When is it warranted to shoot someone over property?

Protestors against Joe Horn, a homeowner who fatally shot two illegal immigrants who robbed his neighbor's house.  Horn was cleared by a grand jury on charges related to the shooting.

Protestors against Joe Horn, a homeowner who fatally shot two illegal immigrants who robbed his neighbor’s house in November of 2007 (see video below). Horn was cleared by a grand jury on charges related to the shooting.

One of the platitudes that I often hear echoed by pro-gun control advocates is that no material item is ever worth a human life. Basically, one should avoid shooting a robber or burglar at all costs.

Perhaps in an ideal world, they’re right. One shouldn’t kill someone over an iPod or a television set because that person can be rehabilitated, turned from a thieving miscreant into a productive member of society.

But we don’t live in an ideal world. And it’s very difficult, maybe impossible, to discern during such an encounter when a suspect is simply robbing one for a material possession or whether the robbery is just the beginning of a more sinister plan, one that involves physical abuse, rape and murder.

One never knows the intent of the criminal mind, which is why self-defense laws in the U.S. are drafted in a way to protect the reasonable use of force under stressful conditions. The operative word is “reasonable.” If one reasonably fears imminent death or great bodily harm, it is lawful for one to use deadly force in the U.S. For example, fatally shooting an armed robber breaking into one’s home in the middle of the night would be considered “reasonable” under the law.

Putting that aside, let’s suppose that in a hypothetical scenario one knew that the robber was not going to kill one or cause one great bodily harm but instead just wanted one’s material possession. Should one allow that suspect to take what he wants?

Let’s unpack this idea further. One is confronted by an unarmed teenage carjacker. The carjacker demands the individual’s vehicle. But the individual is caring a loaded handgun. Should the individual just turn over the vehicle to the carjacker, again knowing that the carjacker is not a physical threat? Suppose the individual pulls his firearm on the carjacker, but the carjacker responds by saying, “I’m taking your car. What are you going to do about it? Shoot me?” Should the individual back down, allowing the carjacker to steal the vehicle?

It’s an interesting question. Arguably, no material possession is worth a human life, but at the same time one needs his vehicle. One also doesn’t know whether the carjacker will be caught and punished.

Would you shoot a thief to stop him? Or would you let him run away with your property and hope the cops and justice system catch up to him down the road?

{ 202 comments… add one }
  • jon September 17, 2017, 10:30 am

    anyone who steals should be put to death.

  • Ralph July 30, 2017, 12:38 am

    Ok I live in Lumberton north Carolina.. my son was just born..if someone breaks into my house while my family(me my son and wife) are asleep ..I wake up ,,am I allowed to stab the intruder of course I would try not to kill the intruder but if I do is it legal..?

  • Marc Rodriguez July 23, 2017, 8:27 pm

    I have a question. I’m 15 years old just remember. So today I was driving my golf cart with my mom and 2 baby cousins in it to my aunts house, came out went back home but my keys where thrown somewhere, I had left the keys in the cart with the golf cart on, so I go home and my uncle tells me my dad is chasing kids who tried to steal the golf cart, I run and see him and a kid with cops, they said they couldn’t do anything to him because he was 12, my dad didn’t touch him he just kept running with the kid until he gave up. Shouldn’t there be a charge? He went on my aunts property when it was parked and tried to steal it. And another question I have is if I ever see them trying to steal stuff of my property can I beat them up/stab them? And if they break into my house I have permission to stab them also right? Thanks guys just trying to keep my family safe!

  • stan May 21, 2017, 8:00 pm

    If you have a gun and a carjacker doesn’t, how is he going to take your car? Its a pretty stupid scenario. If the guy opens your door then he gets shot. Its that simple.

    • Leslie Howard-Redweik September 11, 2017, 12:21 pm

      I concur.

  • John January 18, 2017, 12:37 pm

    Yes I’d shoot them. In the state of Texas you can shoot someone for stealing something that is irreplaceable, along with them trying to take your car or break into your house. Criminal acts are tolerated too much in the United States, the best deterrent is elimination of the aggressing party.

  • New Gun Owner October 31, 2016, 7:38 pm

    Here is my humble point of view. A human life is valuable. I agree with that statement. Even a criminals life is valuable and I don’t think criminals should be killed just for breaking the law. With that said, if someone is trying to break into my house or even my neighbors house and I tell them to stop and they don’t stop, I’m going to shoot and I’m going to shoot to kill. I’ve thought about this long and hard and this is coming from someone who would put a spider outside before killing it. I have good reasoning for this. Let’s just say this individual is robbing the townhouse next to me and they get away because 911 is taking their time and the operator insists that I let the theif go. Well now this criminal thinks that my neighborhood is an easy target. They break in, steal nice things and walk away without consequences even when there is a neighbor pointing a gun telling them to stop. Now, let’s say this criminal comes back the following month and this time it’s my house because they know I’m not home and even if I was, they have no fear of being shot. I’m not home but my 5’2″, 100 lb girlfriend is home sleeping. She comes downstairs and is startled. The burglar panicks when she screams and hurts or kills her. Maybe he rapes her. We have no way of knowing what this person is capable of. If I had shot this person when he robbed my neighbors home the first time, he would have never come back and my girlfriend would still be alive. This is all hypothetical of course but it’s a reality. Criminals break into homes in neighborhoods where they know they can get away with it. I have a neighbor behind me whose car has been broken in 3 times and 3 police reports have been filed, cameras installed and signs posted and nothing has resolved the issue. What about the one time when I’m walking by after a night out and I see this person and tell them to stop and they attack me because of it. If criminals need to steal or need money to feed their families, I would suggest they don’t do it in a way that affects someone else’s livelyhood or safety. I live in a nice neighborhood in Ft Lauderdale and break-ins happen. I had never held again before I bought my own 2 months back to protect my family, my home and my property. I will absolutely not risk any criminal getting a second chance at threatening my life or livelyhood. The end.

  • Mark Fielding August 22, 2016, 7:26 am

    Florida here. If I go over to my friends house, who gave me permission to water the plants in their yard, is their neighbor legally allowed to cross the property line with a gun, loaded or unloaded, to confront me as if I was in the act or about to burglarize the place?
    Asking as I’m watering a friends pepper plants this weekend & worried about their overly gung ho neighbor.

    • Rudy September 15, 2016, 11:45 pm

      I think the reasonable course of action is either talk to the gung ho neighbor in advance, or not risk injury over something as trivial as neighbor’s landscaping and avoid watering them at all. Regardless of what is right and wrong would you really want risk your life in front of someone like that?

    • DandyMan January 15, 2017, 1:42 pm

      So wait. You’re watering plants and a man approaches you with a gun. If he thinks you’re a robber for watering plants there’s something really wrong here. Your gun neighbor is an idiot. Or you are for not making sense.

    • Ethan H. February 9, 2017, 12:27 am

      No this is not right.

    • CORY VORE February 28, 2017, 10:10 pm

      GUNG HO LITERALLY MEANS “WORK TOGETHER.” AND IF YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT A CRAZY NEIGHBOR. MAYBE KNOCK ON THEIR DOOR AND KINDLY LET THEM KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOU WILL BE DOING NEXT DOOR SO THEY DONT GET ALARMED. I’m not yelling I accidentally had caps lock on and am too lazy to retype.

      Cheers

    • jason September 6, 2017, 11:09 pm

      Your neighbor should let that over-zealous individual know that you’re coming by to water plants. lol…ain’t gonna risk my life due to miscommunication

  • Robert Allen May 22, 2016, 2:55 am

    …a friend of mine living in a rural Texas town heard a commotion in his livng room and came upon two young black guys in the process of burglarizing his place. One of them didn’t mind his presence and just kept on filling his bag w/goodies, while the other one ran outside…then my friend shot the nonchalant one.. and ran after the other one…he shot at the one on the run and hit him just as he was lifting his leg to get over the privacy wall….both criminals died at the scene….and the cops later asked him a few questions and left….

  • Lily October 22, 2015, 11:20 am

    This is Houston, Texas. I got robbed on Tuesday Oct 20th, 2015 at 1pm at Sam’s club parking lot. This is NOT the wrong time and the wrong Location. A 6-feet-tall, 300 pounds African American woman opened my front door and took my purse from the passenger side while I was uploading my kids on the side and groceries on the back of the car. I quickly followed her so closely that I can almost touch her, her huge body was like a dark gigantic mountain right at my face, but terrified that she might have a gun in her hand. I slowed down, crossed two lanes of the parking vehicles, she stepped on a black Van with the last 4 digits “9213” and her buddy just stepped on the gas with all the surveillance camera pointing directly at her and the car. I grabbed a pieces of something might be her clothes the car stared and I was stumbled on the ground, scraping my knees and elbows, bleeding. The car was parked on the lane directly facing all the cameras of Sams club. I was yelling but useless…no one is around, the constable of Sames club was not on duty at the moment, I was with a friend so I know she was watching my kids. Just like that, I lost my phone and all the contact information, the wallet, IDs, money, cards etc. If you see this, please tell me: Can I shoot her if I have a gun? If her intention is to get my kids, and I have no one with me, they may get it! Can I shoot someone who is steeling my purse, my kids, my car? I felt extremely vulnerable knowing I was picked up because of my size and race and with kids. Your input is greatly appreciated!

    • Robert Allen May 22, 2016, 2:48 am

      …the passenger side of the front door of your house…?!

      • BODEN March 30, 2017, 6:34 am

        Robert Allen She actually said front door on the passenger side. She never said, “the front door of my house.” Before you try calling people out on how they wrote something incorrectly, maybe you should learn how to read buddy

    • Max July 18, 2016, 2:28 pm

      Of course you shoot them, if they are stealing your things or have a desire to hurt you they are liable to be shot and should be shot, you did the wrong thing by not hurting her.

      • Jason January 4, 2017, 9:41 pm

        You can NOT shoot someone for stealing your things. If they NEVER enter your house, and only, say, break into your car, you are saying you can legally shoot them? Give me a break. Good luck with that. Hope you got 100,000 dollars to fight a murder charge.

        • Master January 9, 2017, 8:06 pm

          Shoot the S.O.B. scum of the earth do not deserve to take another breath and hart someone else.
          FYI be sure you are only shooting to stop not kill while empting the clip.

          • Caleb June 3, 2017, 7:23 am

            Master, I liked that… be sure you shoot to stop not kill while emptying the clip. Hahaha their “accidental” death would just be icing on the cake 😂

        • j October 26, 2017, 3:06 am

          in florida a car is an extension of your house and breaking into a car is the same as breaking into your house

    • John January 18, 2017, 12:50 pm

      Hello, I graduated a law enforcement academy before my motorcycle wreck that took me out of it. Legally, if she is not threatening your life, no you cannot shoot her. HOWEVER there is one other loophole in Texas, where if there is something irreplaceable the thief is taking, you may shoot them until you get your item back. The key here…. Put something of sentimental value inside your purse, and you are well within the law to shoot someone if they take it. I’m so sorry you’ve been a victim of something like this, it’s why I got into law enforcement in the first place. Coming from Huntsville TX, I know how bad Houston can be. Keep yourself safe, and God bless.

      • Brandon January 31, 2017, 4:18 pm

        Dogs are property does this include your dog? If someone is trying to take your dog can you shoot?

  • Adam October 12, 2015, 3:30 pm

    I’ve come to this post for a reason. My lawn mower is sitting in my front yard right now as I am writing this. I came in to get some water and cool off for a few minutes before I finish up. The keys are in the lawn mower still. This is Florida by the way. If someone were to walk into my yard, and get on my lawn mower and try to take it can I shoot them? Like I see them getting on it, I run to by bedroom grab my gun, run outside and shoot them. Is that lawful? The castle doctrine extends to the curtilage. Same goes for my cars. If I’m sitting inside and someone walks into my drive way and breaks my cars window and hops in, can I then shoot them? Or if I’m pulling into my drive way, and I see someone getting into another car on my driveway, can I shoot them? I know, I would shoot them on all accounts. But is it lawful, under the castle doctrine or any other doctrine for Florida for that matter. Like I said, I would shoot. But is it lawful? Like a previous poster said “better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6”

    • Casey July 11, 2016, 6:48 pm

      Why would you shoot them, though? They’re merely stealing property. Most of your examples are things that are covered by insurances. Why do you feel it necessary to kill someone over things? That’s the issue at hand here and I think there are a lot of people who have their moral priorities all out of whack. I truly don’t think you realize just what it does to a person when they take a life. I don’t think that your lawn mower or your vehicle are worth the mindf*** that you’ll suffer afterwards.

      • Noah July 20, 2016, 1:47 pm

        But no one said you can’t shoot Thier leg, not killing them, but immobilizing them? It wouldn’t kill them, unless you left them there. If they threaten you to take your car or they will beat you up, you can shoot them.

        • Moejo November 30, 2016, 3:02 pm

          My right to own property comes before a criminals’ right to steal it. My TV remote is worth more than the life of a thief. Those that would take what doesn’t belong to them are scum, and deserve whatever injury they sustain at the hands of honest citizens.

        • John January 18, 2017, 12:52 pm

          The unfortunate reality is, when you shoot to wound, they will come back and sue you…..And they will win.

      • Bob August 1, 2016, 10:36 pm

        You shoot them. And then eventually people will stop. And think about robbing. They do it bc they know most. People won’t shoot over property. Fuck that I’ll. Shoot the bastard over just being in my. House.. Who is to say what another person feels. Is threatening. The government needs to stay the fuck out of our lives

      • Me September 14, 2016, 8:21 pm

        Moral priorities out of whack……lol…..so forcefully taking what someone else morally earned is ok? Suck a 🍆 that’s why your either an easy target, a victim, or a criminal minded individual.

