It's perfectly okay for someone to steal your belongings?

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@YogSosoth

Skald, it sounds like you’ve been such a situation before?

Not in the way you mean.

When I was a baby, I am told, my mother confronted a man who’d broke into our public housing apartment and faced him down. I don’t remember the incident, though.

When I was 19 or 20 I got robbed at shotgun point while working at Sears. Bright daylight, in the store.

Speaking more peripherally: my best friend was attacked in her own room. Her attacker raped her repeatedly, beat her badly, and kidnapped her and forced her to drain her bank account, informing her that he intended to kill her afterwards. She saved her life by leaping out of a moving car. Her assailant is now in prison, rather than dead as would be optimal. The night he forced her way into her bedroom she heard a prowler in the house. If she’d had a gun in hand, she might well have been able to prevent the most horrible night of her life.

More periphery: my little sister and her (then) tween daughter narrowly escaped a similar experience; that is, their house got robbed while they were in it, but they got behind a sturdy locked door and help arrived before the burglar could get it down. Also, I once turned on the television to see a jackass tv reporter asking a coworker of mine how she felt about the man who had invaded her family’s home, as apparently her still-bruised and tear-stained face was insufficiently expressive.

So I’ve given the issue some thought. I won’t force a confrontation with a home invader; I’ll do what I can to avoid it, including cowering in the bedroom. I wouldn’t shoot someone in the back while he was exiting the premises with my laptop or whatever. But an intruder who is trying to force his way into a locked bedroom in which he knows there are people is presumed to be intent on rape, assault, or murder. I’m gonna shoot him.

[YogSothoth]

Holy shit! :eek:

[panaccione]

@Bozuit

Is there good cause for the assumption being made throughout this thread that doing what the police would do, i.e. using the threat of the gun to neutralize the burglar without shooting, is not a practical option?

I would think it is. If you can shoot an individual, you can train the gun on him/her. Furious Marmot mentioned that a person can beat you to the punch if there within 20 feet, but I don’t see how. If my gun is trained on the individual, I can tell him to freeze, and make his exit. If he takes one step towards me, he’s getting blasted.

This is what I think would be most reasonable. I’m not going to immediately shoot someone, if I can contain them instead. But, if push comes to shove, I would.

[CanvasShoes]

@White SIFL

Or maybe you point your gun at him and he leaves.

(sorry for taking so long to check back in! I didn’t realize there would be such a quick response :)).

This was more my thought process. I haven’t owned a gun for many years (and the one I did own was a 22 rifle that I’d had for sentimental reasons, It’d belonged to my mom and before her my maternal grandfather).

However, as I get older and more frail, (much less able to move quickly and escape my house in the case of a burglar or robber), my thoughts turn more toward self-protection.

The other thread was only one of the things that brought this to mind for me. I just recently moved to Colorado, and my apartment manager stated that this is NOT a “stand your ground” state. If a thief comes in the door, it is YOUR responsibility to escape and you can be legally prosecuted if you try to protect your belongings.

She also stated that the same things applies if one is being raped. If the woman can get away, she must, she’s not allowed to use deadly force to do so! :eek:

Now, I think that her knowledge base may be just a weeee bit lacking, but the whole idea behind that made me very nervous. And MORE, not less likely to want home protection.

[CanvasShoes]

@YogSosoth

2 things:

First, the snarky tone of my post was directed at the sarcastic question in the OP. If he doesn’t want to make an effort, neither will I. If he thinks the cousin referenced in the story is ok with stealing simply because he doesn’t have a gun to defend his stuff, then its he, not the cousin, that’s an idiot and not worth debating.

Second, you should still call the police. Their inability to solve or stop every crime is no justification to not rely on them when the victim of a criminal act

My question wasn’t sarcastic at all. It was an honest question. That’s what seemed to be the idea of the other OP’s statement, that is, that you just just stand aside and let the thief have your stuff. And I’m NOT a he.

[TimeWinder]

@CanvasShoes

(She also stated that the same things applies if one is being raped. If the woman can get away, she must, she’s not allowed to use deadly force to do so! :eek:

Even if that’s true (and I suspect it isn’t), that doesn’t mean she can’t use deadly force if she can’t get away, just that if the confrontation can be avoided, it should be. That seems reasonable to me.

But we’ve gotten a long way from the OP, which wasn’t about protecting lives, preventing rapes, or avoiding serious physical harm – it was about killing to protect belongings. Actual defense of self and others is a different kettle of fish.

[CanvasShoes]

@TimeWinder

Even if that’s true (and I suspect it isn’t), that doesn’t mean she can’t use deadly force if she can’t get away, just that if the confrontation can be avoided, it should be. That seems reasonable to me.

But we’ve gotten a long way from the OP, which wasn’t about protecting lives, preventing rapes, or avoiding serious physical harm – it was about killing to protect belongings. Actual defense of self and others is a different kettle of fish.

Hey! It’s my thread,…people can get away from the OP if they want. And I don’t believe my OP stated that I thought one should KILL to protect belongings, just have the right to do so (protect them that is). IMHO, guns would be a deterrent if in someone’s face who thought they’d walked into an easy mark. When I read that line in the other thread, the whole “take it” mentality of the OP’s cousin just really rattled me (on the heels of hearing what my apartment manager explained to me about Colorado laws).

I’m surprised that people so quickly decided that to protect your belongings with a gun would then certainly mean you’d kill them, rather than as a few in the thread have mentioned, use it to keep them at bay or better yet, make THEM run away.

I’ve never had anyone break in, but many many years ago, in an apartment in Anchorage, several nights in a row, someone rattled and shook my door and tried to get in. Scared the dickens out of me, and I was young and healthy then. I could have easily scaled the balcony to the next floor down and gotten away. (I was a very flexible girl, was in gymnastics in HS :D).

Nowadays I suffer from a muscle disease which makes me very stiff and it’s super difficult for me to move quickly from a sitting position. If someone broke in, I’d be a sitting duck. I try not to think about it, but it scares me sometimes, moreso now that I live in non-stand your ground state (supposedly, like I said, I don’t know if I can trust my apartment manager’s legal expertise).

The more decrepit I get, the more I think about home protection.

[JRDelirious]

@CanvasShoes

I’m surprised that people so quickly decided that to protect your belongings with a gun would then certainly mean you’d kill them, rather than as a few in the thread have mentioned, use it to keep them at bay or better yet, make THEM run away.

Like I wrote, using a firearm with the intent of merely scaring away the suspect is fine, but it’s not an unreasonable thing to recall the basic rule “don’t point a firearm at anything you’re not willing to destroy” if the use for deterrence is to be credible.

What does rattle some here are the few who sound like “hell, yeah, the crook has forfeited his life, good riddance, I’m taking him down” with little if any indication of reluctance or of entertaining the possibility of allowing flight or surrender, when in defense of only property rather than life.

To go back to the Thread Title, no, of course it’s not OK for someone to steal my belongings. Neither is it OK for them to publish libel about me, run away with my wife or vandalize my car. BUT what I think is an appropriate and proportional maner of making it stop may not be what someone else thinks it to be.

[Lion]

The hypothetical is flawed to begin with; a person desperate enough to break into someone else’s home would probably have no qualms with raping or killing the inhabitant. To think that you could pacify an intruder by cooperating with them is naive at best.

The sanctity of private property is a big issue, especially in America. Once someone has shown willingness to violate that then all bets are off for me.

[artemis]

@panaccione

Furious Marmot mentioned that a person can beat you to the punch if there within 20 feet, but I don’t see how.

Google “Tueller Drill.” The average adult can cover a distance of 21 feet (7 yards) in about 1.5 seconds, which is about as long as it takes a trained individual to draw a gun from a holster. So if you already have your gun up and aimed at the person, you can shoot him before he gets to you - but if you don’t, there’s a very good chance you won’t get to your gun before he’s on top of you, if he’s within 21 feet of you.

[Quartz]

@bengangmo

It’s not that it’s “ok” to take my things, it’s more a case that I don’t care enough about “things” (that are covered by insurance anyway)

You may have insurance; others may not.

[control-z]

In the US it’s practically unknown for someone to step foot on a stranger’s property, let alone enter their house uninvited. If someone is in my house in the middle of the night and upon seeing me and my firearm does not immediately surrender or leave, I don’t care what they state their intentions are. I would consider them hostile because that’s the only safe assumption. The police will be called and firearm will be at the ready until the situation is resolved.

[Trinopus]

I think I just invented something… How about a gun that calls the police? A bit red button on the side, maybe the side away from the safety, and when you push it, it dials 911 and has a little hands-free bluetooth link to your regular phone. So you can cover the intruder and talk to the cops all at the same time.

[FXMastermind]

Add a gps tracker, a lock that prevents anyone else from firing it, and you are on to something. If you unlock it, it calls for help, tells your exact location, and if anybody steals it, they get busted right away.

I want one already.

[CanvasShoes]

@JRDelirious

Like I wrote, using a firearm with the intent of merely scaring away the suspect is fine, but it’s not an unreasonable thing to recall the basic rule “don’t point a firearm at anything you’re not willing to destroy” if the use for deterrence is to be credible.

What does rattle some here are the few who sound like “hell, yeah, the crook has forfeited his life, good riddance, I’m taking him down” with little if any indication of reluctance or of entertaining the possibility of allowing flight or surrender, when in defense of only property rather than life.

To go back to the Thread Title, no, of course it’s not OK for someone to steal my belongings. Neither is it OK for them to publish libel about me, run away with my wife or vandalize my car. BUT what I think is an appropriate and proportional maner of making it stop may not be what someone else thinks it to be.

I guess what prompted me to post the thread, and what made me so “whu?” about the cousin’s statement was that it just struck me as so cavalier, so “sure, take it”.

I can count on one hand (read the other thread too, How much stuff do you have that's worth stealing? - In My Humble Opinion - Straight Dope Message Board) the number of items I have worth stealing.

A TV, computer, tablet, iphone…and some small items that belong with those other things (TiVo unit for the TV, for example). That’s about it for belongings of any monetary value. I do have a small collection of antique bottles, but your average drug addled thief probably wouldn’t know from looking at them that they were worth anything, and on a good day, they’d only bring about 15-50 bucks on ebay depending on how “hot” They are at the moment. And they’re still packed away, I haven’t hung them up yet, so they’re safe for now.

The few expensive electronics I have were earned because of very hard work and long hours on my part, if they were taken that would be it, I’d be out those items Period. No insurance, no tracking devices on the items, nada. It took me a long while to be able to afford those, and it’s not just the items and that fact that they provide the only small luxury I have right now, it’s what they represent.

Many many weeks and months of sweating in the hot sun for 14 to 16 hours a day, returning to my hotel room at the end of the long day barely able to hobble around my room, then doing it all over again for several more days, or weeks.

Then coming home to too few hours and struggling through to the next “field season” for the OT to get me through the next phase. I’m sure I’m not the only person for whom this is true.

Someone comes into someone else’s home and tries to make off with the TV, I’m sure that person can easily picture the 6 months of OT in 20 below weather, or scorching temps that it took to GET it. In a way, the thief IS taking part of the victim’s life.

So just “take it” seemed really flippant, and seems to spare no thought for those for whom it’s not so easy to replace these items, or the time and energy it took to get them.

[billfish678]

@CanvasShoes

Someone comes into someone else’s home and tries to make off with the TV, I’m sure that person can easily picture the 6 months of OT in 20 below weather, or scorching temps that it took to GET it. In a way, the thief IS taking part of the victim’s life.

So just “take it” seemed really flippant, and seems to spare no thought for those for whom it’s not so easy to replace these items, or the time and energy it took to get them.

Bingo.

And I say that a person who has never been really poor or has really worked like shit to get something that many folks wouldn’t think twice about just buying on a whim.

[Bone]

@panaccione

I understand the law. They have to draw the line somewhere. Im talking on a more personal level.

What if they break into your home without a weapon? Then, should your first reaction still be to shoot? Fact of the matter is, Stoplight either didn’t know if he had a weapon, or failed to mention it. I’m willing to bet it’s the former. Still, it doesn’t matter because he doesn’t care. That guys still getting shot.

I can’t call it poor judgement but I can’t say it’s good either. The sad truth is no one would know until it’s all said and done. Personally, I would hope that I would hold out a little longer than what he suggested. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have aimed and ready to go, but I would hesitate just a bit before I fired.

This has been answered already to an extent, but yes, if they break into my house, the first reaction is to shoot them. I don’t care if they have a weapon or not. Even if I knew 100% that they had no weapon, I would still shoot them. They can come in naked with the lights on and spin around so I see they have no weapon, they are still getting shot. I have no idea if they are there to do grave harm, or to take my TV. I don’t care to find out. They are a threat to me and family, they get shot, repeatedly until they are no longer a threat.

The law is on my side and I would sleep well at night knowing one less bad guy is out there.

[artemis]

@CanvasShoes

So just “take it” seemed really flippant, and seems to spare no thought for those for whom it’s not so easy to replace these items, or the time and energy it took to get them.

This!

And of course, some items are not replaceable. I have a watch on my dresser that was a gift to me from my father, who received it as a graduation present in 1948; it has his initials and graduation date engraved on the back of the watch case. How does one replace something like that? It’s value isn’t primarily material, for all that it is a material object.

[Troppus]

@artemis

This!

And of course, some items are not replaceable. I have a watch on my dresser that was a gift to me from my father, who received it as a graduation present in 1948; it has his initials and graduation date engraved on the back of the watch case. How does one replace something like that? It’s value isn’t primarily material, for all that it is a material object.

We really aren’t talking past each other on this one, we just have differing priorities. I could not justify taking a life over the most precious family heirloom. A life is not replaceable, and neither is my peace of mind. In the heat of the moment I might attempt to disable an intruder, but only if I feared for my family’s safety. I couldn’t/wouldn’t kill for an object or all of my objects.

[artemis]

@Troppus

We really aren’t talking past each other on this one, we just have differing priorities. I could not justify taking a life over the most precious family heirloom.

Not such differing priorities; I don’t see myself killing over a family heirloom either. But when the subject of whether it’s appropriate to use any degree of force to protect property comes up, one refrain that consistently comes up is “It’s just stuff!” And that undervalues certain items. The watch I mentioned is simply NOT replaceable. Even if the thief left a genuine Rolex behind in its place, I’d consider myself poorer for the loss of it.

When I was a teenager our house was burglarized, and my father lost some items of great sentimental value to him. It’s been over 30 years since that burglary, and to this day when my father comes across similar items in second-hand stores, he stops to check and see if the items might be his (they were distinctively marked). Any loss a person is still mourning half a lifetime later by definition involves more than mere “stuff.”