turn the theif knows, so there is a lower assumed risk to them based on the assumption that even though they are breaking the law, I will follow it.


I'd argue that a criminal is less likely to rob another criminal because there is a higher assumed risk to them because neither individual is following the law, hence you getting shot for ripping off your crack dealer for $20, however I am not able to shoot you for attempting to rob me of the same amount of money, even if it is the last $20 in my pocket I have to buy my child medication to prevent their demise.


There are probably a multitude of different factors that affect the crime rates, but I would argue you were less likely to steal Farmer John's tractor in the 30s or 40s because that was his livelyhood and would defend such appropriately.


The whole "armed society is a polite society" approach if you will...


In the context of your statement I want to play it out a bit.


I think the perspective as written of your statement is based on knowing intent before / during the theft. That is something I cannot judge or be aware of. As always, the self-defense rule I share with my students is the AOJ rule. Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy.


Ability Can the person physically cause me great/serious bodily harm and/or death?
Opportunity Does the person(s) have the opportunity to cause me great/serious bodily harm and/or death? Any barriers (time or distance) in place to prevent the suspect’s actions?
Jeopardy Is anyone in jeopardy of great/serious bodily harm and/or death if I do not take immediate action to stop the threat?


Environment 1. Robber is on my property in an out storage shed steeling my property. I hear them and approach.


In this situation the first actions I take is call 911 and get law enforcement on its way and keep my phone on speaker with 911 until LE arrive. I explain the situation and my description ONLY! I do not describe the robber even if I can. This information is given in a face to face with the officer. Second, I would not allow myself to be known to the robber. I know the robber has the ability to harm me because I know what's in that shed. My next step is to interpose myself between loved ones and the robber in a defensive advantage position with the goal of route denial. I want to avoid interjecting an opportunity for confrontation. But knowing what’s in that shed, my defensive angles (my property, my battlespace), I should keep some distance and allow an escape route. I say this because I know a trapped person has a higher chance for the fight mode to be triggered. Unless I am within 30 feet or less, the robber with any normal blunt object is a danger. But again, I do not know what jeopardy I am in based on the few factors at this time. I would not know if they are armed or not. If they exit with nothing in the hands I would not even try to restrain them. I would not even expose myself to make the robber aware I know what’s going on. When law enforcement shows up I would let them handle the person(s).


Environment 2. No family home, robber is in my house steeling my property and I come home.


This situation is very different then environment 1. As I make entrance with our without my family, I enter my home and (I do not notice a forced entry), I enter and see a person in my home. I will go to 100% defense mode. This is because the robber has the ability to harm me and the opportunity also. The only unanswered question is the jeopardy rule. Based on the robber’s reaction to me that question will be answered.


Environment 3. Family and I are home, the perp’s perform a home invasion.


The reason for the home invasion is not a factor. But my challenge and interaction will be brought to the floor of the courts. I do not want to over react like this situation. In a home invasion the state has answered and framed my ability, opportunity and jeopardy rules in NCGS § 14-51.2.(B).



Again, not knowing the robbers “intent” I do not want to place myself in any situation that elevates. Every way we can look at a self-defense situation has a negative impact on ones life. When the dust settles and the law has the rest of my life to pick out every detail. I do not want to place my life in the judgement of others. I want to react within the rules and keep my freedom. The ability, opportunity and jeopardy are three great filters to pan a situation out to my advantage. Nothing I own is worth my freedom.


John
 
Theft is not a capital crime. Where would you draw the line? Shoot to kill if the value of the item is above $500, 1000, 5000, 50?
Me, I would set it at $.01. I put, nor see, any value in the thief’s life. I view theft as stealing someone’s life, not stuff.

I agree that there has been a change in society, that’s happened on multiple conjoined fronts. It’s the “just buy insurance” attitude coupled with a decline in personal responsibility and empowerment of the people to do what’s right and what needs doing. Instead, we’ve become accustomed to letting some nameless, faceless, State be our instrument. The State has proven to be a failure.

Yes, I understand the “law” on self defense and property, but we’re I on a juty for it, the State can shove its “law” up its backside and I would refuse to convict. A jurors job is not to uphold the State, but to be the arbiter of justice and right and wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom