Defense of person and property?
 

First off, this is NOT a gun control thread -- please do not turn it into one.

To what degree should a person be able to defend his or her property?

If someone is attempting to steal your $25,000 car should someone be able to use lethal force to attempt it from being stolen? What line are you willing to draw between theft of property, and potential harm to person which justifies doing bodily harm and/or fatal harm to a criminal?

In Minnesota it is illegal for a home-owner to defend their property if they are not in "imminent life-threatening danger." Meaning, as soon as a criminal turns their back on you, you cannot pursue or harm them. This seems to be placing a huge burden on the lawful home-owner, not the criminal, which is incredibly backwards imho.

I think you should have the right to use any means to protect your property, without fear of prosocution from the law.
Whats mine is mine and dare you try take it

If you are in physical danger, you have every right to use whatever force neccessary to protect yourself, including lethal force. When it comes to property, you have the right to use the neccessary force in order to get back the property or protect it, but lethal force would be totally unneccesary.

Also, I think you are misinterpretting the Minnesota law. It certainly wouldn't be illegal to pursue the criminal. And no one would bring charges if you just roughed the guy up a bit or threathened him with your gun. Its only when you start shooting indiscriminately that you're in trouble.

while stealing a $25k car is a pretty asshole thing to do, i still think its probably right to have something that says its not cool to plug the guy in the back for it.

the law is intended to prevent vigilanteism, and i'd agree with it to a fair extent. Do you really want people chasing the baddies themselves, prolonging the conflict and the likelyhood that somebody gets whacked? There is a reason we have professional police forces. Amatours make shitty policemen.

Totally agree with this. I think you would be legally able to defend yourself in a situation like this. I think what the law attempts to say is that if the guy is like off your property leaving you can't put 10 slugs in his back. I don't think there is a court in the world (wait maybe California) that would convict of you murder or assualt if you fuck up a criminal in your own home.

In Minnesota, the use of a firearm in defense is considered "lethal force" regardless of whether or not death results from the shot.

Minnesota has something commonly referred to as a "duty to flee law" which makes it illegal to pursue a criminal. On top of that, it is currently illegal to use "lethal force" unless a criminal is currently in the act of committing a felony. If said criminal is running away (or driving a truck full of all of your belongings away), you are NOT able to give chase, fire upon them, or attempt to stop them in any way.

How do these laws help the victims of crime? By tying them up in the legal system and draining their life's savings in order to pay for a lawyer, while a seasoned criminal gets three more months in jail?

I think we would have many less problems if we gave the property owner the benefit of the doubt in determining if force/lethal force is necessary. Criminals should never be able to sue someone that they unsuccessfully robbed -- that's just ridiculous.

Burglary is a felony. Problem solved! :D

In England some punk kid robbed some guys house...

As the kid was running away the guy shot and killed him.

Said guy gets prison time for the killing.

----

I kind of like the idea that, if you're some dumb ass who breaks the law, the moment you step on someones property with criminal intent your life becomes forfeit.

At the same time, we can't have a country run by vigiliantism, even when its in home defense (over property).

I don't think that victims should be screwed over by the law - but at the same time I don't want them taking the burglars life in their own hands. Even if 'aiming' for a non lethal shot. I'm not sure where to draw the line.

It is a bit two sided at the moment there, on a local level your government tells you that you cannot defend your property, yet on an international level they are saying you threaten my stuff and I will whop your ass.

If someone is in your house how do you know that all he is going to do is rob you ?

It is the criminals fault from the beginning.

The victim would have not killed the criminal had the criminal not broken the law. The victim sees someone on his property that should not be there, is not welcome, and the victim does not know what the criminal is going to do. Fleeing exposes the victims back and it could create a disturbance, which could cause the criminal to come and kill him.

What's the safest thing to do? Kill the criminal. Should the victim be punished for doing so? No.

I wonder what chopping off one of their hands would fall under, probably not lethal.
It's what I will do in that circumstance.
If they want to sue or press charges, they better get placed in the witness relocation program.... I tend to be vengeful.

I think personally, in a situation like that the law goes out the window. However, I think killing over property is a bit much. Self defense and property defense are 2 seperate issues. i would kill, or maim to protect myself or my family or my friends; i would not kill to protect a car or a stereo or a T.V.

I would like to draw a line at commission of the crime. If someone breaks into your house, regardless of if they intend to rape you, murder you, or steal $20 from your wallet, you should be justifiable in shooting/knifing/beating them to death. If they have already committed the crime and are half way down the street, it is now a matter for the police.

I trust the property owner / victim over the criminal in most cases.

I think that if you steal a car, you should be shot. And if you rob a home and get shot, sucks to be you.

What if the criminal is running away but has critical information that could steal the person's identity or something of extreme monatary value that the victim needs desparately. Is the killing justified then?

Yeah, i mean if you're being robbed, you have to assume it is a life or death situation, you would be naive not to. But i think violence is only necessary under the direct or implicit threat of violence.

Life is infinitely more valuable than property. A person has no right what so ever to kill another a person to defend property.

What if the person is trying to steal a gun?

Is it ok to kill to defend your property then?

Obviously that ties into the point bsaid that if you felt it was a life or death situation, then obviously its a big duh.

Now then I have a pretty big stance on life - i would prefer people live than die, and to see people succeed.

But I do agree that there are those that are better off dead than alive. Some criminals truly deserve death because of despicable acts out htere. Others don't or ended up being falsely charged.

As for defense... its one of those things you always see in teh hindsight. Some poor guy gets killed for no reason. Others get off and live.

the police are there to solve crimes, not prevent them. A police officer cannot interfere with a citizen until he has reason to suspect that a crime has been commited. Ask any woman or man who has tried to have a violent roomate removed from thier house, until they see a mark that shows battery may have occured they cannot force a leagal resident to leave the property.

Most self-defense laws state that only an equal or lesser amount of force may be used to defend ones-self, and that force must be stopped as soon as the threat is stopped. This means that if someone threatens you with a baseball bat you cannot shoot them,(excessive force),and as soon as they drop the bat you can no longer attack them.

Now some areas have a "Right to Response" law that allows a person to use whatever force is necessary to end the threat and ensure the attacker will not try again.