      • Nate G September 18, 2016, 5:52 pm

        Lol, I had my truck window busted out and property stolen while I was sleeping the other night. They hit 12 cars at 6 hotels. They pulled the whole windows out and reached inside for console and glove box. They knew what they were doing. You know what happens IF these career criminals get caught? They do very little time, pay a fine and they’re out on their way to do it again to many others. You know what happens if you catch them and put a bullet in their brain? You save somebody else the burden that I and others have just gone through, while taking another piece of trash off the streets. Personally, I think taking their life is a little too easy on them. If I had my choice, I’d hold them down and put a .40 round in their lower spine so they could think about what they’ve done from their wheelchair for the rest of their life. And like Bob said, maybe they’d think twice if they knew they might die. They know they’ll just get a slap on the wrist and I’ll never get my property back. Property that I WORKED for to buy. That I spend time out of MY LIFE to earn. Our justice system really sucks. They need to start cutting the hands off of these assholes… until then, I’ll resort to the Glock.

      • Todd December 4, 2016, 9:13 pm

        We have had our cars broken into 4 times. Sitting in our driveway. Last night they broke into the car and opened the garage which we didn’t hear. This is the 4th time. At some point I am going to get protection and sit in my house waiting for it. It happens all over our neighborhood, which has homes that are in a good neighborhood. They also steal packages from our home that are left by UPS. At what point do I have to stop filing insurance and is it ok for me to protect my property. Or am I supposed to sit and just say “well it is just stuff”. My insurance rates go up. We have to change our checking accounts, cc and everything else they steal

      • Ethan H. February 9, 2017, 12:39 am

        Yea right if someone is stealing from me I am going to shoot or stab them but I will not intentionally kill them just hurt them bad enough that they need a visit to the hospital but I would not kill them just because of the fact that I do not think I could handle the wave of emotions that would bring.I already have a past with self harm killing someone would push me over the edge.

        • Caleb June 3, 2017, 7:33 am

          As someone mentioned above, if you just injure them they can and probably will sue you. Go for the kill and they won’t have that chance. You can always get counselling later, but it’d suck to give up everything you’ve worked for your whole life for because of a criminal suing you after an unsuccessful try at taking your possessions anyway

      • stan May 21, 2017, 8:05 pm

        You shoot them because they are violating your civil rights. If a person comes on your property with intent to steal, then they forfeit their civil rights. If we let and have let people get away with robbing us, it will never end.

  • Cyrus July 15, 2015, 8:52 am

    I would shoot them then go to dinner that night. People shouldn’t be expected to determine what a criminals intentions are when they decide to break into your home. They’ve made their bed and they can lay in it. Heres my solution. DON’T ROB PEOPLE. We need to stop blaming lawful gun owners.

    • Heather Heaton June 28, 2016, 1:53 am

      Exactly!!!!!

    • Phillip MacK. August 3, 2016, 11:02 am

      Ding ding! We have a winner! If you’re blatantly violating my rights you shouldn’t not be able to expect legal protection from being shot, even in a so-called[*] “gun free” zone.

      criminals will still carry guns into such zones, though, so it accomplishes nothing but disarming people against the threat. People who designate such zones should be warned that I will gladly avoid them or ignore them (although probably not the latter), regardless of any loss. “better to be judged by twelve than carried by six”

      • Twr April 19, 2017, 9:20 pm

        No gun signs are about as effective as having a No rape sign out in a deserted parking lot.

  • calvin January 23, 2015, 6:51 pm

    Is MA going to weigh in on this, or just let the comments gush?

  • gym January 23, 2015, 10:47 am

    “Thou Shall not Steal”, if you do you violate the laws of not just the state but of mankind. Screw these lazy bastards who think that their pals should be allowed to enter your house and take whatever they want, “that you worked your tail off for”. Insurance doesn’t cover it until you pay the 1000 dollar or more deductible and probably doesn’t cover cash and jewelry unless you are rich and can afford thousands per year in riders. And if they kill someone during the robbery, how are you supposed to know intent.

  • Jack Hancosky January 23, 2015, 10:05 am

    Open questions for all to consider: In any confrontation where the assailant is committing the irrational act of a crime, do you really suppose you can project the next irrational move? Does it make any sense whatever, to focus on the rights of the perpetrator to the exclusion of those of the victim? If you even consider “yes”, your tolerance will render the right to protect yourself obsolete, in and of itself, another irrational and (to me) criminal act.

  • Terry January 5, 2015, 8:43 pm

    “Be Reasonable” is the only response any of us can give without knowing the exact specifics of the situation, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight.

    No, it is not moral or justified to intentionally shoot someone over property, even in your house, and certainly not as the culprit is trying to flee, with or without your command such as ‘I have a gun, leave’. Remember, deadly force may only used against deadly threat. But, in any given situation, are you sure that all the intruder is after is ‘stuff’? You have to correctly and quickly assess the situation to know that answer. Your goal should ALWAYS be to avoid being forced to fire your weapon. ALWAYS.

    If confronted by an armed home intruder close and closing on you, ‘reasonable’ is to avoid being killed, which is the likely outcome if you attempt verbally to de-escalate, thus informing the intruder you are timid and don’t intend to fire first to defend yourself, thus giving him the opportunity to do so himself. Intruder-1, victim-0.

    If the intruder is a ‘reasonable’ distance away and apparently without a firearm or other weapon, then sure, try to verbally deescalate and subdue using your firearm, but understand PLEASE that you may have been wrong about him having a firearm. You have now alerted him, and provided him time and opportunity to bring his firearm out into action against you before you can react, unless you were mentally ready for such a move on his part. Intruder-1, victim-0.

    In every situation, the burden is on YOU to correctly assess the risk situation, in split second time, and then act decisively. The only way you can accomplish that under pressure is to have thought through such detailed scenarios in advance and determined what most effective to do. That ‘Mental Conditioning’ involves advance decision making on your part about whether you are willing to take a life in defense of yours or your family’s, and what the moral, psychological, legal, and financial consequences are.

    May you never be confronted with such a decision. But, if you are, may you be ready for it.

  • PudbertSavannahGA January 3, 2015, 2:55 pm

    What liberals don’t understand is that most people WORK for what we have.
    and YES, if someone tries to take it, they will be DRT,, and deservedly so.

    • Casey July 11, 2016, 6:53 pm

      Why is there always the assumption that liberals don’t work for a living? That is the most immature and lame assessment see that is everywhere. I would be considered a liberal. Yet, I’m a gun owner and I work my tail off. I probably work more and harder than you or most of the people you know. In the end, I work for my family – not for stuff. So if someone wants to take stuff – fine. If they give any indication that they’re going to do harm to my children, that’s a completely different story. You need to get over having your hard earned “stuff” taken and consider what you’re doing. Your stuff being stolen doesn’t change things in a permanent sense to a huge degree. But taking someone’s life does.

      • Noah July 20, 2016, 1:51 pm

        You could hit them with the butt of your gun, knocking them out. You don’t have to kill them. Or immobilize them by shooting them in the foot

        • j October 26, 2017, 3:15 am

          yea shoot them in the foot so they can still fight you or stab you or better yet shoot you

  • greg edwards January 3, 2015, 12:49 pm

    as always the black community turn the truth up side down to fit their needs. castle law said if the person step in to another person yard after illegal activity that person has the right to defend his safety. this happen in Indiana and the person was not charged.
    i have ask a number of people over the years about this law.they all say, this is the best law to help the home owner to defend his property owner.
    i would do the same thing,shoot then ask questions later.

  • Dusty January 3, 2015, 4:52 am

    Something not apparently clear enough to some here is that carjacking, home invasions, robberies of any kind, assaults, rape, arson, murder are all crimes of violence- very different under the law from catching someone breaking into your car, or stealing your porch swing. For quite some time now, police can not use deadly force against fleeing felons when a property crime is the only offense. Private citizens are not trying to make arrests and should recognize they have further limitations in deadly force use against proeprty criminals. BTW- For the poster that thinks you can shoot trespassers… hope you enjoy your stay in prison should you do so. I suspect you will have ample time to better inform yourself on the case law and smart thinking on that matter.

    • david July 6, 2016, 5:58 pm

      in tennessee you can shoot someone for trying to steal your property no matter if it is in your home or yard. if you come in my yard starting shit and it escalates and you are told to leave i have the right to put that idiot down to protect myself and property

  • RC January 3, 2015, 4:41 am

    Unarmed carjacker? The only “Duty to Retreat” would be my foot on the accelerator while dragging the carjacker down the road while “fighting for control of my vehicle”. I did not use a firearm and I did my duty to attempt to escape a dangerous situation. Less ammo for the anti-gunners to complain about a gun used in this situation. Can’t say what the outcome would be for the carjacker (rolled down the street at 50 MPH or under the car). Or you can always use a camp hatchet or a ball peen.

  • ronald reynolds January 3, 2015, 2:12 am

    The way you described this scenario warrants the victim to shoot if he has a weapon. Wake up. You have the right and are responsible for your own protection. I doubt that an armed individual just wants your car.

  • AD Roberts January 3, 2015, 1:43 am

    And now we have cops who are afraid to go on calls for fear of being ambushed by black activists and Obama followers. So you can just forget your property rights. The criminals’ rights are more important to DA’s, media types and leftist liberals.

  • Dave January 2, 2015, 11:14 pm

    Having spent 30 years in the criminal justice system and as an officer of the court, I am concerned when I see people stating that they would shoot someone under various circumstances where they felt it was right to do so or inline with some case or cases that they heard about. First there are two bodies of criminal law. One is codified law enacted by legislation. The other is case law as established by appellate level courts. While there are states where the codified laws speak to justification in using deadly force to prevent burglary or other property crime, case law often establishes very specific guidelines and elements as to justification.

    In the concealed carry classes that I conduct in two states, J teach a primary guide line using R A I D –Reasonable Apprehension of Imminent Death or serious injury. Using deadly force under circumstances such as to cause a reasonable person to believe that such force was necessary to prevent themselves or another innocent person from suffering death or serious injury. The courts have generally held that the individual or individuals causing the apprehension or fear must have or appear to any reasonable person to have both the intent and ability to cause such death or serious injury.

    I tell my classes that if they are ever involved with the use of deadly force and are being questioned by law enforcement that they are entirely within their rights to say nothing or make a simple statement such “Officer I’m a little shook up and want to speak to my attorney (or an attorney) before making any statements”. However if they acted in accordance with RAID and can truthfully establish a basis for such with a brief statement, it may keep them from being booked into jail. Key statements may include “he said he was going to do—– to me; ” ,” He had a knife, gun, club etc in his hand;” ” I warned him (if there was opportunity to do so ) twice to stop” etc. Generally key words to put on record at that time are “I fired in fear for my life” or “I fired in fear for my family”.. .

  • DJ January 2, 2015, 8:16 pm

    I have spent my 60+ years being as honest as possible. I never took what I never earned always trying not to interfere with others rights or be anything more than a reasonable person.
    I had a part of a foreign conflict that was seriously unpopular and deadly during the 60’s. After being shot at, stabbed, attempt of being blown to bits, I came to the conclusion that I would never intentionally try to harm anyone.

    However, when someone places themselves in a position that will cause loss of safety, loss of mental peace, or cause my family harm due to a break in, auto jacking, physical or otherwise action inconsistent with peace, I will/shall react. I have spent my life working for the material things that maintains the life style of the lower middle class, of which I am. Of course when these things are redistributed to those that come and just take it, the insurance companies replace only a part of the things needed for my family to exist.
    I personally have to believe; it has nothing to do with the “material” things. But has to do with my right to be not a target. The right that my children can sleep at peace at night. The right to ride in a safe vehicle without the fear of attack. Without these and other simple rights we all are helpless to any predator. Helplessness is not a thing to live with. That is what ALL people do when the rights of home, property and safety is violated, they cause a helplessness that can and will grow to horrible heights making for worse problems in a society.

    Dodging bullets in a swamp full of snakes, traps and others folks who wish you dead is not a good place to be. A lot of young men were HELPLESS to be put in that situation. The continuation of criminals who do not want to earn a living and take what belongs to others is a pure and simple form of causing people to feel helpless. That is so very wrong, but then, so are a lot of things so wrong.

    GOD help and forgive me and to who ever commit such atrocities’ at my home. I have learned to use many weapons in my formative years. My experience will stop and solve the problem. My house calls 911 when all is safe.

  • PKP January 2, 2015, 5:08 pm

    well im disable vet got 2 total kneen replacements my back is toast and other things so if some body is going to try and hurt my wife and I im going to protect my shelf at all cost yes i would feel very badly to do that but the bible says i have that right and the blood wont be on my hands its in the book of LEV…..old testerment

  • Will Drider January 2, 2015, 4:53 pm

    In accordance with my State Laws I can but based on property alone I would not take the shot. My preferance. Being within the Law and innocent of any and all criminal wrongdoing will still cost more in legal fees then most portable property is worth. Don’t forget about the BGs family civil suit or the Feds possible charges if the BG is a different flavor then you are.
    Even if the BG has a Uzi in each hand, a IED Vest on and a hole in his head and is on your bedroom floor, the correct answer is: I understand your desire for information Officer, but I have not violated any State or Federal Laws and therefor will talk with my lawyer. Please respect my Rights and restrict all other persons from asking me questions.
    Now pay the layyer!

  • Jerry January 2, 2015, 4:46 pm

    Mr. Horn not only defended his and his neighbor’s property, but also defended the United States soil!!! Illegals from ANYWHERE should be SHOT. They are felons and as such shouldn’t be here at all. If they had stayed where they belong, they wouldn’t be dead now!!!

  • jim January 2, 2015, 4:31 pm

    Post this sign: TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT —— SURVIVORS WILL BE SHOT AGAIN.

    .45 double-tap to center-of-mass cuts down on repeat offenders.

    I think defending your actions in court is extremely difficult if you are in the morgue.

    ERROR: THOU SHALL NOT KILL ————ACTUAL: THOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER.

    • ronald reynolds January 3, 2015, 2:17 am

      you are correct.

  • Mickey Rat January 2, 2015, 2:33 pm

    Never. Only in defense of life not property.

    • ronald reynolds January 3, 2015, 2:16 am

      Your life is your property.

  • Jack Hancosky January 2, 2015, 12:52 pm

    Carjacking incidents are increasing annually, currently over 80,000 plus whatever additionally are reported as among the 470,000 auto vehicle thefts annually. As in all conflicts, one should, at the very minimum, try to select the safest route, spot, lighting and human activity as possible. Make some effort that, in the face of confrontation, provides the best support and exposure. Be aware of your surroundings and any approach to your vehicle by any stranger. Mentally rehearse the potential worst and do so to aid the practiced, anticipated response to a an imaginary situation before an actual episode. Have your defense mechanism available in such a position as to enable retrieval and use without any extra motion that could trigger your assailant’s aggression. Understand the gravity of your dilemma as 23% of all car jackings result in serious injury or death, whether the victim complied with the assailant’s demands or not. No two incidents, perceptions or responses are the same but anticipation, imagination and preparation can help……..

  • David January 2, 2015, 12:37 pm

    To those meticulously assessing a carjacking, home invasion etc. Please think of what you are doing. You are taking time to think about a very dynamic situation from your chair, typing away, thinking away at leisure. As a combat soldier, I can pass on my very simple tactical advice (common sense). Milliseconds make the difference between life and death and take every tactical advantage possible to win a fight to protect yourself and family. Even if you feel like you can de-escalate, you are risking and gambling your life to do so and you are allowing a criminal to leave and use another opportunity to hurt someone else less capable to protect themselves. First responders, of all sorts, consciously and bravely accept the risk to their lives to serve and protect. Similarly, criminals accept the risk to their life and yours to commit offenses to humanity; so take them out when the opportunity presents it self. Don’t go looking for a fight to have the opportunity to kill, that is not the advice. When a criminal presents himself threating your life take the opportunity to win, to live, to take a stand against being a victim.

  • NealS January 2, 2015, 12:36 pm

    Seems to me that today we go after the victims and protect the criminals. How do/should we do to stop crime?

  • david January 2, 2015, 12:31 pm

    Buglary, robbery, car-jacking, etc…. to shoot someone you really need to feel your life is in danger. This is what most state laws require. Nothing less.

  • Shaun January 2, 2015, 12:16 pm

    Here in Rhode Island the law allows the use of deadly force if someone is “breaks and enters, or enters in the nighttime without breaking, any building or enclosure in which are kept or confined any kind of poultry, with intent to steal any of the poultry”. We also have a fairly strong Castle Doctrine that applies to Ships, Vessels and Dwellings if the person is “intent to commit murder, sexual assault, robbery, arson or larceny” during the daytime or without intent at nighttime. Railroad cars, Tractor Trailors, barns, stables, carriage houses, or other buildings are covered only at night and when there is breaking and entering involved. The breaking and entering part is very important. If you’re in a bank and someone walks in the front door you are NOT covered. If you are at the bank at the end of the day and they lock the door behind you because you are the last customer and the person breaks in, then you ARE covered. In RI you are not covered in your car. Although if you ride around with a chicken they maybe you would be.

  • Michael J. Salzbrenner January 2, 2015, 12:08 pm

    I think the key word here for me would be “escalation”. How far is the criminal willing to go vs how far you are willing to respond. If I am in my own home and someone breaks into my home. Then I am automatically under a certain level of threat. How much threat depends on the situation. While I have no desire to take someones life over something as trivial as material possessions, I am willing to instigate a confrontation to RETAIN them. If however, the individual has ALREADY stolen them, then I am not willing to instigate a confrontation just to GET THEM BACK. As I said it is a matter of “escalation”. If I am present when the thief is attempting to deprive me of my rightfully earned materials, then I will attempt to retain those items. If the thief is willing to escalate the confrontation to the point that they become a imminent threat, then it is no longer about retaining my possessions, it then becomes about personal defense. Both the victim and the criminal will have to ask themselves, “Is it worth dying for”? For some things it may well be worth it, for others, probably not so much. But in the end, in my case anyway, what I own will always have more value to me than it does to those who try and take it. So my answer 90% percent of the time to the question “Is It Worth Dying For?” will be YES considerably quicker than the thief’s. My suggestion. Don’t test me, and we’ll both be happier for it.

  • Lynn K. Circle January 2, 2015, 12:03 pm

    Anytime someone engages in a robbery with a firearm, there is a high possibility he will shoot his victim, regardless of what he says. My reasoning is therefore it is always legitimate to respond by shooting him and, in fact, this is the desired thing to do whenever possible. Of course, I live in Texas where I have the legal right to do just that.

    • Trevor July 6, 2016, 2:30 am

      Ofcourse because your justice system is flawed and your a disgrace to white society your the reason why we get called rednecks and racists

  • Mason Hamilton January 2, 2015, 11:50 am

    Debating lethal self-defense in a home invasion circumstance – shows the circumstance of our corrupt political, legal and justice system. Any home invasion or vehicle invasion is a self-created declaration by the invader that he intends to over-power to the point of submission with any occupant(s) encountered as necessary to get what he or she may want. There can be no assumptions beyond the invader’s own physical self declaration of intent.

    A political system that allows its legal system to take the legal responsibility away from the invader once he has attempted forced entry and then said legal system assigns the occupant with the responsibility of the invader’s safety is perverse, corrupt and incompetent at its most basic intellectual level.

    However, the responsibility for allowing the said political and legal system to reach this point of “gaming the system” absurdity – is solely the responsibility of the voting public in a democracy. Failing to achieve the necessary corrections through a supposed or failed democratic political, legislative and justice system, it remains the obligation and responsibility of the citizens at large to enforce the consequences of corruption and criminal incompetence on those who take an oath and sign a legally binding contract to serve them – with any means at their disposal. This is essentially the process that brought about the creation and formation of this country and its survival will depend on whether its citizens remain responsible and courageous enough to use the same process when necessary to protect it. Are we there yet?

  • winterhawk January 2, 2015, 11:39 am

    The answer to all this controversy is we either solve a problem, Or we let it grow and become worse, I learned this at a very early age, A fat kid moved into our very rural neighborhood and decided to become the school bully, When it became my turn I turned to walk away and was kicked on the tailbone , And could hardly walk all weekend, Monday morning the problem was still there in my face, I dropped my lunch pail at his feet, When he looked down I hit him in the nose, Blood flew and he went crying to the teacher, Problem solved!! The concept that nothing material is worth a human life is nonsense, Using that logic than why defend our country?

  • gym January 2, 2015, 11:08 am

    I have had 3 car jacking attempts in NYC in 46 years there, One got me sitting in my car, walked up and put a gun to my head, took me and the car up to Harlem, as they had just held up a Liquor store a block from where I was parked, waiting for my friend to come out of his fathers house. I did so much talking that they only took the cash, a few hundred. The guy said he never heard anyone talk so much with a gun pointed at him. They were drug dealers, and I convinced them I could get them a better deal on Heroin, they believed a long haired kid with a new Caddy, and did call me after that. Friends said I lucked out,
    Two more in my Porsche 911, one I saw in the mirror. guy jumped off a jap bike with a big switchblade, he ran into my 9mm, apologized and robed the guy in back of me. Same with the 3d, saw them split up and come around both sides, gun was in hand and I let them see it, they just kept going. Sometimes you have to shoot other times you don’t. The first time I didn’t have a license yet, that was the worse, I had to spend almost an hour talking my way out, I would have shot the guy if I had it to redo, it was too close. Also had a home invasion with 5 guys through the front door, I owned a chain of stores, and an employee set me up, and told them I had the payroll and Christmas bonus money, ha neither, unhappy campers. Found out who set me up, and she also set up over a dozen other business people, all bad guys are dead now. This was 30 yrs ago

  • Greg Nauman January 2, 2015, 10:20 am

    I was out of the country for work in 2005. My wife and children were home alone. She was downstairs in the basement sewing and did not know a thief was watching her through the window. She came upstairs around 11-12am. She heard something at our sliding glass door and looked out between the curtain slats. She saw a handgun laying on the railing of our deck. She called my father in law who lives on the other side of the city and she called 911. My father in law beat the police to our home. The police station is 3 miles from our house. The thief was burning a hole in the screen with a cigarette lighter. This individual we found out later had been breaking into homes in the neighborhood in the middle of the night stealing whatever he could out of the basement while people were asleep upstairs. So this SEEMS to be a guy that was stealing and leaving and not harming anyone. My question is this, WHY THEN DID HE HAVE A GUN? He was watching my wife through the window and when she came upstairs he followed to the back door to see where she was. Thinking she was going to bed he went back down to the basement window and laid the gun on the railing. He forgot it and went back down to the basement window. He realized what he had done and while my wife was on the phone with 911 she saw his hand grab the gun off the railing. NO ONE HAS ANY IDEA WHAT THIS INDIVIDUAL WOULD HAVE DONE IF HE WAS TO BE CAUGHT. MY GUESS HE WOULD SHOOT TO GET AWAY. We did not own firearms at the time but after flying home from my trip, we purchased firearms, took a training course, got our CCW permits, and my wife and I attended Front Sight 4 day defensive handgun Training in Nevada.
    Bottom line is they may be just stealing something but if they are about to get caught they will almost do ANYTHING TO GET AWAY OR HARM YOU IF YOU DONT COMPLY WITH WHAT THEY WANT TO DO

  • keithk January 2, 2015, 10:18 am

    Carjacking, TV’s or stereo equipment….all soft and fuzzy until the “burglar” pulls out a weapon and says”I’m taking your ssssss….tuff, what are you going to do about it?” But what happens when you confront the same person and he has a bunch of your firearms in a sack, are you going to “retreat” and let him put those out on the street?

  • Chuck Klein January 2, 2015, 9:14 am

    If a person is about to torch your $50K Corvette you can not shoot him. However, if you are inside that car, that’s a different matter and lethal force would be prudent.

  • Dennis January 2, 2015, 9:09 am

    duty to retreat, and castle doctrine is spot on! A criminal makes a decision to act, and there are reasonably predictable consequences to our actions. Basic parenting fail long ago in most cases I think.

  • Dennis January 2, 2015, 9:09 am

    duty to retreat, and castle doctrine is spot on! A criminal makes a decision to act, and there are reasonably predictable consequences to our actions. Basic parenting fail long ago in most cases I think.

  • Jack Hancosky January 2, 2015, 9:01 am

    I have read the comments regarding “duty”, “imminent threat” and “bodily harm”. Nowhere have I read about the duty of a gun owner to be adequately proficient to be able to exercise reasonable accuracy nor have I read anything about how differently every single victim psychologically perceives and responds to “threat”. Further, there is a higher duty, that being to live, to continue life physically intact and unimpeded by injury, psychological or physical. The higher duty requires that you be there for your self and the loved ones to who you have committed. The justice system would better serve the innocent public by determining the stage of a criminal action that clearly constitutes the abdication of the rights of the assailant. There are those of us who believe that an offender, even in retreat, should be apprehended to prevent them from participating in another attempt on someone else, possibly less capable of defense. My opinions are a result of three incidents. A man pulled my door open at a traffic light and demanded my vehicle and wallet but was greeted, instead. by the muzzle of my handgun in his face. He ran off. Another incident involved a friend, an off duty police officer who, when confronted through his open car window with a similar demand by an assailant pointing a gun at him, imitated a motion to retrieve his wallet but actually grasped his concealed and fired through his jacket, killing the assailant. The third, tragic episode involved another friend who was accosted midday, in a major shopping plaza. Even thought she complied with the assailant’s demands. she was raped, murdered and found days later.
    Every instance is different and consists of different perceptions. That is why judges are called judges. In spite of the existence of a law, the law is meaningless without consistent and fair application and interpretation, both determined and modified by the circumstance and and evidence.

  • Brian January 2, 2015, 8:43 am

    What’s this talk of rehabilitation for criminals.in my state Ohio last time I checked people don’t go to prison for rehabilitation,but go to be punished,to pay.

  • Rick January 2, 2015, 8:30 am

    I bet burglary in Texas is on the decline…….I can only hope all states would pass this law….

  • robert ferry January 2, 2015, 8:17 am

    The message needs to be clear to all burglars, thief’s, rapist, kidnappers and murders. When you enter anyone’s property uninvited your placing your own life at risk. Only the criminal knows his intentions when he enters someone’s property, and his/her intentions may change during the course of their crime. When a situation arises where the criminals are illegals that shouldn’t be in this country ( thanks again Mr. Obama for you idiocy ) let alone robbing someone’s home, as it did with Joe Horn, why should we trust the expediency of a 911 call over that of a bullet. This government loves to spend taxpayers monies in long, dragged out trials for creeps. Take the Petite case in CT, where two half way house convicts were caught red handed coming out of the house which that had just set on fire after rapping and murdering the occupants…it went on for years at the monetary expense of the states citizens, and emotional expense of Mr. Petite, and family members….Criminals make a choice when they enter a property uninvited, the consequences of that choice should be clear to them, get caught, get shot. All the liberals screaming that material property isn’t equivalent to someone’s life don’t see the bigger picture, that very criminal you allow to flee, may very well injure or kill some other innocent the next time they commit a crime. God knows the government allows enough creeps back on the streets to return to their criminal ways, justifying the release of these vermin as being rehabilitated…BS. All these so called human rights activists who are defending the lives of these scum would soon sing a different tune if it happened to them. Personal note: if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night it will not be a choice of whether I shoot them or not, the only choice there will be which of my firearms I chose to put at my bedside that night. It will not be my nephew or buddy trying to get a cold beer from my refrigerator….everyone that knows me, knows better. I will not know their intentions, nor will I care, I will shoot them, and unless my aim is off, I will shoot them dead. I will trust in God and my peers to keep me from unjustly being prosecuted for doing what is right. Either way I will rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

    • Twr April 19, 2017, 9:54 pm

      I see no difference between Pearl Harbor , a sneak attack, and a mugging.

      Liberals would have said that it was wrong to defend ourselves at Pearl Harbor, and get this, planes shoot each other in the back in a dog fight, and no lawyer stepped up and said that shooting some one who is going away from you is illegal. Not so if you shoot a robber in the back.

      You have more rights to protect yourself in a war zone where you know your life is endangered than a sneak attack in your own neighborhood​.

      Our society has it backwards.

  • robert ferry January 2, 2015, 8:15 am

    The message needs to be clear to all burglars, thief’s, rapist, kidnappers and murders. When you enter anyone’s property uninvited your placing your own life at risk. Only the criminal knows his intentions when he enters someone’s property, and his/her intentions may change during the course of their crime. When a situation arises where the criminals are illegals that shouldn’t be in this country ( thanks again Mr. Obama for you idiocy ) let alone robbing someone’s home, as it did with Joe Horn, why should we trust the expediency of a 911 call over that of a bullet. This government loves to spend taxpayers monies in long, dragged out trials for creeps. Take the Petite case in CT, where two half way house convicts were caught red handed coming out of the house which that had just set on fire after rapping and murdering the occupants…it went on for years at the monetary expense of the states citizens, and emotional expense of Mr. Petite, and family members….Criminals make a choice when they enter a property uninvited, the consequences of that choice should be clear to them, get caught, get shot. All the liberals screaming that material property isn’t equivalent to someone’s life don’t see the bigger picture, that very criminal you allow to flee, may very well injure or kill some other innocent the next time they commit a crime. God knows the government allows enough creeps back on the streets to return to their criminal ways, justifying the release of these vermin as being rehabilitated…BS. All these so called human rights activists who are defending the lives of these scum would soon sing a different tune if it happened to them. Personal note: if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night it will not be a choice of whether I shoot them or not, the only choice there will be which of my firearms I chose to put at my bedside that night. It will not be my nephew or buddy trying to get a cold beer from my refrigerator….everyone that knows me, knows better. I will not know their intentions, nor will I care, I will shoot them, and unless my aim is off, I will shoot them dead. I will trust in God and my peers to keep me from unjustly being prosecuted for doing what is right. Either way I will rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

    • Mark January 2, 2015, 11:08 am

      One of the best comments yet. It is a home to think that any of these attacks are a first. The criminal does not care about the victom; they’ve already justified the assault. The victim is just an inconvenience to be eliminated. My philosophy is that warning shot should leave powder burns; and dead men don’t talk. But everyone here needs to get their post-shooting story straight, “I was in fear for my life.” And say nothing more.

  • Guy January 2, 2015, 8:10 am

    If I’m in my car and a man reaches in. Once in the window shoot. Or if I’m getting in my car and they walk up and threaten me to take car. I shoot. Either way I’m scared for my life because under normal situations no one threatens unless they plan to harm if have to. Can you read minds.
    Go see YouTube cop tells man to stay in car. 350lb dude walks to cop and physically kills him. Cop didn’t shoot. Now dead by monster.

  • Er January 2, 2015, 8:09 am

    You are missing a strong point as a nation we used to hange horse thifes because by doing so you put someone’s life in danger I view a car the same because with out it I can’t provide for my family so shoot first and let it fall where it falls

  • Brian January 2, 2015, 8:00 am

    Shoot him in the foot,asinine.Liu,you watch to much tv

  • Tberryjack January 2, 2015, 7:57 am

    I believe everyone that believes you have NO RIGHT to protect yourself or your property, those that don’t own a gun and don’t think anyone else should, Should have to post a Sign in Front of their Home & a Bumper Sticker saying “Safe Zone – We Are NOT ARMED” or “We Pamper Intruders” That way anyone thinking about committing a Crime will know which homes & cars are safe for them to burgle. Then EVERYONE would be happy and protected by Law. The Bible says it best: (Mat.24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up,) Meaning that he would do whatever it took to protect himself and/or his stuff.

    • Casey July 11, 2016, 7:07 pm

      So, you’re wishing harm and danger upon people who have compassion for their fellow man, then quote the Bible? Boy, are you a hypocrite!

  • David K January 2, 2015, 7:49 am

    Interesting comments. Until recently I lived in California, but have since moved to North Carolina necessitated by the loss of the job I held for 25 years due to a plant shutdown. While I lived there, I had a couple of run-ins with criminals. One was as a witness to a police officer being gunned down by a gang member, and I testified at his trial. By the way, he was an illegal immigrant, and he got the death penalty. Good riddance, assuming California actually carries out the sentence.

    The second incident was a break-in at my home (unrelated to the shooting.) I never knew the thieves were in my house for a couple of reasons, but the same group of people that broke into my house ended up going into another home and executed the man and wife, after raping the wife.

    To be honest, I don’t ever want to have to kill someone. I believe I am actually at a disadvantage in a break-in as I would want to be sure that whoever I was shooting was not someone I knew, a police officer, or someone else I would not want to shoot. However, I no longer have a question as to whether or not a burglar is a threat to my life. Based on my life experiences, I consider anyone who breaks into my home to be a threat and will be in fear for my life. I do not shoot to wound or “wing ’em” as has been suggested. I shoot to put a permanent stop to the threat, which you can take as shoot to kill.

    When I started learning about firearms, a few principles were drilled into my head:
    1. There is no such thing as an unloaded firearm.
    2. Never point a firearm at something (or someone) you don’t intend to shoot.
    3. Never shoot something or someone you don’t intend to kill.

    Based on these simple rules, you can assume that if I point a gun at you, then I intend to kill you. It is something I don’t take lightly, and with the way lawyers have tried to turn victims who defend themselves into criminals it scares me to have to make that decision. However, once someone has crossed that line and entered my home, the decision has been made for me. I’m not going to ponder those things in the heat of the moment. The invader has a short moment to determine his own fate before I make the decision for him/her. The regret on my part will come later, but I’m already amped up enough that it won’t stop me from making the decision.

    As to the fleeing robber, I’m not going there. I’ve had two thefts that relieved me of about $30,000 worth of personal belongings. My biggest concern was that my family and friends were not harmed – the insurance gave me better stuff than I had before due to new replacement coverage. A car-jacking? As I currently do not carry and neither of my cars are worth my life, I’d let it go. That is despite one of my vehicles costing me about a half a year’s salary before interest.

    The comments about the value of a criminals life made me smile. I have two cats that are like my children. I once stated that if someone broke into my house and threatened them that I would use deadly force if necessary to protect my extended family. “You mean to say you value the life of a cat over that of a person?” In this case my answer was, “Definitely!” Of course, someone who broke into my house already has me in fear for my life, so it is hard to separate the two. However, that dirtbag doesn’t have any value on my scale. They should think about before they break into my house, not try to put that on me afterwards.

  • dr john January 2, 2015, 7:41 am

    remember that in most cases, the perps are guilty of a lot o crimes they committed but didn’t get caught..they lost all fear of getting caught or shot–just make sure you shoot to kill and don’t shoot them in the back..unless they have a gun or knife in their hands—a dead burglar is a good burgler , never to burgle again…..

  • gene January 2, 2015, 7:35 am

    Why do we let the anti-gun crowd define this debate? If I have $35 dollars in my pocket and am confronted by a robber, the value of the $35 does not matter. What matters is the right to carry the money I worked for, with out having it taken from me violently. Of course a human life is not worth $35, but I did not determine how much the robbers life was worth, he did. He decided that it was worth the risk of his life and limb (as well as the victims life and limb) to try to force someone to give up the money they legally own. The robber would not be shot (killed) over $35. The robber decided to violate the rights of others at any cost and should therefore be responcible for what ever happens to himself or anyone else involved.

    • Casey July 11, 2016, 7:14 pm

      Perhaps because the “anti-gun” crowd are also citizens of the same country/states. I mean, if only gun owners (of which I am one) can have any say on gun laws, then why aren’t women the only ones who can have a say on abortion laws?

  • JGTinNJ January 2, 2015, 6:54 am

    I hate it when I read or hear comments about the level of a theft that involves physical confrontation with a victim. Some unarmed big guy pushes a clerk around, steals a few cigars, and a message is promoted: Is that worth a life? Well, what is the crime? It doesn’t matter if $1 or $500,000 is stolen. The crime is terrorism in either case. The victim will have years of nightmares about what happened. Anyone who has been a victim knows what I mean.

  • Ed Kresa January 2, 2015, 6:52 am

    Well first of all sorry if hurt anyone’ feelings. But if anyone comes in my home with out permission I will defend my family. If it takes lethal force so be it…I’m so tired of someone trying to take take take….Happy new year……

  • Greg January 2, 2015, 3:33 am

    In Oregon, you don’t shoot over property, only if you or another person is in danger of death or serious injury. Otherwise it is you going to prison and getting your ass sued. That said, anyone breaking into my home when I’m there, obviously intends to do me harm.

  • Sebastian Amadeus Wolfgang Kalishnikopf January 2, 2015, 3:26 am

    Hell of a what if….are you planning on frisking the individual to assure he really isn’t armed or are you just going to believe him? I find criminals to be very trustworthy.. If its yours, protect it. Appropriately. Dont g7ess if they will pull something from their saggy jeans just because he promised he was unarmed. And only had 2 drinks all night.. And I just found the drugs in the street..And honestly, I ran because I was scared. You must have planted the drugs…..

    • act January 13, 2017, 10:04 pm

      Wolfgang ? to have a name that’s synonymous with Mozart , it’s puzzling because you’re an idiot! Not just for your racial undertones. Not just from the stupidity that certain dress people going to l rob you . Not just because you can’t stay on topic. Your Comment is basically almost like man’s imprint on the universe . Oh for u bright boy maybe I should say Quantum physics .Nothing and too small to freaking measure wow cuz I’m sure they don’t have crime in Germany, France London Canada oh no they don’t have it in Japan will certainly not China. Ireland and Netherlands Switzerland. Not sure by this point but hopefully you get the point. Crime is like disease , taxes and death in that it does not discriminate. Now before I digress any further let me get on this topic Trained police officers are shooting and killing people when they say they were in tlife-threatening situation. Some Justified- some not if they can’t make a split-second decision what makes them think you can. Levels and or perception s of fear what’s life-threatening is different for everyone.. for( exmple) I can jump out a plane at 15000, ft race a tcar 200mph. Yes all day. Play with deadly venomous snakes?, swim with sharks? Hellllllllll no life-threatening. While other play with king Brown or cobra . Smile as they swim with them. Now to the question if someone comes in your house should they be shoot . Yes. However, do you have contro?l are you a 90-pound woman who can’t defend herself.? Is the second burglary now this time you meet the criminal?
      Is now in the corner submitted himself to you but you you’re pissed off that you want Revenge teach him a lesson. Most people in that situation don’t even think about this stuff that they’re stealing Gambit of the emotions might arise. one of the biggest is people feel vulnerable and violated . Which furthermore heightens their emotions and anger. Which always ends up in irrational decision. Like shooting someone because they stealing your lawn mower if you can’t outrun the lawn mower you have another issue. Top speed lawn mower 12 miles per hour how far can you go. Stealing a 10 year 12 year old car. That insured they are probably doing you a favor. Car that old is going to start giving you a whole lot of repairs to do. The robber that you should be worried about is the insurance adjuster when he comes out with that little ass check ultimately you’re going to have to live with the decision you make however keep this in mind I once was a truck driver who made $15 an hour when I became an electrician and made $100 just for a house called or to simply put up a single light switch. What I thought I can live with that has now changed in regards to 1 Post I do believe the government should stay out of certain situations and not prosecute having North Korea try to take South Korea stuff. Iran tried to take Kuwait stuff. They had no problem going over there and kill some people is your property any less significant to you IRS CAN COME AND TAKE YOUR STUFF? I think another post read that taking my hard earned money. Let me see. You work for a company that gets taxed they bought goods that was taxed and their workers taxed, you get taxed .you buy things taxed that compaNy taxed. You save your money out of the already tax money it gets taxed.you buy a car same thing a over again . U sale your car taxed . They sale the same already paid taxes car nope it h gets taxed again. Buy sale gas gas $2.00 gallon $1.25 for gas other .75 U guessed it tax Buy your house tax . U get broker gets tax agent gets taxed insurance gets taxed home inspector gets taxed title search tax, lawyer tax, improve your house to get a better living space guess what taxed all the workers as material taxed, drink water taxed they say when you die you can no longer be taxed that is not true anymore you will now play Death tax leave an estates and you paid taxes home heating taxed, phone taxed , I could go on and on but I think you get the picture so if your life is not in danger think of it as you’re getting robbed every single minute of the da.y. Sorry to be so long-winded but this is short for me

  • Russ October 13, 2014, 8:12 pm

    Is this a trick question by the antigun people to see if your going to incriminate yourself?
    This is how I think I would handle thieves.
    I have a baby monitor in my garage, so I hear everything outside, even cars driving by.
    I also have wasp spray on the shelf where I get out of my car in case I’m surprised & big thick handcuff style zipties in my garage.
    I also carry a stun light when I go out to investigate my property.
    So I Have it in my head that I would blind would be thieves while inquiring or giving demands for them to get down.
    I would stun them if they tried to get away.
    I would draw on them if they went for a weapon.
    I’ll take it as far as they take it.
    I’m not going to shoot anyone in the back or driving away unless they hurt my family or myself.
    I’ve gone over it in my head many times
    Maybe I watch too much “Rifleman”, and don’t laugh, but I would treat people a lot like Luke Mc Cain dose.

    • MAC October 14, 2014, 12:46 am

      You’re still assuming that the bad guys will play by the rules and stop or run away if you confront them. They don’t. If you plan to “stun” someone, or use wasp spray on them, you’re bringing a knife to a gun fight. If it’s dark, you don’t know what they have. You never know their intent. The key is: “Are you in fear of your life?” If you are, then defend yourself with deadly force. If you’re not in fear of your life, don’t go outside to investigate anything. Call the police instead and put your life in their hands. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

      • Russ October 14, 2014, 2:26 pm

        Don’t get me wrong MAC, I never assume, and I bring 30 rounds of .40 with my PPQ to the fight.
        My response is to the question of shooting a thief, so I’m talking about outside encounters.
        Inside, your dead, no questions asked.
        But outside I have layers.
        The wasp spay is for stepping out of my vehicle without my gun in hand. I don’t exit my car holding.
        That stuff comes out like a fire hose in their face and blinds. It gives me a chance to arm myself.
        The stun light is for going out to see what’s going on by my garage and I’ve used it on a few people so far.
        It blinded them on approach and they couldn’t see me do anything but comply with my orders.
        If I saw them going for a weapon, like I said, I would draw and fire in 1 second. (practiced)
        I would never get played or let them get the upper hand. I’m very aware of my surroundings.(I watch my back)
        My point was; I may not have to shoot a thief, but am ready willing and able to if they make me.
        I guess I’m just a tight wad when it comes to court costs.

        Are you the same “mac” above from Florida that would just cap their ass?….I can respect that.

  • Lui October 13, 2014, 6:07 pm

    There is no conflict here. If someone is here to take your property, and he actually standing there insisting he will take it and still does even after you pull your gun. It’s simple. He is standing there, not a moving target. Shoot him in the foot. That wont take his life but it will surely stop him. This whole shooting him means killing him only applies in the heat of the moment. Unlike the I’m taking it anyway scenario, you usually don’t have time to take aim and shoot an appendage. The attacker is usually coming at you and all you have time for is to aim center mass and shoot. It should pan out in the end if you are smart enough to adapt.

  • Edwin Lee October 13, 2014, 5:05 pm

    We don’t use deadly force to protect any given article of property, but to protect the institution of property. Property is the result of one’s labor. If you can’t keep your property, why work? Without property we would not have hospitals, or food. Should we be the slaves of whoever wants to take the fruits of our labor? If you cannot use deadly force to protect any article of property, regardless of the value of that article of property, there is no longer any property.

  • sheldon padawer October 13, 2014, 2:14 pm

    I am older and take blood pressure medications. Fear makes my heart race aalong with other scary symptoms.
    If I face an antagonist that makes me fear for his life, I will kill him if possible without pursuing him. With my 7 shot .357 S&W and 7 shot .45 Kahr, the tactic is draw and fire four rounds at COM; if he goes to his knees the others go to the head. With the Beretta 92, the tactic is always “hail of bullets” since it carries 13 rounds. Any attempt to counter commision of a crime with potential for victim harm is justified. I’ve put way to much ammo downrange in training to pass up the opportunity to shoot someone and watch them die.

    • ElderGunner January 2, 2015, 11:11 am

      To keep yourself from legal jeopardy, never say that your intent was to kill. Your intent should be to “stop the threat.” If that means that the “threat” dies, then so be it. But once the threat is incapacitated or otherwise no longer a threat, continuing to fire on the perp could land you in legal hot water for using excessive force.

  • imthegrumpyone October 13, 2014, 1:00 pm

    Just read everyone of the comments, most of them would be fine in a fantasy world. There is “Right” and there is “Wrong” there are consequences for both. If you confront my family with intent to do harm, consequences will come down, you won’t like. You steal or destroy my personal belongings, consequences will served, you may not like. You rape, assault, rob, or steal from another person in my presence, consequences will be served. America has to go back to it’s core values, we must stop cuddling criminals, we must take care of the ones that can’t take care of themselves. We live once, why should a criminal make it a short life. “Lock & Load”

    • imthegrumpyone October 13, 2014, 1:03 pm

      Sorry for the double post.

  • imthegrumpyone October 13, 2014, 12:45 pm

    Just read everyone of the comments, most of them would be fine in a fantasy world. There is “Right” and there is “Wrong” there are consequences for both. If you confront my family with intent to do harm, consequences will come down, you won’t like. You steal or destroy my personal belongings, consequences will served, you may not like. You rape, assault, rob, or steal from another person in my presence, consequences will be served. America has to go back to it’s core values, we must stop cuddling criminals, we must take care of the ones that can’t take care of themselves. We ll live once, why should a criminal make it a short life.”Lock & Load”

  • GrouchyJohn October 13, 2014, 12:28 pm

    Before this can actually be debated, the prelim conversation should consist of the question: What State of the Union are we doing this in? Laws are so different between states that debating this question would be inconclusive without this knowledge. My state has a Stand Your Ground that includes your vehicle as part of the area you don’t have to run from anyone in. The comments on Duty to Retreat do not apply here. If I am in my car and someone tries to carjack me, he is in deep PooDoo.

    Anyone stupid enough to attempt stealing something like my car with me standing there telling him “Oh, Hell, No You Aren’t” is stupid enough to warrant a Darwin Moment. The basic act of brazenly carjacking a vehicle means he is capable of more than just theft, and as I can not read mind his mind to know his true intent, I would immediately be under the impression that he is going to attempt more than just theft, as in attempting to harm me or my family. From this threat, I Stand My Ground. He will be Buried in the Ground. (or cremated, whichever is decided by his survivors)

  • molon labe October 13, 2014, 12:20 pm

    We just had a law signed by the governor which states that if a family member feels thier life is in danger by a peron they feel may pose a threat to them and owns firearms…the LEO has the right to confiscate those arms and open investigation or 5150 the individual(psychiatric evaualtion).
    What if an ex-wife, disgruntled co-worker, angry fammily member fabricates this claim and I have LEO outside the door threating me to come out or they will come in?
    I make no distinction, under the laws of the United States Government I have a 2nd amendment right to possess and use my firearms in a capacity deemed responsible. I took an oath to protect my country from ALL ENEMIES foreign or domestic should they prove a threat to my life or the lives of my team, family, friends, neighbors, innocent people.
    I will not abide by Jerry Browns law, but will be resilient as a minority pro-gun, offensive protector of my community.
    There will be more laws and gun owners are being vilified here in CA, but im a big-boy, alpha man, and an AMERICAN who would give his life for his country if asked again withoiut question, but ill be god damned if anyone tells me were coming to take your guns…that will be a cold day in hell. CALIFORNIANS arent all tree-hugging morons. Godbless…

    • Russ October 14, 2014, 1:41 pm

      We just got screwed hard molon labe.
      Until we leave this shithole, we’re going to have to keep a separate stash in an unknown storage.

      They keep infringing on us, and we keep figuring ways to defeat them.
      They want to make criminals out of good people or get us killed.

      Calling all low lives!….LA & SF welcomes you with open arms and free everything!…Don’t forget to bring a gun.

    • Stand January 4, 2015, 7:31 pm

      Mr. Molon Labe,

      It is clear that you are made of the stuff that made this nation what it once was and it is also clear that you are made of the stuff that will be needed to resurrect this nation should we ever have the opportunity to reclaim it from the victim loving, freedom hating, would be dictators who are currently destroying all that is good about our race. I am curious about why you continue to live in a state that is openly and violently against all that you are? Only a year ago I freed myself from the clutches of that insane, and evil state, where I lived for more than a quarter of a century and interestingly enough, I have found that I do not miss it in the least. Yes it has idyllic climate but the vileness that inhabits the halls of its government would turn every inch of that state into radioactive glass rather than allow just one person who lives under the creed to which you subscribe.

      In short, you and people like you are more valuable than you may realize and an idyllic climate, this nation, if not this planet, would be worse off should those who currently rule the state in which you live succeed in removing you, which is their ultimate goal and the goal of those who rule over them.

  • Luis Silva October 13, 2014, 12:15 pm

    Anti-USA lawmakers protect criminals. Viva Joe Horn! We need people like him and sherriff Joe Arpaio into out Senate.
    Some democrat said that MExican border is 100% secured. Was he on Mexican dope?
    http://www.AliPac.US, MinuteManHQ.com, NumbersUSA.com, capsweb.org, SecureBordersCoalition.com
    MidEastRuth.com, JihadWatch.org, TheReligionOfPeace.com, AllenBWest.com -colonel.

    • Russ October 14, 2014, 12:42 pm

      Thanks Luis, for putting up that link to show how screwed we are here in California.
      And so the other states can see what’s coming their way soon.

  • BRASS October 13, 2014, 11:49 am

    The first thing all need to remember is that each state defines its own statutes and commonality is often lacking with other states. Only felony charges are universal regardless of geographic location. What Texas and California or Nevada and New York decide as the correct application of a statute within there borders is entirely up to their respective legislatures. While the use of federal statute as a basis for establishing a model is not uncommon, deviating from it is also. Aside from the various state prosecutors and judges, criminal attorneys licensed to practice within a particular state are best able to advise on the legal definitions of these terms.

    • Mac October 14, 2014, 12:39 am

      You’ve pointed out something that nobody else has mentioned. If you’re in a state that permits concealed carry, or having a gun in your home (or car), that state probably has language in its statutes that says you are entitled to use deadly force to prevent a fleeing felon from escaping. Burglary is a felony. Ergo, the man who started this discussion was (at least in Kansas) entitled to use deadly force to prevent the burglars from escaping. He ordered them to stop. Had they done so, he would have been holding them at gunpoint when the police (finally) arrived. That he shot them in the back only indicates they were trying to escape. Problem solved.

      • Lyn January 2, 2015, 7:47 am

        Awfully grey there. Shoot someone in the back and get ready to go broke on attorney’s fees. Was a police officer for 33 years and I would have had to do a quick think on shoot, don’t shoot, if the perp was not facing me.

  • molon labe October 13, 2014, 11:46 am

    Here in CA if I draw on an intruder, armed with intent to ? Kill of rape , robbery… Etc I only have the right to shoot for fear of my life or family.
    If I shoot and god forbid I hit this pos in the back… I’m going upstate for 5-10 years by some liberal DA, and judge who will throw the book at me. Then I have to deal with civil lawsuit by the perp who will end up getting my house and why?
    Personally I don’t care….there are plenty of warnings outside my home…”never mind the dog…beware of owner” and “i f you value your life as I my family and home then move along”, if they still wanna test my sesolve, I will dispatch anyone coming thru the door without discretion. Most of the perps have no clue with the firearms they are wielding, and don’t reload, range time or extension of the weapon as their arms…terrible shots. So, while they are fumbling around I already double-tap two while the third is hightailing out the door with his pants falling down. One thing I do sometimes is load a blank in my clip as first shot, and if they turn tail empty handed I let em live…but the 2nd shot is bodymass or sweetspot and a bullet doesn’t lie.
    I don’t care about what California state laws say…this is my family and home and I will defend it as a man should to the death…

    • Russ October 14, 2014, 12:32 pm

      Hey molon labe , I’m here in CA too.
      Don’t let the socialist/communist politicians here pussy you into making a bad decision and risk the lives of you and your loved ones.
      You mentioned you have warnings outside your home.
      The criminal knows this and may be ready for you now that you have shown your hand.
      DO NOT HESITATE TO USE LEATHAL FORCE. Toss the blank in the trash.
      We need you and other good citizens to stay alive here in our taken over state of CA.

      My outside warning states this;
      THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY IS ARMED
      and prepared to protect life, liberty & property from criminal attack.
      THERE’S NOTHING INSIDE WORTH RISKING YOUR LIFE FOR.

      Go beyond that warning and the end is inside, quite seriously.

    • ElderGunner January 2, 2015, 11:03 am

      I would argue against using a warning shot whether with a blank or a live round. Once you fire off that first shot, you have given away your position and thus, your tactical advantage. The only warning a criminal should get is when he or his partner is falling to the ground with a round in their chest.

  • listen to this October 13, 2014, 10:22 am

    With all of this being said, if you question if the law is going to scrutinize you over shooting a criminal, just understand it can be your word against a dead man’s word if there are no tatel tell criminal/government promoting witnesses.

    • SteveC October 13, 2014, 11:29 am

      Getting shot or killed should simply be the risk a thief takes, with zero repercussions to the defending party. Fifty cents for a bullet, $125. for a backhoe and it’s all said and done, instead of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars spent on each offense for lawyers, judges, DA’s, prisons, prison guards, etc, etc.

      • Russ October 14, 2014, 11:57 am

        .Mark Are’s Trash pile is much more thrifty and less time consuming.
        Fertilizer or future oil reserve may be beneficial though.
        It’s a toss up.

  • GG October 13, 2014, 10:04 am

    What I haven’t seen commented on is the fact that the teenager is unarmed and the auto driver has a shotgun. Is that teenager going to let the auto owner exit with their belongings, including the shotgun? Or, more likely, the teenager is going to take the shotgun so in essence the driver is now arming the teenager. Have you really done the right thing by not wounding the teenager?

  • Bry October 13, 2014, 10:04 am

    I support all contributors that hold deadly force permissable in stopping criminals from unlawful acts to themselves or other innocent citizens. If criminals steal or harm innocent persons to acquire goods they deserve an aggressive response from the victim. Zero concern for the criminal. It is a calculated risk they take when deciding civilized laws are for other civilized persons. They obviously view civilized persons as weaklings or cowardly and perfect ‘marks’ to victimize. If they like my metal thay can take my gold and my silver but I’ll give them a bonus too. A double-tap of .45c hollow point lead through the center of their chest. Paul T.and persons as him is why “Hillary Clinton” will probably be elected as the next U.S. President and then the criminal wins!

  • lawrence mundt October 13, 2014, 10:00 am

    Shoot 1st. and ask ? later, nuf said

  • RC October 13, 2014, 9:06 am

    Well… my first reaction to most comments on “Duty to Retreat” is all BS under any “interpretation”. Please tell me where this law exists. Because I can send the complete story to all the attorneys who defend against its application.
    I had a home invasion, sprung once a female (lead) and two adult males age 28, 19 entered the front door area. My minor son was there also daughter upstairs, I turned and told my son to exit the area and go to the garage as we move quicker approaching a landing to advance to another room/portion of the downstairs area. The Robber fired a shot missed us and went into a couch.
    To cut it short, the police said they thought you were going to arm yourself.
    So in my mind there is NO application of the idiot concept of Duty to Retreat. Nobody has a crystal ball as to the intent or armament of a robber. All debate is mute, I home invader should be shot and ask questions later period. Or maybe you should retreat and get one or all of your family killed. It makes me mad to hear the debate on such idiocy…because if you’re willing to debate you give credence to those who manipulate the legal system believing that un-arming America and applying consideration at the time of a criminal event to the perpetrator based on some fantasy that they can be “converted” to a good person seems more like peddling a religion that practical common sense to protect your family and home. Here is were the crass slogan Kill ’em all and let god sort it out, seems to apply, where I normal don’t agree with it universally applied.

  • Mark Are October 13, 2014, 8:29 am

    I look at it like this….what is the one thing you are given from birth with a limited amount? TIME. And what you do with that time is typically YOURS. So if I buy a $2000 flat screen TV, and it takes me 20 HOURS of my life to pay for that, and someone come along and steels that. They have EFFECTIVELY STOLEN 20 HOURS of my LIFE. That’s right….and do they have the RIGHT to steal ANY of my life? NO. I’ll shoot him, toss him out on the trash pile by the street and when the police ask me if I know who’s body is on the trash pile, I’ll say “What body?”

  • Paul October 13, 2014, 7:27 am

    To me, anybody in your home, car or place of refuge with intent to rob or otherwise is open season. They may take your car and run over people, which happens often. The law should be, shoot period, not sit an ponder. Pull that piece and let it talk. The officer and his mop will not be there to help in time.

    CHUTE IT!

  • Peter October 13, 2014, 4:41 am

    This argument is phrased backwards. It should be “Is attempting to deprive me of the things I’ve worked to acquire worth your life?”

    Why should the law abiding citizen take pause and ask if protecting their valuables with killing over?

    Criminals don’t care about long term consequences, otherwise they would care about how having a record will impact getting a decent job down the road. They care about instant gratification and the only response to that is instant ramifications. Ponder your life choices while you bleed out from a double tap from the guy you tried to carjack, knowing he didn’t think twice about protecting his hard earned valuables.

  • Paul T. October 13, 2014, 3:42 am

    But in the unarmed carjacker scenario, the limited option of either giving up the car or blasting the guy is false. It seems the best option might simply be to drive off. Or sit in the car and call the cops. Or wait until he got bored and ran away… However, let’s just assume it’s a binary decision between blowing some guy away and giving up your car, and you have certain knowledge that your life is not in jeopardy. The only type of person who wouldn’t give up his car and call the cops/insurance company is the type of guy who just really wants to kill someone.

    • ElderGunner January 2, 2015, 10:57 am

      ” The only type of person who wouldn’t give up his car and call the cops/insurance company is the type of guy who just really wants to kill someone.”

      Totally disagree with this statement. Whether armed or not, anyone who would not flee once I present my firearm has a total disregard for his own life and by extension, mine as well. How do you know that once you exit the vehicle this unarmed punk won’t try and beat you to death? I’m disabled and not able to defend myself effectively in the event of a physical altercation so my use of deadly force to stop this threat would be considered justified. It would never be my intent to kill, just to stop the threat. However, if the criminal is killed in the process of my stopping the threat, my conscience would be clear.

  • Chuck B October 9, 2014, 11:52 pm

    Every human only has one resource available to them in their lifetime – “time.” What we do with our time is what makes us money, earns us respect, decides our health; what we inherit or otherwise acquire is a gift that was earned by someone else’s time and given to you. Your TV is not just a “thing,” it represents (for example) 4 hours of your life, that you exchanged for the privilege of owning that TV. You forfeited 2500 hours of your life for that car. When someone steal from you, they are taking part of your LIFE from you. Not that I would actually propose or promote such behavior, but based on principle alone it would be fully justified to shoot someone for stealing you Big Mac – they are taking a part of your life; why SHOULDN’T they risk losing part of theirs for their efforts? The concept of “Just material things” is a Major Cop-out, and totally illogical; “things” cost somebody something, and that “something” is time, part of our very limited life.

  • Craig October 9, 2014, 7:56 am

    The only time deadly force should be used is when your life or your family lives are at stake. That being said a burglar bold enough to be breaking into your house while your home is a obvious threat to your life and your families lifes and I would shoot them. But if you see someone breaking into your car in the driveway you can’t open the front door and gun them down. That is why we have insurance no object it worth a human life no matter how much of a scum bag they happen to be.

    • Jim January 2, 2015, 9:23 am

      Sorry but can’t agree with that. The property is MINE, they have no right to it. I earned what I have and will defend MY property. I can’t stand that “life is too precious” BS argument. If that criminal life is so precious to you then you pay for his care and upkeep in prison. Over 6 billion people is this world one or two less is a negligible drop in the bucket, call it culling the herd.

    • ElderGunner January 2, 2015, 10:51 am

      Craig, whether or not you can legally use deadly force to protect property depends upon the laws of the state in which you live. Here in Texas, it is legal to use deadly force to protect your property. Therefore, if I were to observe a criminal in the process of stealing my vehicle or anything else that belongs to me, it is legal for me to use deadly force to stop him. Whether or not one “should” use deadly force to protect property is a call that only the individual involved can make. Just know your laws.

  • mac October 8, 2014, 10:41 pm

    I live in florida we don’t have duty to retreat. We have put a cap in your ass.

    • Larry January 3, 2015, 8:04 am

      If you cap that ass , literally, wouldn’t they go after you since he is retreating?

  • Jacob October 8, 2014, 9:00 am

    They were illegal immigrants. There should be no more discussion on the matter. They were here illegally, committing crime. They did not care about our laws or our freedom. They took the law and considered it null an void, why should they receive justice whey they never even considered our laws when entering our country? The race baiters and gun grabbers are making this a big deal over a bunch of illegal criminals! Let the gun grabbers live gun free in the liberal north and let the conservative responsible gun owners have the rest… lets see who is free from crime and chaos….?

    • Lyb January 2, 2015, 7:27 am

      He took a life and only got 27 years, isn’t that special.

    • Lyn January 2, 2015, 7:31 am

      North or south, does not matter. Most of the high population areas are liberal and uneducated, therein lies the problem.

  • Johnny Johnson October 8, 2014, 8:00 am

    Its very rare in my neck of the woods to have a unarmed carjacker. If my life is threatened I’ll respond to it with deadly force. I won’t chase a fleeing burglar and shoot him, I’ll let law enforcement take that task. I won’t pursue a burglar that has broken into my neighbors house but I’ll be a good witness ; I’m not law enforcement.

  • Chase M. October 8, 2014, 12:01 am

    I feel that someone who uses deadly force to defend property should be justified in doing so by incorporating the event of “worst case scenario” into his judgment by the state. Meaning, the possibility that handing over his car could possibly result in death of innocents should deem his actions lawful. Same for home invasion. While stealing your things, they have access to you and your family who aren’t aware of the robbers presence. Worst case scenario is that, while you are unaware or asleep, they take your life. Waking up to and shooting a burglar should also be justified given that the final or the worst outcomes won’t be committed or realized until its too late.

  • Lmh October 7, 2014, 10:58 pm

    That’s what pistol whipping is for…

    • mr-Munchie January 2, 2015, 4:24 pm

      If you beat them into the ground, at least they have a chance to recover. I guess it would depend on circumstances. When I am at the range, all my shots are head shots. It wouldn’t be a wounding shot on purpose.

  • LHTwist October 7, 2014, 9:30 pm

    “Perhaps in an ideal world, they’re right. One shouldn’t kill someone over an iPod or a television set because that person can be rehabilitated, turned from a thieving miscreant into a productive member of society.”

    But you have to first have the thief in hand before rehabilitation is even a possibility and isn’t that where the firearm comes to bear?? We just have to reeducate people to wing em instead of shooting to kill. Or we can set our sights further down the road from the very beginning and consider an increased death rate for certain dishonest occupations as having a prophylactic effect on fledgling criminals.

    • Scott October 13, 2014, 2:25 pm

      Short and to the point. “Wing em” internationally and there is a better than average chance you will die…now the bad guy/gal is fighting for their life. If you shoot…shoot to stop them…winging them won’t so much good. If they die because of good shot placement…great…end of story.

  • Scott Brown October 7, 2014, 8:13 pm

    And based upon vehicular deaths and especially while running from the law, how are we to know that giving up our car won’t lead to more lives being damaged, or killed? Each situation must be judged on an individual basis.Too many variables to say always do this. All one can do is make reasonable decisions according to what he, or she knows.

    • Leonard October 15, 2014, 11:04 am

      I was carjacked back in the 1990’s. It was two guys–one just out of the state pen, one just out of the juvenile prison known as “Disneyland”. The vehicle was recovered and the carjackers caught within a couple of days as they attempted to leave the state. Detectives said it was a gang initiation. The adult was sentenced to 6 months of work-release in the County Jail, and pay restitution for the massive damage to the vehicle upon his release from jail. He paid almost $100 before he disappeared and never was sought by authorities for this violation of the terms of his release. The juvenile was released from “Disneyland” within 6 months. He didn’t watch the news, I guess during his time in stir, so upon his release, he killed his next carjacking victim. While he was vacationing in “Disneyland” laws had changed in NM. A juvenile aged 15 or older who committed a murder, rape or similar “adult” crime could be sentenced as an adult. He would serve 27 years before he could be released for any reason…

  • MitchN60 October 7, 2014, 7:33 pm

    “What are you going to do about it? Shoot me?” If I did, who, besides me, would ever know that question was asked? Several years ago, while working as an armed security officer, I had to draw on a guy that was being violent after we snatched him up for slinging dope. After the police came and were taking him away, he asked me if I would really have shot him. I looked him in the eye and said, “The only way you’d know is if I didn’t.” Kind of spooked him, I do believe.

    • Russ October 13, 2014, 7:59 pm

      Great answer MitchN60

      • jack January 2, 2015, 9:13 am

        i agree; great answer MitchN60.

        myself, i’m disabled and cannot retreat. a 12 year old girl could catch me if i try to run, turning my back on a criminal could be fatal. i have long ago decided that i consider breaking into my house FOR ANY REASON, an act of violence to which i will respond with well aimed lethal force. when the judge asks why i shot more than once, i will respond that the double tap is a tried and proven method (taught by all special forces) that is appropriate for use with something as marginally lethal as a handgun. if the perp wasn’t looking for trouble, he should have stayed home. the fact that he found trouble in a form he was not expecting is not my problem.

        • ElderGunner January 2, 2015, 10:42 am

          I agree with you, jack. I’m a disabled retired Army officer and can no longer defend myself unarmed as I could have done in my younger days. But my response to the judge would be that I fired more than once (I practice the double-tap plus 1 to the head) because that is what it took to stop the threat. Whether it took 1 shot or 10, stopping the threat is the purpose of shooting and this is how most cops are trained today. I would never say that it was my intent to kill, it is my intent to stop the threat.

  • Pernell Rodocker October 7, 2014, 7:20 pm

    In days past horse thieves were shot. A man’s horse was his livelihood. My car is my ability to take me to my livelihood. Florida has extended the Castle Doctrine to include the car. Not knowing if the thief has a weapon I would pull mine and see where it went from there. I would not allow myself to be robbed. The thief would have the opportunity to produce a weapon or leave. touch me or attempt to take my property I will defend myself, my life and liberty and pursuit of my happiness. I will protect my family and what I have earned in life. I would have been in fear of my life or other’s lives. It is my responsibility to give myself for my family even unto my own death. PR

    • Ernesto October 9, 2014, 6:58 pm

      In days gone by, having your horse stolen was often a death sentence as travel from one area to another was nearly impossible on foot.

      • Doug October 13, 2014, 12:52 pm

        If you are in a neighborhood where a teen will try to take your car, you are probably in a neighborhood where it is not safe to be on foot. You might have to use your gun anyway and you might still not be safe.

    • James Chandler January 2, 2015, 12:13 pm

      Well said.

  • Kimberwarrior45 October 7, 2014, 3:59 pm

    In your example the mere act of confronting a person to take their belonging without permission is a violent act and is different from taking their belongings when they are not present. If someone steals your identity by computer you do not have the right to hunt them down and shoot them for they did nothing to you in person. A person who would confront you to commit a violent act allows(requires) you defend yourself and others by whatever force is necessary to protect yourself and others. This is natural law and has been endowed by the Creator to each human being and not the stupid and man made-up law of ‘duty to retreat’.

    • JB13 October 7, 2014, 8:04 pm

      “Duty To Retreat” only means, under the law, that if the criminal retreats, so must you. In other words.. he was carjacking you while you are in it… thus as you said he is committing a violent act on your person as he would have to physically harm you to pull you from the car and steal it. If you pull out your CCW handgun and point it at him and he runs away, you MUST holster your weapon without firing it…. that is “Duty to retreat.”

      • HiCarry October 7, 2014, 10:11 pm

        You are incorrect. “Duty to Retreat” doctrine imposes a duty on an defendant (victim) prior to instigating a response. In most instances this requirement is qualified by stating said duty to retreat is applicable only if it can be done so safely.
        http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/17/duty-to-retreat/

        Your example of the carjacker retreating is a better example of the cessation of a threat requiring you to terminate deadly force. Or, more simple said, once the threat has ended, so does your justification to use deadly force.

        • Brent October 8, 2014, 9:37 am

          Actually you are both incorrect. Duty to retreat means the one being threatened must first try to escape harm and can only use deadly force if there is no other way to escape or protect themself from harm.

          • MisterMing October 8, 2014, 10:45 am

            If the robber is armed, whether the gun is pointed at me, or whether he verbalizes intent to just take the car is irrelevant. A thief by his/her very nature can not be trusted and one should defend his or herself in a response appropriate to the threat of the armed robber. They could be lying about not hurting you. Witnesses and all.

          • argmanah October 8, 2014, 10:57 am

            Actually, HiCarry is right. Most people think that the Duty to Retreat is drastically different than Stand Your Ground (or the absence of a Duty to Retreat). The history of the application of a Duty to Retreat is not applied so broadly. The Duty to Retreat only applies if by retreating you are reasonably sure that the retreat can be done in *complete safety*. If you are, or might reasonably be, put into harm’s way by retreating, that duty no longer applies. It does NOT, as you suggest, require you to retreat no matter what until there is “no other option”.

            In a practical sense, that means the duty is almost non-existent. If someone has a weapon and is committing a crime against you, how often can you really be reasonably sure you can successfully retreat in *complete safety*? The answer is almost never. You might disagree with such a narrow interpretation of a duty to retreat, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s how the law is currently applied.

          • HiCarry October 8, 2014, 4:04 pm

            No, sir. You are incorrect.

          • ronald reynolds January 3, 2015, 3:42 am

            come on now, there a maybe 4 states where is the true law. here CO we have Castle Droctain and it means that when i am in my car i have the right to shoot the perp. Because my vehicle is also my home. There is no retreat law.

          • Wishwehad Standyourground January 4, 2015, 1:20 am

            Duty to retreat means whatever the state you are in at time says it means. In some states you don’t have a duty to retreat. Those states are known as “Stand Your Ground” states.

        • HiCarry October 8, 2014, 4:16 pm

          My previous comment was directed @ Brent
          @argmanah: Duty to retreat is the opposite of Stand Your Ground. Prof. Volokh sums it up pretty good in the linked article.
          The practical effect of Duty To Retreat laws is that over zealous prosecutors can, in the safety of their offices and the clarity of hindsight, evaluate the circumstances of a self-defense shooting and claim that the victim (defendant) had a safe escape route that should have been used and wasn’t, therefore negating the claims of self-defense resulting in the defendant being prosecuted for murder or manslaughter. These malicious prosecutions are, to some extent, the genesis of SYG laws.

        • Chained October 13, 2014, 6:35 pm

          You have no duty to retreat in a stand your ground state but there still has to be imminent threat

      • Russ October 14, 2014, 11:47 am

        Just get the word out.
        Burn someone and you may get killed for it.
        So don’t.

      • Rattlerjake January 2, 2015, 10:58 am

        Don’t give them the chance to turn and run! If this assswipe carjacked you and didn’t get away with it and he gets away he is on his way to do it to someone else. I am so sick of the idiots that have been indoctrinated by the criminal lovers of our society. When an individual decides to break the law, he has basically said he could care less about anyone else, their life, or their property!

        • John Hackett January 2, 2015, 2:18 pm

          I am with you……if someone is trying to car jack you, he may well be armed, you have no way of know if he is or isn’t and better to be judged by 12 than carried by six. You also have a responsibility to anyone else that is in your car to protect them. I would hate to have to shoot anyone…..but allowing any criminal to what ever he wants because he feels protected by the law…is stupidity and we have a right to defend our life and property…that is my personal belief. If you try to car jack a Cop…what do you think will happen? We have the same rights as citizens to defend our life and property. Once again…just my beliefs and not necessarily how the law will look at it.

          • john January 2, 2015, 6:56 pm

            Louisiana has a “Shoot the carjacker” law. This means that if you are in your car and someone attempts to open your door or threatens to take your car a lawfully and leagaly armed person has the right to shoot said carjacker. The late great sheriff of Jefferson Parrish was largely responsible for pushing this law thru the state legislature, THANK YOU HARRY LEE!!!

    • Tim Markoski October 13, 2014, 7:58 am

      In TX, the Castle Doctrine extends to one vehicle.
      Attempting a car jacking in TX, justifies the use of lethal force by any person in the vehicle.

      In TX, the act of simply having a tool for breaking and entering actually pass the threshold and enter a person’s home
      justifies the use of lethal force.

      • mtman2 January 30, 2015, 6:31 pm

        Both this and the above from John seem reasonable considering there are people(said loosely) that have no regard for other peoples(actual) property or even their lives. Unfortunately this human-varmint types are with us in civilized society, and that goes for the village, farm, country, wilderness or where ever people are found ~!

    • RC October 13, 2014, 9:07 am

      Well… my first reaction to most comments on “Duty to Retreat” is all BS under any “interpretation”. Please tell me where this law exists. Because I can send the complete story to all the attorneys who defend against its application.
      I had a home invasion, sprung once a female (lead) and two adult males age 28, 19 entered the front door area. My minor son was there also daughter upstairs, I turned and told my son to exit the area and go to the garage as we move quicker approaching a landing to advance to another room/portion of the downstairs area. The Robber fired a shot missed us and went into a couch.
      To cut it short, the police said they thought you were going to arm yourself.
      So in my mind there is NO application of the idiot concept of Duty to Retreat. Nobody has a crystal ball as to the intent or armament of a robber. All debate is mute, I home invader should be shot and ask questions later period. Or maybe you should retreat and get one or all of your family killed. It makes me mad to hear the debate on such idiocy…because if you’re willing to debate you give credence to those who manipulate the legal system believing that un-arming America and applying consideration at the time of a criminal event to the perpetrator based on some fantasy that they can be “converted” to a good person seems more like peddling a religion that practical common sense to protect your family and home. Here is were the crass slogan Kill ’em all and let god sort it out, seems to apply, where I normal don’t agree with it universally applied.

      • Makhosini Dlamini January 2, 2015, 12:57 pm

        The concept that they shot at you because he thought you were going to arm yourself is unbelievable under any circumstances.

        The problem with the “kill ’em all and let god sort it out” is that YOU, not God, not the legal system and certainly not the cop who responded and is angry because he didn’t get to shoot anyone, have to deal with having killed another human being. This is not something I am willing to embrace so cavalierly. Esp. over a $200 32″ flatscreen TV or some other useless piece of junk. Let them have it–even if I don’t have insurance. In my experience, what comes around, goes around–for you and for them.

        The carjacking situation isn’t apt for this discussion. Carjacking (ostensibly the attempt to steal an occupied vehicle) is not the same as breaking into an unoccupied building in order to commit larceny or GTA. There is an active threat towards you to which the attempted theft of your car is coincidental. I am not going to react because he wants to steal my car, I am going to react because he has threatened me and has the present ability to carry out his threat. (My fear is reasonable.) I am defending myself, not the car. As much as I hate to buy new cars, they just are material things, and they can have it.

        If I hear a burglar downstairs trying to haul off my stuff and he hasn’t made an attempt to confront me, then I am going to call 911–knowing the cops will probably shoot him when they get there, esp. if he’s black or hispanic–arm myself and climb out a window to the ground. Tactically, the best thing to do if you couldn’t get away would be to lay in wait at the top of the stairs; but it’s a gray area legally and would depend if illegal entry into your house justified the use of deadly force.

        Once he threatens me or puts me in reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death, then the burglary is just coincidental to the criminals threat to hurt/kill me. I am going to react with an appropriate level of force to stop the threat to myself, not to stop him from stealing my Mickey Mouse Electric Toothbrush. When the use of lethal force is justified, they are carrying the thief out on a stretcher and I am walking out. I am not going to shoot the thief dead, because I only want there to be one story–that’s not self-defense, it’s pre-meditated murder.

        • mtman2 January 30, 2015, 9:25 pm

          Seems like Makho here has it all figured out on how it’s all gonna go down.
          Though in real life things usually don’t go the way you might think they will.
          Like if the first thing you hear is two creeps coming up your stairs toward your daughters room!
          These creeps that would break into peoples homes are usually not beginners and will continue their chosen career and it will bring them closer each time to further deeds of violation unless stopped. More than that, all the people that the creeps associate with, either novices that are learning or hard core serial lifers that have done far worse, and all bragging on their evil deeds with delight egging each other on to the deeper life of crime. It’s like a cycle that perpetuates itself, entrenching themselves down to lower levels and increasingly darker deeds.

          Stopping them will save some other innocent family, slow or stop the novices that hear of it and give hardened criminals pause to think. Like giant rats the more these creeps get away with the more they’ll come back and increase in numbers to raid your neighborhood, as they talk to one another like I pointed out above ~!

      • Trip 3 January 2, 2015, 6:09 pm

        You arm your self and climb out that window to wait on the ground for the police, and YOU are liable to be shot. Standing around with a gun in your hand when the police arrive is not a smart idea. Better to stay in your house and barricade with your weapon. If the thieves advance on your position, warn them loudly that you are armed. You have made every effort to avoid using deadly force.

        • Brittany November 7, 2015, 12:43 pm

          I have to disagree with warning them that you are armed. All that does is gives them the opportunity to A. Know where you are. And B. Prepare themselves accordingly, i.e.: be ready to shoot. If you have already retreated (which is not required here in Florida) you have effectively done what is required of you by trying to avoid using deadly force. If possible call 911, their recordings can and will be crucial evidence of your defense if you have to forcefully stop someone. If you have a gun, be ready for whatever comes through the door and protect yourself and your family however you can. NEVER GIVE YOUR POSITION AWAY. By the time you fire (hopefully you never will have to) the police should be on the way. Once you are sure the danger is gone holster your weapon, and REMAIN WHERE YOU ARE. If you were unable to dial 911 before do it now, Tell the dispatcher where in your home you are and that your weapon is holstered, let the police retrieve you, unless the dispatcher tells you otherwise.

      • Robert January 4, 2015, 2:45 am

        I have had a situation lately of having to call the police over and over to a rental property I own in Louisiana and one cop told me I could not protect my property even if I baby sat it all night, that because it was a rental and not my home, I could not protect it asI would my home. Man that is just plain wrong to me. These criminals in the city where I live know they can get away with anything,and it is Black males doing the damage. The DA and the Mayor here are rotten City Manager’s. They have a Relentless Revolving Door Policy and release the suckers before the ink is dry on the police report: They flat out do not care how many of the cretins they keep releasing. They have even raised the limit to what is a felony so that a homeowner or property owner has to file a lawsuit against the criminal to try and get financial damage from the thief and property destroyer: The LAWS here, and this is in Louisiana do not protect the citizens at all. If they would arrest these suckers and keep them in jail, there would not be this problem. This is strictly a Failure of the City Manager’s and the State Governor 100% NOT DOING THEIR DUTY TO THE CITIZENS. I also suspect this is precisely what was going on with that Michael Brown Thief-Thug-Bully etc, etc. for him being on the street to do his crimes instead of in jail where he should have been.

    • mpr October 13, 2014, 1:03 pm

      If you shoot the criminal, there is only one story to tell. problem solved. I have a family to support, and I am an honest person, but I am not going to take a risk on what the other criminal’s “state of mind”is like. I know 100% that he is not my friend. I may not chase him is where I draw the line…. without holstering my gun.

    • Mahatma Muhjesbude October 13, 2014, 2:22 pm

      Well put. The Universal Law of Nature manifests itself in a species of intelligent social integration by the system of order known as social statures, or rules of laws. Laws are created under the assumption of reasonable objectiveness.

