KILL THE THIEF! Or not.

[Chardok]

So - How much is a human life worth? Here in San Antonio, the value is, apparently 1 Tailgate. I know, it sounds weird. but RAR the following article:

Article

And now

Check out the comments (PS - I am Chardok)

Scenario - You walk out of your front door, some dude is stealing your tailgate. You have a rifle.

Is it morally okay to kill them?

No fair saying shoot to wound - there is no such thing. If you shoot at him, the attempt is to kill him.

Scenario - You walk out of your front door, Some dude is running away, tailgate under their arm, you have a rifle.

Is it morally okay to kill them?

Scenario - You walk out of your front door, a Toyota Tercel is driving away with a talkgate halfway hanging out of the trunk; you have a rifle.

Is it morally okay to shoot at the car?



The prupose of this thread is to determine if I am an idiot for feeling sad over the state of human affairs, when 1 human life = 1 tailgate.

[Kitsune]

I going to suggest that they don't really mean it. If push came to shove, they would not shoot a person stealing their tailgate.

[Patrick Degan]

The dimbulb who would shoot somebody stealing a tailgate off a vehicle parked on the street should find himself up on a charge of manslaughter. There is no question of either a dangerous intrusion onto your personal property or even inside the home, and certainly no question of imminent threat to life or the inability to retreat in safety.

As for the notion of shooting somebody over a tailgate, that's retarded. Things aren't worth a human life, and the dollar value is immaterial. Moron-boy has a major malfunction in his head. Either that, or he's just another internet tough-guy who wouldn't have the balls to actually pull the trigger on anybody or even pick up a gun in real life. Either way, fuck him.

[Shroom Man 777]

Not really answering the question, but I'd shoot in the air to scare the living bejesus out of the guy.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Not really answering the question, but I'd shoot in the air to scare the living bejesus out of the guy.

Two days later, the cops arrest your ass for negligent homicide when that bullet you fired into the air killed some little girl on a playground two miles away when it came back down. You are also threatening to use deadly force in an encounter where it simply isn't warranted.

There is nothing about any of the OP scenarios that justifies the use of deadly force, or even the threat of deadly force. The owner's life was not in any immediate danger in either case, and that is the only time when deadly force should be threatened or used.

Not even scenario #3. Shooting at a person's moving vehicle is as good as attempting to murder them, unless you happened to be a master target-shooting robot.

[Mr Bean]

Not really answering the question, but I'd shoot in the air to scare the living bejesus out of the guy.

Two days later, the cops arrest your ass for negligent homicide when that bullet you fired into the air killed some little girl on a playground two miles away when it came back down. You are also threatening to use deadly force in an encounter where it simply isn't warranted.

Funny, except the likelihood of that occurring is incredibly small. Not to mention if you are firing you gun in the air at an 80*-90* Arch it will come down with only terminal velocity force, enough to hurt but not to kill even if your staring skyward. As the Mythbusters were kind enough to demonstrate.

But that's beside the point as I must point out that regardless of saftey conditions firing your gun in the air in most states is illegal in fact in some states(Virginia) it will land you a harsher sentence that stealing the tailgate would would likely be counted as petty theft despite the price-tag because thanks to dumb laws stealing someone's 500$ hubcaps is the same as swiping a candybar.

But I must then point out that this incident occurred in Texas where it is in fact legal to shoot your fire-arms in the air.

[Shroom Man 777]

How about if I shoot at the ground (not pavement, since that might ricochet)? Just so long as the sound of gunfire scares the bejesus out of 'em?

[Knife]

How about if I shoot at the ground (not pavement, since that might ricochet)? Just so long as the sound of gunfire scares the bejesus out of 'em?

Escalation of force. For all intents and purposes, having a cell phone out with 911 would or should be every bit as threatening to the thief than a gun, however, just having the gun should be enough, not firing it. The only reason you should fire a weapon is if you intend to kill someone, and in this scenario; that would be if the thief advanced on you with malice.

[Oskuro]

How about calling out to the thief telling him to stop what he's doing, and only think of using the gun in any fashion if he gets aggressive?

[General Zod]

Scenario - You walk out of your front door, a Toyota Tercel is driving away with a talkgate halfway hanging out of the trunk; you have a rifle.

Is it morally okay to shoot at the car?

Even ignoring morals, this is monumentally stupid on all kinds of levels. There's absolutely nothing to justify shooting at a car as it's driving off regardless of what they stole and the risks involved (suppose you miss as it's driving off and you wind up hitting an innocent bystander? Far too likely.) far outweigh any type of temporary satisfaction to be had from doing so whether you're a crack shot or not.

[Chardok]

Scenario - You walk out of your front door, a Toyota Tercel is driving away with a talkgate halfway hanging out of the trunk; you have a rifle.

Is it morally okay to shoot at the car?

Even ignoring morals, this is monumentally stupid on all kinds of levels. There's absolutely nothing to justify shooting at a car as it's driving off regardless of what they stole and the risks involved (suppose you miss as it's driving off and you wind up hitting an innocent bystander? Far too likely.) far outweigh any type of temporary satisfaction to be had from doing so whether you're a crack shot or not.

No arguments there - I was just wondering about the morality of it. Logic is clearly not the aim here, since to shoot at someone for stealing a tailgate is monumentally stupid in the first place!

[General Zod]

No arguments there - I was just wondering about the morality of it. Logic is clearly not the aim here, since to shoot at someone for stealing a tailgate is monumentally stupid in the first place!

Well, the problem is you can't really determine whether it's moral or not without some type of logical framework. Otherwise you may as well just say "it's okay because God said so".

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Not really answering the question, but I'd shoot in the air to scare the living bejesus out of the guy.

Two days later, the cops arrest your ass for negligent homicide when that bullet you fired into the air killed some little girl on a playground two miles away when it came back down. You are also threatening to use deadly force in an encounter where it simply isn't warranted.

Funny, except the likelihood of that occurring is incredibly small. Not to mention if you are firing you gun in the air at an 80*-90* Arch it will come down with only terminal velocity force, enough to hurt but not to kill even if your staring skyward. As the Mythbusters were kind enough to demonstrate.

You'd have to fire the gun straight up in order for it to come down tumbling. If you go too much beyond straight up, the bullet flies a ballistic, spin-stabilized trajectory, and comes down with considerable force. The MythBusters were also kind enough to point that out.

And yes, the probability that the bullet will come down on a person, instead of their backyard, is fairly remote . . . but is still high enough to make shooting a gun off into the air a stupid idea.

How about if I shoot at the ground (not pavement, since that might ricochet)? Just so long as the sound of gunfire scares the bejesus out of 'em?

As has been pointed out, this is escalating the conflict with the threat of deadly force. Even just brandishing the gun is considered escalating the conflict. Though, legally, coming out with the rifle can be justified, as you don't know whether or not the thief is armed. However, taking aim, or discharging the round into whatever is not justified unless the thief demonstrates that he or she is armed and dangerous.

[Solauren]

Would I shoot at them (with intent to kill)

Scenario #1
If he has a weapon visible on his person. And I don't mean a hammer. I mean like a gun or a large knife or such. Crowbar's don't qualify in this case.

Taking a gun or a large knife when committing a crime is a sign you are willing to use it. Therefore, you are a threat to me.

Scenario #2, #3 -
I can't think of any reason I would, as stated. There are other actions I would take, but shooting to kill isn't one of them.

Now, if they started shooting at me, I would fire back in self defense after diving for cover. Otherwise, nope.

[Chardok]

Would I shoot at them (with intent to kill)

Shooting at someone always implies intent to kill AFAIK in the eyes of the law. I cannot come up with a precedent where someone has used a shoot-to-wound defense successfully.

[Captain Seafort]

Scenario #1
If he has a weapon visible on his person. And I don't mean a hammer. I mean like a gun or a large knife or such. Crowbar's don't qualify in this case.

Taking a gun or a large knife when committing a crime is a sign you are willing to use it. Therefore, you are a threat to me.

And you'd shoot someone simply because they were carrying a weapon?

If the weapon was drawn, fair enough. Until such time they're not an imminent threat.

Shooting at someone always implies intent to kill AFAIK in the eyes of the law.

For that matter why would anyone want to "shoot to wound"?

The only circumstances I could contemplate using a weapon against someone is if they're trying to kill me, in which case turnabout is fair play.

[Broomstick]

How about calling out to the thief telling him to stop what he's doing, and only think of using the gun in any fashion if he gets aggressive?

I was going to mention this scenario.

A few years back my Other Half saw someone trying to break into our truck. Other Half did take the crossbow out with him, as it's the only distance weapon we own, but had it pointed towards the ground, away from the Bad Guy. He basically said "Hey, motherfucker, what are you doing to my truck?"

That's when the thief guy pulled the 18 inch knife out and started for the Other Half. When the knife came up, that's when the crossbow was aimed and fired.*

Police OK'd it as self-defense because a human life was threatened.**

I would say, as much as I'd hate to see the truck go, I can't possibly justify shooting someone over vehicle theft. There has to be a threat to human life before it's justifiable.



* Remember, boys and girls, crossbows are as powerful as firearms. Do not bring a knife - even one long enough to be a short sword - to a crossbow fight

** There was, by the way, a short investigation of the scene to ascertain that my Other Half was telling the truth. The fact the Big Ass Knife was dropped when the thief ran was a point in our favor, as it demonstrated that yes, there was another weapon involved. I mention this so know one gets the idea some geezer can just fire off a weapon with no consequences or questions. Questions WILL be asked, the police WILL investigate, even if it's self-defense there can be consequences you may or may not like.

[Broomstick]

Would I shoot at them (with intent to kill)

Scenario #1
If he has a weapon visible on his person. And I don't mean a hammer. I mean like a gun or a large knife or such. Crowbar's don't qualify in this case.

Question: Why don't you consider hammers and crowbars weapons? Don't you know that those very objects are used to kill people every year? Granted, it's a small number compared to objects whose primary function is that of a weapon, but hammers and crowbars most certainly can be lethal objects. Most tools can function as weapons. If they are used as weapons then the authorities will treat them as weapons. In other words, if someone attempts to beat your skull in with a hammer or crowbar, even if they don't actually connect, you are (at least legally) justified in using force to defend yourself.

[Mr Bean]

You'd have to fire the gun straight up in order for it to come down tumbling. If you go too much beyond straight up, the bullet flies a ballistic, spin-stabilized trajectory, and comes down with considerable force. The MythBusters were also kind enough to point that out.

Mythbusters sadly got it wrong since they tested no angle but 90* but I can tell you that anything over 80* will result in a bullet tumble why? Atmospheric drag plus distance traveled equals loss of stabilization.. If you fire a gun level at a target a mile away you have a few forces acting on it, one is the atoms it's hitting as it flies through the air, the second is gravity dragging it down, and the third major is the wind since there is always some wind even if it's less than one mile per hour.

When you fire the bullet at 90* it loses it's spin stabilization as it flips end over and and only travels at terminal velocity as it comes down. The thing is depending on the bullet 90* is simply not the only degree at which it runs out of juice and wind plus drag stops it spinning while gravity drags it down. Depending on the fire-arm you might be able to get into the 65*-79* arch before the bullet retains it's stabilization. Simply put the *Lighter the round the more likely it is to tumble
(Edit had that backwards)

And yes, the probability that the bullet will come down on a person, instead of their backyard, is fairly remote . . . but is still high enough to make shooting a gun off into the air a stupid idea.

Probability alone, there are less than a dozen deaths by falling gunfire in the US and even in the Middle East where it's still popular to fire off guns at birthday parties than average less than ten a year making it one of those kinds of deaths that are up there with dieing on a roller coaster at an amusement park.

[Coyote]

It's ridiculous to kill someone over such a thing; only if your life or the life of another is being threatened in an obvious manner-- not for such a property crime.

[Solauren]

Scenario #1
If he has a weapon visible on his person. And I don't mean a hammer. I mean like a gun or a large knife or such. Crowbar's don't qualify in this case.

Taking a gun or a large knife when committing a crime is a sign you are willing to use it. Therefore, you are a threat to me.

And you'd shoot someone simply because they were carrying a weapon?

If the weapon was drawn, fair enough. Until such time they're not an imminent threat.

I said visible on his person. AFAIK, mainly from safety lectures at work (Ontario Ministry of Revenue), if someone is carrying an actual weapon on a crime, they intend to, or are willing to use it. I'm not getting shot because I caught someone vandalising a car.

Quite frankly, given my options in this scenario are 'shoot to kill' or 'do nothing', it's shoot to kill. However, if there were other options, I'd probably go with one of the alternates (as long as they were realistic)

Would I shoot at them (with intent to kill)

Scenario #1
If he has a weapon visible on his person. And I don't mean a hammer. I mean like a gun or a large knife or such. Crowbar's don't qualify in this case.

Question: Why don't you consider hammers and crowbars weapons? Don't you know that those very objects are used to kill people every year? Granted, it's a small number compared to objects whose primary function is that of a weapon, but hammers and crowbars most certainly can be lethal objects. Most tools can function as weapons. If they are used as weapons then the authorities will treat them as weapons. In other words, if someone attempts to beat your skull in with a hammer or crowbar, even if they don't actually connect, you are (at least legally) justified in using force to defend yourself.

Oh, I know that. However, the crowbar or hammer in this case is probably meant to be used in the commission of the crime. It's weapon use is secondary. They may not have intent to use it.

Mind you, are distances under 10 feet (I think it's 10 feet, I heard this once), they can get to me before I can aim the rifle so...

[Dark Flame]

Oh, I know that. However, the crowbar or hammer in this case is probably meant to be used in the commission of the crime. It's weapon use is secondary. They may not have intent to use it.

IMO, if they are treating it as a tool, then you should treat it as such. If he's prying the window out of your car door, it's a tool. The second he raises it towards you, it's a weapon in dangerous hands. That's how I would treat it, and that applies to nearly any tool, up to and including a knife.

If there's a gun, then I would draw and aim. I'm not waiting for him to raise his gun, because, as Solauren said, if he brought a gun with him, he has intent to use it. I'd take no chances on it.

Mind you, are distances under 10 feet (I think it's 10 feet, I heard this once), they can get to me before I can aim the rifle so...

In a lot of gun magazines they say that from a distance of 21 feet an opponent with a knife can reach you before you can draw a handgun.

[Zixinus]

What about the idea of just AIMING the gun but now shooting it? Tell him to drop everything he has and fuck off. Most thieves with any number of functioning brain cells would rather call it a (bad) day than try to fight you if they see an opportunity to get away unharmed.

[Broomstick]

Violates a major tenant of responsible gun use, which is to never point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot. If you are willing to use it you shouldn't carry it (which does not obligate you to use it, I hasten to add). In the US, aiming a gun at someone is considered use of deadly force, even if you don't pull the trigger. By pointing a gun at someone it gives them a legal basis to shoot you and claim self-defense.

So, um, yeah, you could do it but it will often be a really stupid move leading to escalation of force. How people react to having a gun pointed at them can be really unpredictable. Not all thieves are rational, smart, or logical.

[Coyote]

Really, if you're not willing to go through with it, or not psychologically able to, then you're one of those people who just should not have a gun. It's one of those situations where it'll likely be taken from you and used against you or others.

I think it is even worse than being unarmed, really-- someone who thinks the mere presence of a gun will act as a magic talisman to ward off evil.