@PerryHall said:
Since this crime took place in Texas, I doubt the victim of this robbery attempt will be charged because the DA knows that it would be extremely difficult to get a conviction.
I probably wouldn't vote to convict, if i were a juror.
Shooting a running suspect in the back is wrong and illegal. Firing a warning shot in some states is considered the use of deadly force, or at least reckless discharge. Even brandishing a weapon, in this case of the perp running away, is a misdemeanor. Lawyers will use every tactic to turn the victim into a criminal, and can take away their right to bear arms. Know your state and local gun laws, if you have a CPL.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
This thread would have been a lot more sedate and sleepy if somehow the seller posted the coins he was selling on this forum and showed some images of them. But add robbery. gunshots, thieves and other stuff and the thread will go over 100 posts!
That seller was an idiot in many ways and it's fortunate that no bystanders got shot. I also get the impression a handful of posters here have no issues with the old wild vigilante West trying to come back.
@renomedphys said:
I strongly disagree with several of the posters here. The whole point of “stand your ground” is for defense of life, not possessions. And while the premise of that law makes sense in theory, in practice it’s become basically an excuse to shoot anybody you feel like shooting as long as you feel “threatened” which in this case, with the thief running away, the seller was not. I personally hope the seller is arrested and made an example of by the justice system. IMO he’s just another idiot with a self-serving take on self defense who should have his right to carry a firearm stripped.
look up the definition of "robbery". You are confusing "theft" with "robbery". By definition, robbery must include a physical threat. Grabbing coins and running is theft and not robbery.
rob·ber·y
[ˈräb(ə)rē]
noun
the action of taking property unlawfully from a person or place by force or threat of force:
"he was involved in drugs, extortion, and robbery" · "an armed robbery"
@renomedphys said:
I strongly disagree with several of the posters here. The whole point of “stand your ground” is for defense of life, not possessions. And while the premise of that law makes sense in theory, in practice it’s become basically an excuse to shoot anybody you feel like shooting as long as you feel “threatened” which in this case, with the thief running away, the seller was not. I personally hope the seller is arrested and made an example of by the justice system. IMO he’s just another idiot with a self-serving take on self defense who should have his right to carry a firearm stripped.
Okay, so I guess his mistake was that he let the robbery take place without first drawing his weapon to prevent it? I did read that right?
Edited to add: I think the premise of the law is such that you can use or discharge a firearm in order to prevent a crime from taking place against you or a loved one, or anyone really. There is inherent risk in an emergent situation, and one could never be sure of the perpetrator’s actions in a defensive situation, so there is a “fear for life” implied in the act. But once the crime has occurred you can’t just go all vigilante and start shooting to maybe kill.
There was actually NO ROBBERY in this incident. There was a theft. [see my prior post]
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Under what conditions do you have the right to protect your property? For instance someone stealing your car right in front of you.
By shooting an unarmed thief? Never.
Your physical well being needs to be at risk.
Which can occur during a theft even if they are eventually found to have been unarmed.
So not never
Most states allow deadly force to protect against any serious bodily injury which includes being choked, beaten unconscious, broken bones, etc.
NO, the answer is NEVER.
The question asked was when do you have the right to "protect your property". The law only allows you to use force to protect your SELF (or another human) not simply your PROPERTY.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Under what conditions do you have the right to protect your property? For instance someone stealing your car right in front of you.
By shooting an unarmed thief? Never.
Your physical well being needs to be at risk.
How about a baseball bat or similar non firearm in a robbery situation where the perp is unarmed or armed with a knife.
You can only use deadly force to protect humans (self or others). Your question asked about property. You are never allowed to use deadly force to protect PROPERTY.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Under what conditions do you have the right to protect your property? For instance someone stealing your car right in front of you.
By shooting an unarmed thief? Never.
Your physical well being needs to be at risk.
Which can occur during a theft even if they are eventually found to have been unarmed.
So not never
Most states allow deadly force to protect against any serious bodily injury which includes being choked, beaten unconscious, broken bones, etc.
NO, the answer is NEVER.
The question asked was when do you have the right to "protect your property". The law only allows you to use force to protect your SELF (or another human) not simply your PROPERTY.
You said theft. There are incidences where a theft, not burglary or robbery, can turn into a deadly force situation. But yes that is to protect yourself and not your property.
An interesting distinction not brought up is that in these crimes, a home Burglaryfor example , the victim’s perception of threat is the only thing that matters. If someone breaks in to steal your tv and you shoot them, it’s justified due to your perceived threat from that person unlawfully being there (you don’t know what he wants)
If a person has a reasonable belief that serious bodily injury or death could occur from another person’s actions I.e. a vehicle theft or vehicle burglary etc., deadly force could be justified. It depends on the circumstances.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Under what conditions do you have the right to protect your property? For instance someone stealing your car right in front of you.
By shooting an unarmed thief? Never.
Your physical well being needs to be at risk.
Which can occur during a theft even if they are eventually found to have been unarmed.
So not never
Most states allow deadly force to protect against any serious bodily injury which includes being choked, beaten unconscious, broken bones, etc.
NO, the answer is NEVER.
The question asked was when do you have the right to "protect your property". The law only allows you to use force to protect your SELF (or another human) not simply your PROPERTY.
You said theft. There are incidences where a theft, not burglary or robbery, can turn into a deadly force situation. But yes that is to protect yourself and not your property.
An interesting distinction not brought up is that in these crimes, a home Burglaryfor example , the victim’s perception of threat is the only thing that matters. If someone breaks in to steal your tv and you shoot them, it’s justified due to your perceived threat from that person unlawfully being there (you don’t know what he wants)
If a person has a reasonable belief that serious bodily injury or death could occur from another person’s actions I.e. a vehicle theft or vehicle burglary etc., deadly force could be justified. It depends on the circumstances.
Per your last paragraph. An example would be thus: a person stealing your car and in the process attempts to run you over. You are then justified using deadly force.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Under what conditions do you have the right to protect your property? For instance someone stealing your car right in front of you.
By shooting an unarmed thief? Never.
Your physical well being needs to be at risk.
Which can occur during a theft even if they are eventually found to have been unarmed.
So not never
Most states allow deadly force to protect against any serious bodily injury which includes being choked, beaten unconscious, broken bones, etc.
NO, the answer is NEVER.
The question asked was when do you have the right to "protect your property". The law only allows you to use force to protect your SELF (or another human) not simply your PROPERTY.
You said theft. There are incidences where a theft, not burglary or robbery, can turn into a deadly force situation. But yes that is to protect yourself and not your property.
An interesting distinction not brought up is that in these crimes, a home Burglaryfor example , the victim’s perception of threat is the only thing that matters. If someone breaks in to steal your tv and you shoot them, it’s justified due to your perceived threat from that person unlawfully being there (you don’t know what he wants)
If a person has a reasonable belief that serious bodily injury or death could occur from another person’s actions I.e. a vehicle theft or vehicle burglary etc., deadly force could be justified. It depends on the circumstances.
Per your last paragraph. An example would be thus: a person stealing your car and in the process attempts to run you over. You are then justified using deadly force.
But, again, the deadly force is NOT being used to defend property.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Under what conditions do you have the right to protect your property? For instance someone stealing your car right in front of you.
By shooting an unarmed thief? Never.
Your physical well being needs to be at risk.
Which can occur during a theft even if they are eventually found to have been unarmed.
So not never
Most states allow deadly force to protect against any serious bodily injury which includes being choked, beaten unconscious, broken bones, etc.
NO, the answer is NEVER.
The question asked was when do you have the right to "protect your property". The law only allows you to use force to protect your SELF (or another human) not simply your PROPERTY.
You said theft. There are incidences where a theft, not burglary or robbery, can turn into a deadly force situation. But yes that is to protect yourself and not your property.
An interesting distinction not brought up is that in these crimes, a home Burglaryfor example , the victim’s perception of threat is the only thing that matters. If someone breaks in to steal your tv and you shoot them, it’s justified due to your perceived threat from that person unlawfully being there (you don’t know what he wants)
If a person has a reasonable belief that serious bodily injury or death could occur from another person’s actions I.e. a vehicle theft or vehicle burglary etc., deadly force could be justified. It depends on the circumstances.
No. I did not mention theft. Although technically theft probably cannot include physical threat. That would be a robbery.
The question posted asked when you can shoot to defend PROPERTY. I said, and continue to say, that you can NEVER shoot an unarmed thief (to defend your property). You cannot simply separate the answer from the question. But, we agree, you can use force to protect yourself or others.
None of that, however, is germane to this story where the individual fired at the back of a fleeing thief. He is lucky that he didn't kill the man. As it is, he's likely to be convicted of aggravated assault.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Under what conditions do you have the right to protect your property? For instance someone stealing your car right in front of you.
I believe a person always has a right to protect themselves and their property, even though I acknowledge that the law doesn't always recognize that right.
If the law doesn't acknowledge a right, it's not a right.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Under what conditions do you have the right to protect your property? For instance someone stealing your car right in front of you.
By shooting an unarmed thief? Never.
Your physical well being needs to be at risk.
Which can occur during a theft even if they are eventually found to have been unarmed.
So not never
Most states allow deadly force to protect against any serious bodily injury which includes being choked, beaten unconscious, broken bones, etc.
NO, the answer is NEVER.
The question asked was when do you have the right to "protect your property". The law only allows you to use force to protect your SELF (or another human) not simply your PROPERTY.
You said theft. There are incidences where a theft, not burglary or robbery, can turn into a deadly force situation. But yes that is to protect yourself and not your property.
An interesting distinction not brought up is that in these crimes, a home Burglaryfor example , the victim’s perception of threat is the only thing that matters. If someone breaks in to steal your tv and you shoot them, it’s justified due to your perceived threat from that person unlawfully being there (you don’t know what he wants)
If a person has a reasonable belief that serious bodily injury or death could occur from another person’s actions I.e. a vehicle theft or vehicle burglary etc., deadly force could be justified. It depends on the circumstances.
No. I did not mention theft. Although technically theft probably cannot include physical threat. That would be a robbery.
The question posted asked when you can shoot to defend PROPERTY. I said, and continue to say, that you can NEVER shoot an unarmed thief (to defend your property). You cannot simply separate the answer from the question. But, we agree, you can use force to protect yourself or others.
None of that, however, is germane to this story where the individual fired at the back of a fleeing thief. He is lucky that he didn't kill the man. As it is, he's likely to be convicted of aggravated assault.
You said “you can never shoot an Unarmed thief”. A thief is a person committing a theft.
I was just pointing out that this isn’t always the case. A person with a reasonable belief that they are in imminent danger can be justified using deadly force and it doesn’t always involve brandishing a weapon or verbal threats.
In this scenario, a person running away, not so much
@bsshog40 said:
In Texas, you CAN defend your property with deadly force. You can defend yourself, your family, your property and others that are in emminate danger.
Texas penal code does allow for protection of property with deadly force but it has to have been taken by force, threat or fraud. The first two equate to robbery.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Under what conditions do you have the right to protect your property? For instance someone stealing your car right in front of you.
By shooting an unarmed thief? Never.
Your physical well being needs to be at risk.
Which can occur during a theft even if they are eventually found to have been unarmed.
So not never
Most states allow deadly force to protect against any serious bodily injury which includes being choked, beaten unconscious, broken bones, etc.
NO, the answer is NEVER.
The question asked was when do you have the right to "protect your property". The law only allows you to use force to protect your SELF (or another human) not simply your PROPERTY.
You said theft. There are incidences where a theft, not burglary or robbery, can turn into a deadly force situation. But yes that is to protect yourself and not your property.
An interesting distinction not brought up is that in these crimes, a home Burglaryfor example , the victim’s perception of threat is the only thing that matters. If someone breaks in to steal your tv and you shoot them, it’s justified due to your perceived threat from that person unlawfully being there (you don’t know what he wants)
If a person has a reasonable belief that serious bodily injury or death could occur from another person’s actions I.e. a vehicle theft or vehicle burglary etc., deadly force could be justified. It depends on the circumstances.
No. I did not mention theft. Although technically theft probably cannot include physical threat. That would be a robbery.
The question posted asked when you can shoot to defend PROPERTY. I said, and continue to say, that you can NEVER shoot an unarmed thief (to defend your property). You cannot simply separate the answer from the question. But, we agree, you can use force to protect yourself or others.
None of that, however, is germane to this story where the individual fired at the back of a fleeing thief. He is lucky that he didn't kill the man. As it is, he's likely to be convicted of aggravated assault.
You said “you can never shoot an Unarmed thief”. A thief is a person committing a theft.
I was just pointing out that this isn’t always the case. A person with a reasonable belief that they are in imminent danger can be justified using deadly force and it doesn’t always involve brandishing a weapon or verbal threats.
In this scenario, a person running away, not so much
Again, you cannot separate my answer from the question posed. However, even if you do, it is correct.
Theft is not robbery.
Theft, by definition, does not include physical threat.
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Under what conditions do you have the right to protect your property? For instance someone stealing your car right in front of you.
By shooting an unarmed thief? Never.
Your physical well being needs to be at risk.
Which can occur during a theft even if they are eventually found to have been unarmed.
So not never
Most states allow deadly force to protect against any serious bodily injury which includes being choked, beaten unconscious, broken bones, etc.
NO, the answer is NEVER.
The question asked was when do you have the right to "protect your property". The law only allows you to use force to protect your SELF (or another human) not simply your PROPERTY.
You said theft. There are incidences where a theft, not burglary or robbery, can turn into a deadly force situation. But yes that is to protect yourself and not your property.
An interesting distinction not brought up is that in these crimes, a home Burglaryfor example , the victim’s perception of threat is the only thing that matters. If someone breaks in to steal your tv and you shoot them, it’s justified due to your perceived threat from that person unlawfully being there (you don’t know what he wants)
If a person has a reasonable belief that serious bodily injury or death could occur from another person’s actions I.e. a vehicle theft or vehicle burglary etc., deadly force could be justified. It depends on the circumstances.
No. I did not mention theft. Although technically theft probably cannot include physical threat. That would be a robbery.
The question posted asked when you can shoot to defend PROPERTY. I said, and continue to say, that you can NEVER shoot an unarmed thief (to defend your property). You cannot simply separate the answer from the question. But, we agree, you can use force to protect yourself or others.
None of that, however, is germane to this story where the individual fired at the back of a fleeing thief. He is lucky that he didn't kill the man. As it is, he's likely to be convicted of aggravated assault.
You said “you can never shoot an Unarmed thief”. A thief is a person committing a theft.
I was just pointing out that this isn’t always the case. A person with a reasonable belief that they are in imminent danger can be justified using deadly force and it doesn’t always involve brandishing a weapon or verbal threats.
In this scenario, a person running away, not so much
Again, you cannot separate my answer from the question posed. However, even if you do, it is correct.
Theft is not robbery.
Theft, by definition, does not include physical threat.
But we mostly agree.
Again, the point I am trying to make is that the threat doesn’t actually have to have been made, but only the reasonable belief by the victim that it exists
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Under what conditions do you have the right to protect your property? For instance someone stealing your car right in front of you.
I believe a person always has a right to protect themselves and their property, even though I acknowledge that the law doesn't always recognize that right.
If the law doesn't acknowledge a right, it's not a right.
I disagree. Sometimes lawmakers get it wrong. Laws have varied all over the world and all through history, but the right to defend ourselves and our property is inherent, and self evident.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Under what conditions do you have the right to protect your property? For instance someone stealing your car right in front of you.
I believe a person always has a right to protect themselves and their property, even though I acknowledge that the law doesn't always recognize that right.
If the law doesn't acknowledge a right, it's not a right.
I disagree. Sometimes lawmakers get it wrong. Laws have varied all over the world and all through history, but the right to defend ourselves and our property is inherent, and self evident.
Divine right? A "legal right" can only exist if the lawmakers make it so. Hard to have a civilization based on divine rights.
There's also nothing "self evident" about the right to use deadly force to prevent the theft of a coin.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Under what conditions do you have the right to protect your property? For instance someone stealing your car right in front of you.
I believe a person always has a right to protect themselves and their property, even though I acknowledge that the law doesn't always recognize that right.
If the law doesn't acknowledge a right, it's not a right.
I disagree. Sometimes lawmakers get it wrong. Laws have varied all over the world and all through history, but the right to defend ourselves and our property is inherent, and self evident.
Divine right? A "legal right" can only exist if the lawmakers make it so. Hard to have a civilization based on divine rights.
There's also nothing "self evident" about the right to use deadly force to prevent the theft of a coin.
I'll say it again, i disagree.
It's the principle of it, if more thieves were afraid of their intended victims, maybe there'd be less thievery. They're obviously not afraid of the law. The state can't be everywhere at once, it can't protect everyone, so sometimes we have to protect ourselves. You can disagree but you're not going to change my mind.
In my state you have to take a class to carry. The main thing they teach is this very topic.
You must be in fear for your life to even pull your weapon. You can't shoot someone that is running away. You can chase them down on foot and beat the heck out of them but you better not kill them.
You also can't get in a car chase if you go over the speed limit. Both drivers will go to jail but the DA may or may not charge you.
All the rules change if the bad guy is in your home. You can protect yourself but can't chase them out of the house and shoot them.
It's all about being in fear for your life.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Under what conditions do you have the right to protect your property? For instance someone stealing your car right in front of you.
I believe a person always has a right to protect themselves and their property, even though I acknowledge that the law doesn't always recognize that right.
If the law doesn't acknowledge a right, it's not a right.
I disagree. Sometimes lawmakers get it wrong. Laws have varied all over the world and all through history, but the right to defend ourselves and our property is inherent, and self evident.
Divine right? A "legal right" can only exist if the lawmakers make it so. Hard to have a civilization based on divine rights.
There's also nothing "self evident" about the right to use deadly force to prevent the theft of a coin.
I'll say it again, i disagree.
It's the principle of it, if more thieves were afraid of their intended victims, maybe there'd be less thievery. They're obviously not afraid of the law. The state can't be everywhere at once, it can't protect everyone, so sometimes we have to protect ourselves. You can disagree but you're not going to change my mind.
He’s talking about legalities - you’re not.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Under what conditions do you have the right to protect your property? For instance someone stealing your car right in front of you.
I believe a person always has a right to protect themselves and their property, even though I acknowledge that the law doesn't always recognize that right.
If the law doesn't acknowledge a right, it's not a right.
I disagree. Sometimes lawmakers get it wrong. Laws have varied all over the world and all through history, but the right to defend ourselves and our property is inherent, and self evident.
Divine right? A "legal right" can only exist if the lawmakers make it so. Hard to have a civilization based on divine rights.
There's also nothing "self evident" about the right to use deadly force to prevent the theft of a coin.
I'll say it again, i disagree.
It's the principle of it, if more thieves were afraid of their intended victims, maybe there'd be less thievery. They're obviously not afraid of the law. The state can't be everywhere at once, it can't protect everyone, so sometimes we have to protect ourselves. You can disagree but you're not going to change my mind.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Under what conditions do you have the right to protect your property? For instance someone stealing your car right in front of you.
By shooting an unarmed thief? Never.
Your physical well being needs to be at risk.
How about a baseball bat or similar non firearm in a robbery situation where the perp is unarmed or armed with a knife.
You can only use deadly force to protect humans (self or others). Your question asked about property. You are never allowed to use deadly force to protect PROPERTY.
I would have to disagree per se. Take the home invasion scenario for instance. It’s midnight, your watching TV, the front door is kicked in and in a matter of seconds two-three perps are in your house to rob you, not kill you, just intimidate you until they get what they want. They never had the intention of harming you, just steal from you. Would you use deadly force? They just want your property? How do you know what they are thinking? Most robbers that rob banks and gas stations have a gun but never intend to use it, just intimidate victims to get what they want. Sometimes you get the desperate ruthless robber that will kill for $25 in the till. I would say in some instances you are justified to protect your property. But again, it’s up to a grand jury if you will be indicted.
I once worked with a LEO that was dispatched for a disruptive individual with a dog in a grocery store parking lot at noon on a Saturday. Long story short, the perp had a rock in his hand and raised it to hit the LEO and the LEO let a .45 loose into his heart and killed the perp in front of many bystanders. They crucified the LEO, saying the perp had a rock, LEO was not justified in shooting. The grand jury ruled in favor of the LEO stating the rock could have killed the LEO.
As a former LEO I had seen many people beat to death with fists, faces unrecognizable. Yes, you can use deadly force against someone with no weapon per se, you can be dealt death with bare hands. It happens often in domestic abuse cases, where the victim killed the perp during a beating, usually one of many.
This is where the DA/SA has the power…….if they have a political agenda, they could do anything they want to charge you. It’s then up to a judge or jury in that case.
Based on all of this, sometimes a person is better off unarmed and avoid all civil and legal problems that would arise from such scenarios. And there are people that refuse to lose their one and only precious lives that we have been gifted and will go to all means to protect it, such as myself.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
Who cares about rights when dealing with wrongs ? Remember Calvary? Those were thieves hanging next to Jesus. Death ain't so bad.
This is in the running for worst post of all time.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Under what conditions do you have the right to protect your property? For instance someone stealing your car right in front of you.
By shooting an unarmed thief? Never.
Your physical well being needs to be at risk.
How about a baseball bat or similar non firearm in a robbery situation where the perp is unarmed or armed with a knife.
You can only use deadly force to protect humans (self or others). Your question asked about property. You are never allowed to use deadly force to protect PROPERTY.
This is incorrect. Joe Horn successfully defended his neighbors property when burglars stole from the neighbor who was out of town. No lives were at risk except the perpetrators and they paid for their crimes.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
Who cares about rights when dealing with wrongs ? Remember Calvary? Those were thieves hanging next to Jesus. Death ain't so bad.
This is in the running for worst post of all time.
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
This thread would have been a lot more sedate and sleepy if somehow the seller posted the coins he was selling on this forum and showed some images of them. But add robbery. gunshots, thieves and other stuff and the thread will go over 100 posts!
That seller was an idiot in many ways and it's fortunate that no bystanders got shot. I also get the impression a handful of posters here have no issues with the old wild vigilante West trying to come back.
The old Wild West was only vigilante until law and order was established.
I would have no issues with a return to law and order that makes coin sales safe.
Within the past year or so there has been awareness made through this forum in regards to coin/currency thefts that have been on the rise and where thieves are getting more sophisticated in victimizing their targets. I know I appreciate the information that is getting passed along to all of us and helping us to remain safe and victim free in our hobby. The thieves are getting smarter and bolder, we also need to keep educated and aware to remain safe. Sometimes these posts go south and off topic but I generally believe they are very informative and helpful to us. I didn’t know about tracking devices being used, multiple tails following people from shows and inside jobs being done at shows.
I disagree. Sometimes lawmakers get it wrong. Laws have varied all over the world and all through history, but the right to defend ourselves and our property is inherent, and self evident.
Divine right? A "legal right" can only exist if the lawmakers make it so. Hard to have a civilization based on divine rights.
Not Divine right, but natural rights. John Locke and others believed in "natural rights" as "life, liberty, and estate [property]." Private property rights were extremely important in USA formation, and these natural rights became inherent in The Declaration, the Constitition, and the Bill of Rights, becoming legal rights. Of course, state laws differ in the interpretation of these rights, and some have been determined unconstitutional at times.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
I disagree. Sometimes lawmakers get it wrong. Laws have varied all over the world and all through history, but the right to defend ourselves and our property is inherent, and self evident.
Divine right? A "legal right" can only exist if the lawmakers make it so. Hard to have a civilization based on divine rights.
Not Divine right, but natural rights. John Locke and others believed in "natural rights" as "life, liberty, and estate [property]." Private property rights were extremely important in USA formation, and these natural rights became inherent in The Declaration, the Constitition, and the Bill of Rights, becoming legal rights. Of course, state laws differ in the interpretation of these rights, and some have been determined unconstitutional at times.
Any "right" not codified in law is detrimental to the social order. There is no binding social contract and what you consider a natural right, someone else might not.
@jmlanzaf
Any "right" not codified in law is detrimental to the social order. There is no binding social contract and what you consider a natural right, someone else might not.
Just quoting history. Natural rights including property were emphasized by political philosophers John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Paine, and others, and were incorporated into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Private property rights are very important in the USA, not so in Russia, North Korea, or Cuba.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
I disagree. Sometimes lawmakers get it wrong. Laws have varied all over the world and all through history, but the right to defend ourselves and our property is inherent, and self evident.
Divine right? A "legal right" can only exist if the lawmakers make it so. Hard to have a civilization based on divine rights.
Not Divine right, but natural rights. John Locke and others believed in "natural rights" as "life, liberty, and estate [property]." Private property rights were extremely important in USA formation, and these natural rights became inherent in The Declaration, the Constitition, and the Bill of Rights, becoming legal rights. Of course, state laws differ in the interpretation of these rights, and some have been determined unconstitutional at times.
Any "right" not codified in law is detrimental to the social order. There is no binding social contract and what you consider a natural right, someone else might not.
For example, several/many people here believe that death is an appropriate sentence for thievery. Given the quote, they may also believe it is right via divine ordinance. I don't want to speak for others but to me the interpretation seems pretty clear. These people are firm in their belief.
I and many others are equally firm in our beliefs that even criminals have inalienable rights, whether they are good people or no.
Who is right? Whose beliefs trump the others' beliefs?
(The Constitution and innumerable other laws have already decided this but that is a different conversation.)
I disagree. Sometimes lawmakers get it wrong. Laws have varied all over the world and all through history, but the right to defend ourselves and our property is inherent, and self evident.
Divine right? A "legal right" can only exist if the lawmakers make it so. Hard to have a civilization based on divine rights.
Not Divine right, but natural rights. John Locke and others believed in "natural rights" as "life, liberty, and estate [property]." Private property rights were extremely important in USA formation, and these natural rights became inherent in The Declaration, the Constitition, and the Bill of Rights, becoming legal rights. Of course, state laws differ in the interpretation of these rights, and some have been determined unconstitutional at times.
Any "right" not codified in law is detrimental to the social order. There is no binding social contract and what you consider a natural right, someone else might not.
For example, several/many people here believe that death is an appropriate sentence for thievery. Given the quote, they may also believe it is right via divine ordinance. I don't want to speak for others but to me the interpretation seems pretty clear. These people are firm in their belief.
I and many others are equally firm in our beliefs that even criminals have inalienable rights, whether they are good people or no.
Who is right? Whose beliefs trump the others' beliefs?
(The Constitution and innumerable other laws have already decided this but that is a different conversation.)
I find this thread disturbing... and not because of the thief.
Comments
I probably wouldn't vote to convict, if i were a juror.
State laws vary on when deadly force is justified.
Shooting a running suspect in the back is wrong and illegal. Firing a warning shot in some states is considered the use of deadly force, or at least reckless discharge. Even brandishing a weapon, in this case of the perp running away, is a misdemeanor. Lawyers will use every tactic to turn the victim into a criminal, and can take away their right to bear arms. Know your state and local gun laws, if you have a CPL.
This thread would have been a lot more sedate and sleepy if somehow the seller posted the coins he was selling on this forum and showed some images of them. But add robbery. gunshots, thieves and other stuff and the thread will go over 100 posts!
That seller was an idiot in many ways and it's fortunate that no bystanders got shot. I also get the impression a handful of posters here have no issues with the old wild vigilante West trying to come back.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Well, if there is any state where you may be able to get away with shooting a fleeing thief in the back, Texas is a good choice.
Maybe the robber and shooter can share a prison cell. Now that would be funny.
…
Which can occur during a theft even if they are eventually found to have been unarmed.
So not never
Most states allow deadly force to protect against any serious bodily injury which includes being choked, beaten unconscious, broken bones, etc.
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
New age hanging of horse thieves.
Try doing a gun deal in a random shopping center parking lot, better to have a piece than not.
How about a baseball bat or similar non firearm in a robbery situation where the perp is unarmed or armed with a knife.
Read my post.
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
look up the definition of "robbery". You are confusing "theft" with "robbery". By definition, robbery must include a physical threat. Grabbing coins and running is theft and not robbery.
rob·ber·y
[ˈräb(ə)rē]
noun
the action of taking property unlawfully from a person or place by force or threat of force:
"he was involved in drugs, extortion, and robbery" · "an armed robbery"
There was actually NO ROBBERY in this incident. There was a theft. [see my prior post]
I am aware of NO STATE LAW that allows for deadly force except for defense of an individual.
NO, the answer is NEVER.
The question asked was when do you have the right to "protect your property". The law only allows you to use force to protect your SELF (or another human) not simply your PROPERTY.
You can only use deadly force to protect humans (self or others). Your question asked about property. You are never allowed to use deadly force to protect PROPERTY.
You said theft. There are incidences where a theft, not burglary or robbery, can turn into a deadly force situation. But yes that is to protect yourself and not your property.
An interesting distinction not brought up is that in these crimes, a home Burglaryfor example , the victim’s perception of threat is the only thing that matters. If someone breaks in to steal your tv and you shoot them, it’s justified due to your perceived threat from that person unlawfully being there (you don’t know what he wants)
If a person has a reasonable belief that serious bodily injury or death could occur from another person’s actions I.e. a vehicle theft or vehicle burglary etc., deadly force could be justified. It depends on the circumstances.
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
Per your last paragraph. An example would be thus: a person stealing your car and in the process attempts to run you over. You are then justified using deadly force.
But, again, the deadly force is NOT being used to defend property.
No. I did not mention theft. Although technically theft probably cannot include physical threat. That would be a robbery.
The question posted asked when you can shoot to defend PROPERTY. I said, and continue to say, that you can NEVER shoot an unarmed thief (to defend your property). You cannot simply separate the answer from the question. But, we agree, you can use force to protect yourself or others.
None of that, however, is germane to this story where the individual fired at the back of a fleeing thief. He is lucky that he didn't kill the man. As it is, he's likely to be convicted of aggravated assault.
If the law doesn't acknowledge a right, it's not a right.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
You said “you can never shoot an Unarmed thief”. A thief is a person committing a theft.
I was just pointing out that this isn’t always the case. A person with a reasonable belief that they are in imminent danger can be justified using deadly force and it doesn’t always involve brandishing a weapon or verbal threats.
In this scenario, a person running away, not so much
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
In Texas, you CAN defend your property with deadly force. You can defend yourself, your family, your property and others that are in emminate danger.
My Original Song Written to my late wife-"Plus other original music by me"
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8A11CC8CC6093D80
https://n1m.com/bobbysmith1
Texas penal code does allow for protection of property with deadly force but it has to have been taken by force, threat or fraud. The first two equate to robbery.
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
Again, you cannot separate my answer from the question posed. However, even if you do, it is correct.
Theft is not robbery.
Theft, by definition, does not include physical threat.
But we mostly agree.
.
Texas Penal Code
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Again, the point I am trying to make is that the threat doesn’t actually have to have been made, but only the reasonable belief by the victim that it exists
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
I disagree. Sometimes lawmakers get it wrong. Laws have varied all over the world and all through history, but the right to defend ourselves and our property is inherent, and self evident.
Does anyone know what the "rare coins" were?
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
Divine right? A "legal right" can only exist if the lawmakers make it so. Hard to have a civilization based on divine rights.
There's also nothing "self evident" about the right to use deadly force to prevent the theft of a coin.
Does anyone know what the "rare coins" were?
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
I'll say it again, i disagree.
It's the principle of it, if more thieves were afraid of their intended victims, maybe there'd be less thievery. They're obviously not afraid of the law. The state can't be everywhere at once, it can't protect everyone, so sometimes we have to protect ourselves. You can disagree but you're not going to change my mind.
In my state you have to take a class to carry. The main thing they teach is this very topic.
You must be in fear for your life to even pull your weapon. You can't shoot someone that is running away. You can chase them down on foot and beat the heck out of them but you better not kill them.
You also can't get in a car chase if you go over the speed limit. Both drivers will go to jail but the DA may or may not charge you.
All the rules change if the bad guy is in your home. You can protect yourself but can't chase them out of the house and shoot them.
It's all about being in fear for your life.
He’s talking about legalities - you’re not.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Yes, i know.
Who cares about rights when dealing with wrongs ? Remember Calvary? Those were thieves hanging next to Jesus. Death ain't so bad.
I would have to disagree per se. Take the home invasion scenario for instance. It’s midnight, your watching TV, the front door is kicked in and in a matter of seconds two-three perps are in your house to rob you, not kill you, just intimidate you until they get what they want. They never had the intention of harming you, just steal from you. Would you use deadly force? They just want your property? How do you know what they are thinking? Most robbers that rob banks and gas stations have a gun but never intend to use it, just intimidate victims to get what they want. Sometimes you get the desperate ruthless robber that will kill for $25 in the till. I would say in some instances you are justified to protect your property. But again, it’s up to a grand jury if you will be indicted.
I once worked with a LEO that was dispatched for a disruptive individual with a dog in a grocery store parking lot at noon on a Saturday. Long story short, the perp had a rock in his hand and raised it to hit the LEO and the LEO let a .45 loose into his heart and killed the perp in front of many bystanders. They crucified the LEO, saying the perp had a rock, LEO was not justified in shooting. The grand jury ruled in favor of the LEO stating the rock could have killed the LEO.
As a former LEO I had seen many people beat to death with fists, faces unrecognizable. Yes, you can use deadly force against someone with no weapon per se, you can be dealt death with bare hands. It happens often in domestic abuse cases, where the victim killed the perp during a beating, usually one of many.
This is where the DA/SA has the power…….if they have a political agenda, they could do anything they want to charge you. It’s then up to a judge or jury in that case.
Based on all of this, sometimes a person is better off unarmed and avoid all civil and legal problems that would arise from such scenarios. And there are people that refuse to lose their one and only precious lives that we have been gifted and will go to all means to protect it, such as myself.
This is in the running for worst post of all time.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
Sounds like two dumb people met in a parking lot.
Dave
This is incorrect. Joe Horn successfully defended his neighbors property when burglars stole from the neighbor who was out of town. No lives were at risk except the perpetrators and they paid for their crimes.
Castle doctrine.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
The old Wild West was only vigilante until law and order was established.
I would have no issues with a return to law and order that makes coin sales safe.
Yes, you are aware of NO STATE LAW, but there is such a law where the shooting occurred in Texas. Read my other post with the link to the legal site.
Within the past year or so there has been awareness made through this forum in regards to coin/currency thefts that have been on the rise and where thieves are getting more sophisticated in victimizing their targets. I know I appreciate the information that is getting passed along to all of us and helping us to remain safe and victim free in our hobby. The thieves are getting smarter and bolder, we also need to keep educated and aware to remain safe. Sometimes these posts go south and off topic but I generally believe they are very informative and helpful to us. I didn’t know about tracking devices being used, multiple tails following people from shows and inside jobs being done at shows.
@Atcarroll
@jmlanzaf
Not Divine right, but natural rights. John Locke and others believed in "natural rights" as "life, liberty, and estate [property]." Private property rights were extremely important in USA formation, and these natural rights became inherent in The Declaration, the Constitition, and the Bill of Rights, becoming legal rights. Of course, state laws differ in the interpretation of these rights, and some have been determined unconstitutional at times.
Any "right" not codified in law is detrimental to the social order. There is no binding social contract and what you consider a natural right, someone else might not.
Just quoting history. Natural rights including property were emphasized by political philosophers John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Paine, and others, and were incorporated into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Private property rights are very important in the USA, not so in Russia, North Korea, or Cuba.
For example, several/many people here believe that death is an appropriate sentence for thievery. Given the quote, they may also believe it is right via divine ordinance. I don't want to speak for others but to me the interpretation seems pretty clear. These people are firm in their belief.
I and many others are equally firm in our beliefs that even criminals have inalienable rights, whether they are good people or no.
Who is right? Whose beliefs trump the others' beliefs?
(The Constitution and innumerable other laws have already decided this but that is a different conversation.)
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
I find this thread disturbing... and not because of the thief.