      There are two basic laws that Judeo-Christianity claims sole proprietorship to but in reality are far more original. They are ‘don’t kill anybody’ (for no good reason). And don’t steal their shit.

      Unfortunately for simple application, the overlapping of the two basic laws often complicate matters to difficult extremes.

      For instance, as much as it pisses you off to hear a noise in the middle of the night and someone is blowing out of your driveway with your pride and joy truck, the ‘reasonable’ thing is NOT to grab your handy 50.BMG sniper rifle and put one through the back window of your truck right into the head of the driver who ‘stole’ your truck. Because after all, as much as you think your truck has more value to you than a worthless life of an auto thief, it can still be replaced. Where a life cannot.

      And what if that auto thief turned out to be your favorite nephew who lived two houses down from you and who didn’t have a car and knew where you kept the spare key under the truck bed lip because you let him use it often and didn’t have time to call you or wake you in the middle of the night to let you know he had a pregnant wife emergency and was in a desperate hurry to get to the hospital before she bled to death. She also died when the truck then swerved after you fired and it hit a tree and she was pinned in and bled out before the firetruck could rescue her with the jaws of life. The 700 grain fmj bullet kept going pretty far, of course, and ricochets down the block into a house, opening you up to a lawsuit on top of everything else…you didn’t really have to do because your life was never in any danger. It may have been legal, like i think it still might be in places like Texas to shoot someone as they drive away stealing your car, but it’s something you’ll have to live with forever.

      A car jacking is always a tough one. Guns are not always used in these crimes. Sometimes they just strong arm you out of the car or time it so you just are getting in and grab your key, push you down, and get in and don’t waste time on you unless you struggle or resist. So opening fire as they are starting up the car or pulling away might be legal, but again,..something to think about.

      If they push you Into the passenger’s seat and drive away with you in the car, especially if you’re a woman, then that’s a whole ‘nother potential deadly force and ‘grave fear for your life’ scenario. If you were carrying, you had better get to your carry and open up on him ASAP. And nobody would ever dare second guess you.

      The idea that a ‘thief’ is carrying a gun when he is stealing, robbing, or burglarizing when there is a victim in confrontation or close proximity is ONLY for one reason, and it’s NOT just to scare you from stopping him. It is to KEEP you from stopping him and as someone said here, to possibly aid in forcing you to reveal other things or to increase the crime to rape or even murder. In these scenarios there is little to think about. If you can’t easily retreat and regroup in a safe house or safely escape with no chance of him catching you in such a situation, Home invasion or armed street robberies should be met with your own defensive deadly force as soon as possible. Period.

      • FEstrada January 2, 2015, 11:52 am

        The ploy used about the favorite nephew is another one used by “shiest er” lawyers to get themselves more work. First of all, that nephew would know that his uncle would come-out blasting and would not have “borrowed” that vehicle. End of story.
        Lawyers are the main reason this country is in the “sorry state” it’s in. IMHO.

      • Makhosini Dlamini January 2, 2015, 1:15 pm

        You take on the issue of gender justifying the use of deadly force is interesting.
        I was a paramedic for 30 years, men and women, more or less, respond to trauma the same way. You can’t in any way generalize their is a greater threat to women, simply because of their gender. Outdated attitudes about men’s duty to protect women do not apply in any circumstances, even this one.

        Around here, where everybody carries, you are just as likely to encounter an armed woman who knows how to use a firearm as a man. I know of women, over 50, who carry lg. caliber revolvers and know how to use them. I wouldn’t want to be your carjacker threatening great bodily harm and/or death to steal their cars–they could both end up well ventilated in CQB confrontation. Then, again, both of them would have enough sense to just get out of the car and give it to the carjacker and live to fight another day.

        • Robert January 4, 2015, 3:04 am

          First, Thank you GunsAmerica that I do not have to join Facebook, Twitter, Penteristr,etc. to be able to post with you. I am looking forward to moving out of my home state where I grew up and moved back to after I buried my Mother here and the reason is 100% the extremely high crime rate, that Relentless Revolving Door Police I have mentioned that has allowed criminals here to get away with causing me over $5,000 dollars in property loss and damage. That may not sound like a lot to some but to me it is. I am looing at moving to either Texas, where there are excellent Gun Carry Laws, which is telling criminals citizens have rights, do harm at risk of YOUR LIFE! Or, to the colder North West USA in some cities I have already begun checking out.

      • Nic January 3, 2015, 12:41 am

        Why is it assumed to be the VICTIM’S CHOICE to make? As far as I am concerned, when someone carjacks my car, points a gun in my direction with the intent of robbing me or otherwise threatens my life, the lives of those I love or innocent people nearby, they have asked and answered the question themselves: They made a conscious decision that my car, the $20 in cash I may have in my wallet or the effects of threat of violence against others has more value to them than their own life.

        Our freedoms are based on the concept of individual responsibility for our actions and respect for the rights of others. Under the doctrine of Natural Law defined in the Declaration’s first and second paragraphs, our system of limited government has this as its foundation and, indeed, the Constitution is designed to put into effect the principles laid out BY the Declaration. The Creator created all Men equally, with the UNALIENABLE rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as gifts given to us AT our creation by Him. Man can neither take them from another man/woman nor give them up voluntarily because, as basic Human Rights, they are part of our essence. Neither can government take them away by coercion, edict (Executive Order), legislation or treaty because government never granted these rights. They are, in effect, an act of God. That is how precious lives – yours and mine – are and the requirement it imposes on all of us is tolerance for the equal rights of others.

        Society, however, may impose penalties for violating the Natural Law (unalienable) rights of others and is justified in taking away the Natural Rights of those who do. This is the foundational precept behind the death penalty for murder. Conversely, for thousands of years transcending all cultures, the ONLY defense against a charge of murder resulting in total exoneration of the accused has always been and continues to be the successful proving of self-defense.

        Such a doctrine would be worthless if a restriction requiring the attacker to shoot first was imposed when he has threatened your life. The threat itself is sufficient to justify acting with deadly force against such an attack or threat. I made the decision over 46 years ago to defend my life and the lives of loved ones or the innocent around me by submitting to government regulation of this Natural Law right by getting a permit to carry weapons from my local Sheriff. The imposition of permitting requirements is, in my view, a violation of my Natural Law right to my Life, because one cannot separate the right to one’s life from the right to defend it. One cannot exist without the other. But in doing so, I had to submit to other inane regulations like the requirement that invalidated my right to carry unless I was carrying more than $500 in cash while having a gun on my person. My life was worth more than $500 to me so I submitted to that stupid regulation, even though it constitutes a serious infringement of my unalienable right to my Life.

        My point is that, when this nation was founded, our Judeo-Christian ethics and principles (which are at its foundation) required tolerance of every man/woman of everyone’s right to exist, to act in accord with Natural Laws and to seek that which made them happy – all while not infringing on any other person’s right to do the same. Government regulaltions which seek to act in place of this common sense place chains of tyranny on everyone while requiring responsibility of no one. This is not only the exact opposite of our foundational concept of freedom, but is contrary to fundamental principles of American law. (See Warren v District of Columbia — 444 A 2d 1 (DC App 181).

    • Richard Vinciguerra October 16, 2014, 1:43 pm

      Mr. Norn did the right thing . Lawlessness seems to be the way of the world now a days .How much more must we tolerate . We must stop this crimewave . Illegal people are getting away with too much . The courts turn these people loose to do more crimes . Yes I would shoot the person I caught in my home , and possibly give them a reload if need be . Thou shalt not steal , does anybody remember this statement . God bless you Mr. Horn and keep you safe .

    • Elyton Observer January 2, 2015, 5:07 am

      YOU do not determine the “rights” of other people. If YOU are unconcerned about your future or quality of life, DO NOT expect the global population to share YOUR benevolent attitude towards CRIMINALS.

      Are “we” clear ?

    • Walton Observer January 2, 2015, 5:59 am

      Kimberwarrior45I
      “If someone steals your identity by computer you do not have the right to hunt them down and shoot them for they did nothing to you in person.”

      The Moderators of this site has given you the implied power to determine the “rights” of the general population by striking comments that do not share you benevolent attitude toward criminals.
      Congratulations.

      • Makhosini Dlamini January 2, 2015, 1:32 pm

        There are no ‘rights’ involved her. At most contractual obligations, although, since there is no valuable consideration exchanged, I am not even sure about that.

        You agree to the terms of service when you post. Which include the ability of the moderators to block content they feel falls outside of the terms of service.

        Nothing said, by anyone, on this forum influences any legal right of any person.

    • WR Edwards, III January 2, 2015, 7:36 am

      The problem is that no one can “know” the intentions of a strong-arm robber. He/she may say they want only your property, but can you really TRUST the word of someone who is attempting to carjack your vehicle? Is there supposed to be a “carjacker’s code” of honor? You cannot make this decision, in advance, because every situation should be considered, on its own merits.

    • James Chandler January 2, 2015, 12:11 pm

      Let us skip all the political beliefs and get down to basics that men have lived by for 2000 years.
      Thou shalt not steal.
      The wages of sin is death.

      Since when has it not been the duty of people to watch out for each other, especially in your own neighborhood? Should we let these 2 come back to our neighborhood every day and help themselves to another home? Do I have to wait till it is my home?
      It is the duty off all people to protect their homes, neighborhoods, community against criminals and those that would harm them or their neighbors. When I was young people were being condemned for not helping anyone being hurt, robbed, or attacked because they didn’t want to get involved. People in N.Y. could be lying on the street, obviously hurt and hundreds of people would just walk around the body and not stop to see if they could help. We now have 2 less predators. How many more people would we let them hurt before we did something about them? If you can’t take the consequences of your actions, don’t commit crimes against your fellow man.

      • Makhosini Dlamini January 2, 2015, 2:34 pm

        20For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. 22But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Paul to the Romans, chapter 6:20-23 (NASB)

        It is pretty clear, when read in context, that when the Apostle Paul said, “…the wages of sin are death…” he meant that the wages of sin is death in spirit, separation from God, no everlasting life. Not that it was okay to go out and start wasting people who sinned against you.

        18Then he said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS; 19HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 20The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” 21Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

        7″Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty. (Exodus 23:7)

        There are dozens of references to ‘thou shalt not kill in the Bible,’ as well as ‘thou shalt not steal.’ A discussion of all of them would be inappropriate for this site and I am not a theologian anyway. I picked these two passages, because they show Jesus did not tell us to go out and start killing sinners. And that he would not tolerate us killing innocent people.

        Unfortunately, the Bible does not support your conclusions and will not justify your actions. I wouldn’t want to rely on your ‘biblical’ statements as a defense in a court of law or before God. Your thoughts seem to me to be about vigilantism, rather than self-defense.

        • Patrick January 2, 2015, 6:21 pm

          Show me in the Ten Commandments where it says thou shall not kill. If you really know what the bible says, you would know that the original bible verse says thou shall not murder! Only you people who try to use the bible to pruve your personal addenda, and really don’t follow the word of God falsely quote the word of God. You better read the end of the bible where our God say’s what he will do to anybody who changes what is written in this BOOK.

    • Skip January 2, 2015, 1:27 pm

      My CC instructor rightly schooled us to avoid conflict and go out of the way to do so as all bullets fired from you’re weapon will be your responsibility. I believe he got it right as we see proecutors around the country regularly going after people who believed they were defending themselves. It seems that winning is more important than justice to some prosecutors. Also, as a Christian, I believe people can be redeemed although it’s often an long hard path and I wouldn’t want to kill somone else’s child who became a litle misguided. Having said all that, as far as property or material goods go I would opt to let the perp go if that were a safe alternative. Unfortunately the decision regarding the safe alternative often happens in a split second and I fully believe and support the notion that I have the right to defend myself and family up to and including the use of deadly force if I believe we are threatened.

      • Makhosini Dlamini January 2, 2015, 2:43 pm

        “…although it’s often an [sic] long hard path…”

        “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Gospel of John, chapter 3:16

        Doesn’t sound very hard to me. Living righteously is another story, but that is not necessary for our redemption. Jesus has redeemed us through his sacrifice on Cavalry.

        I find nowhere in the bible where it says that salvation is by works–8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

        Your CCW instructor was wise.

    • Superfly January 2, 2015, 1:51 pm

      I can clear up the “Duty To Retreat” thing. It’s supposed to mean (example) that if someone is threatening to car jack you with a knife, you can’t put the car into park, roll down your window and shoot them. The point is that if a jury feels you took an aggressive stance when you could have (in the example) simply driven away or not rolled down your window, etc, you’re the bad guy (you took a “Go ahead, make my day” stance). Many people have gone to jail by confronting their aggressor with deadly force because juries felt the original victim could have reasonably continued on their way and avoided violence.

    • Bill Mangan January 3, 2015, 11:12 am

      You waste a lot of time with BS and then get around to a half ass answer. Just answer the question straight out, please.

    • Mike January 3, 2015, 5:32 pm

      This articles addresses situations where a person is confronted by one or more perpetrators who are attempting to steal property from you (perhaps more). That is legally called ROBBERY. The second situation you describe where the perpetrators steal property while you are absent from the scene is called BURGLARY. I believe it is clear that this article deals with the former and not the latter. There is no suggestion that a person is justified in hunting down the people who may have committed a ROBBERY. It does, however, address whether one is justified in using force, even deadly force, to protect his/her property IF they feel they feel there is a “reasonable” threat of great bodily harm or death in addition to the loss of their property.

    • Que Ball January 23, 2015, 6:36 am

      Unless you can prove you or someone else was in danger of death or great bodily harm, you are standing on quicksand if you kill him over property theft.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend