Strictly speaking, you don’t even need to be protecting property, you can just be looking for someone to harass. And if the person that you choose to harass fights back, shoot 'em.
Can you? Sure, you can. May you, it depends on the law. Is it ethical to kill people in order to protect property that is insured, I do not believe so.
And, slight off-question, if you had a store that was burnt down, and for whatever reason, you are unable to requild it, would you apply for welfare and let your family starve, or would you just go get a job?
Same thing, as even grand theft auto is not a capital crime, killing them to prevent them from stealing your car would be murdering someone to protect your property. If you are in the car at the time, and they are car-jacking you, then sure, there is a concern for your own safety, and if you really need to kill someone to ensure your safety, then that’s your right.
But killing people in defense of property, especially property that should be insured, is IMHO a pretty shitty thing to do.
There are other scenarios concerning armed response in defense of property. Suppose I’m walking down the street with 12 dollars and a Nokia flip-phone in my pocket when I’m confronted by an armed mugger demanding everything I’ve got. Is shooting him in response to his demands justified? Based solely on 12 bucks and a decade old phone, no. But what assurance do I have that he’s not going to wound or kill me for not having more? It has happened before and no doubt will happen again. Sure, at that point it’s escalated to fearing for my life defense, but I have no way of knowing that until it’s all but done. Am I supposed to wait until I have a knife or bullet in me to take action?
Baseball fan grazed by stray bullet during Cardinals game at Busch Stadium.
Wonderful…
You do what you think you need to do to keep yourself safe.
If you feel that turning over your phone and money to the mugger will keep you safer than confronting the mugger, then go ahead and do that.
If you think that confronting the mugger will keep you safer than turning over your possessions, then do that.
It is your safety that should be the concern, not the possessions.
Now, personally, I do not see why a mugger would cuase me harm if I give him what he wants, so I would just hand over my stuff to him, and ask him to have a nice day.
If you really feel that you can get your gun drawn and shoot him before he is able to take action, then go for it, but I’m gonna be honest, if he’s already got a bead on you, and is willing to do you harm, your gun is not going to even clear the holster before you get shot.
The only way you get out of the confrontation winning is if the mugger was not willing to actually kill you in order to take your stuff. Of course, long term, this has the consequence that muggers who are not willing to kill you get eliminated, leaving only the muggers who are willing to kill you, and rather than take a chance that you may have a gun, they are just going to shoot you dead, then take your stuff, and your gun. Not sure what defense you can put up when you are already bleeding out on the ground.
That’s why we need to have guns in stadiums.
A good guy with a gun would have shot that stray bullet right out of the air.
(Of course, then we need another good guy with a gun to shoot down that bullet.)
An so on, and so on, and… 
I envisage 50,000+ fans with guns, all shooting wildly into the air.
OK, what if he demands to take your dog, too? Do you turn into k9defender?
eh, logically, my dog is property, so same rules.
Emotionally… I may consider the defense of my dog as being close to the importance of defense of myself.
It’s bullets all the way down.
MLB report: Woman grazed by bullet at Busch Stadium in St. Louis
But don’t let actual facts interfere with your mutual masturbation.
Oh wait. That detail was in the original link.
Carry on.
So, you would be OK with someone coming along and taking everything you have worked for your entire life and impoverish your family because you don’t want to drive him off with a gun and possibly kill him to protect your property?
Are you under the impression that all these Korean immigrants opened stores because that’s what they wanted to do? Go to America and open a liquor store or or consumer electronics store in a shitty crime ridden neighborhood? They did this because their English language skills made them unemployable by anyone other than themselves or other Koreans. Without guns virtually all the Korean stores in Koreatown would have been burned down, noone to give them jobs.
They wouldn’t have the option of just going out there and getting a job in the summer of 1992. There was a recession going on at the time (its part of the reason Clinton got elected “Its the economy stupid”)
These stores were in neighborhoods that were uninsurable. So when the store burns down, there is no money to rebuild it.
I knew a kid who had to drop out of college and didn’t graduate until about 4 years after me by going to college part time and at night while working during the day because he had to work to help support the family. Because their store in an uninsurable neighborhood got looted then burned.
The bullet came from elsewhere. Good. That makes it all ok.
No problem: you just let the mugger take your stuff, then shoot him in the back as he is running away, and then take your stuff back.
(which relies on the mugger not noticing that you have a gun and relieving you of that)
If you pay attention to the posts, you would see that I originally made a joke about shooting the bullet out of the air, not shooting the shooter.
You see, that is because I read the article, and was aware that the irresponsible gun owner was outside of the stadium. But I also read in the article where the bullet entered the stadium.
This is the time that my hypothetical “good guy with a gun” would shoot the bullet out of the air, and then there would need to be another to shoot down that bullet, and so on.
But don’t let the actual posts interfere with your accusations.
Carry on.
Would I be okay with that, of course not, don’t be stupid.
Would I be willing to kill for that is another question entirely.
There are a number of people out there that are lacking for work. Sucks to be them, I’ve been there.
It sucks, I’ll agree, but it doesn’t suck so much that I would be willing to kill someone to keep my job.
And if their stores had gone out of business due to the economy, would they then be justified in killing someone in order to keep them open then?
That happens in lots of places. I didn’t finish college because I could only go part time, as I was working full time to help pay my family’s bills. The fact that your friend was in the same position as many other people in this country does not mean that his parents should have killed people to prevent it. What would they have done if there was a flood, or an earthquake, or a fire? The fact that the riots were one “natural disaster” that they could have killed people to prevent happening to their individual establishment, does not, IMHO, give them the ethical high ground to kill people to protect their property.
And you feel like you can judge those who kill to preserve the welfare of their family and retirement?
Kill who? It sort of matters whether the person you are killing is taking your shit and burning down your means of providing for your family or if it is just some random innocent person.
Of course it does. It may not fit YOUR definition of MORALITY but looters are not a natural disaster. But it does seem ethical to use deadly force to stop criminals engaging in criminal activity. If I could shoot a flood to prevent it from destroying lives and property, I would.
No, but then where did I say that?
I would not kill someone over property, and I feel it is the wrong thing to do.
If you feel differently, and if the law agrees, then do what you have to do.
Well, obviously, killing some random innocent person is pretty uncool, and is not going to protect your property, but it very well could be the result if you start shooting at people who you think look threatening to your property, whether because you misjudged their intent, or missed them and hit the bystander behind them.
But, to the person who is vandalising or burning your store, I would not kill them either. Property is not worth killing for.
Looters are a civil emergency, like any other. You have earthquakes, floods, fire, there are many reasons you could be wiped out, if you didn’t bother to get insurance, which was not impossible, though about 30% of the businesses in the area chose not to pay for it.
If you could kill a person to prevent a flood from destroying your property, would you?
Now, you threw in “lives” into that last statement, which is different than property. I too would kill someone who was threatening the life of someone else, if that was the only way to prevent it.
And, at this point, what has happened to the shop keepers who were willing to kill to prevent their stores from being looted and going out of business? Well, most of them went out of business because the riots left a long lasting impression on the economy of the area. So, killing people to protect property did not actually protect their businesses.
My six year old son likes to play with the six year old boy next door. My wife and I have drinks with the parents pretty often. When my wife was over there last night sharing a bottle of wine with the mom, she learned that the house is evidently awash in loaded, unsecured guns. It was late, and the mom heard a noise on the child monitor. She went to check it out and came back with a gun. In case there was an intruder, you see. Because when you live in one of the safest and wealthiest suburbs in the region, and you hear a rustle on the child monitor, your first thought is, “Intruder Alert!” and not, “My six year old son probably wants a drink of water.” So she comes back into the kitchen – to resume drinking – with the gun tucked into her waistband. No holster or anything, just stuffed into the top of her yoga pants, gangsta style. Good thinkin! She reassured my wife that when kids are over there playing she gives them instructions not to go into the rooms where the guns are.
Yes, your stuff matters more than anyone’s life. Got it. :rolleyes:
Ever hear of homeowner’s or renter’s insurance? It covers that stuff. Cheaper than ammo, too, and doesn’t involve shutting off any sort of sense of morality.
Now do tell us more about how the best defense against black people with guns is white people with guns.
Sociopath.
In civilized countries, that’ll earn you a charge - and most probably a conviction - for murder.
In civilized countries, using deadly force for self defense requires that there is no other reasonable alternative. A person running away from you can’t be an acute threat to your life. And if the entry wound is in his back, you’re going to have a slight problem claiming that you were justifiably fearing for your life.