CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:21
Arguments:29
Total Votes:23
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 When should shooting be allowed for defense of property? (14)

Debate Creator

JustIgnoreMe(4290) pic



When should shooting be allowed for defense of property?

Anytime someone is on your property?

When you have "No Trespassing" signs posted clearly?

When someone actually enters your house?

Only once you are clearly able to tell that the person in your house poses a risk to your life?

Can you shoot them if they are just stealing your stuff?

Add New Argument
2 points

Ok I'll give you my take on this

Trespass

This will depend upon the laws pertaining to the place where a person lives however it may be interpreted that if someone enters the property without permission I can ask them to leave. If they refuse to go when asked, then they are trespassing and I can use reasonable force to remove them. If I use more than reasonable force however, I may be committing an assault and can be charged, or even sued by the trespasser.

So no validation to using a firearm and to prevent any further aggravation I would call the police to have them removed and charged

House entry / Clearly able to tell....poses a risk to your life

Again depending upon where we live home invasion, burglary and theft cases may all be property offences unless the severity of the crime has increased because of aggravating circumstances such as the alleged offender is armed with a weapon, uses violence on a person or deprives a person of his or her liberty. There are special types of offences where a person breaks into a house with the intent to commit murder or grievous bodily harm.

In a case of perceived threat I would avoid going armed and carefully leave the property to contact the police.

Shoot them for stealing

And again depending upon where we live, the law can give the public the right to defend themselves with a reasonable response to a chargeable violent crime. This means if someone is charged with murder, or assault, they can use self-defence as a legal excuse for their behaviour if they can prove that the force used against an intruder was in proportion to the perceived threat. Like against like.

Shooting is not "like against like" to just stealing so there is no validation for using a firearm at all. I would contact the police to have them arrested

Sometimes people can get badly hurt in defending their property. This is not a movie situation where the good guys always win.

When I was a police officer my training sergeant told me that if I ever took out my baton/truncheon I had better be prepared to use it because someone else could take it away from me and likely beat me with it

There are some seriously bad guys out there that are best avoided if at all possible and that is why we have a police force to protect us.

So for me, I will walk away and contact the police to live to fight another day.

We need to know how to win the battles we can win and avoid those we will not.

JustIgnoreMe(4290) Clarified
1 point

Thanks for your coverage of the issues. I should have made it slightly more clear that I was looking for what people think should be allowed rather than current laws.

In the U.S. there are several states with "Stand Your Ground" laws which remove the duty to flee and states with "Castle Doctrine" which abates the assessment and proportionality requirements. Do you generally agree with the rules you posted or are there instances where you differ?

2 points

Any non white who's on your property without invitation. Especially if they have 15 amp fuse wire hair, fat lips and fanned nostrils. Under such circumstances both barrels would be the order of the day.

2 points

Property is just an idea, and in the USA it is an idea founded upon the theft of the land you now consider property.

This would seem to undercut any claim to a moral authority to kill in order to retain that which was obtained by genocide.

1 point

It should be any time someone is in your house. There is no way to tell if they pose a risk to your life until it is too late. You should try to avoid shooting them, but it isn't really fair to say that you should have to back down in your own home.

Amritangshu(892) Disputed
3 points

Now make your point clear;Would you shoot if a stranger gets in your house or rather allow him to hunt you down;You're contradicting yourself in your opinion which makes me think you're probably editing somebody else' idea.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Depends on the situation. There is no reason to expect that if I run I will be hunted down. There are more than 2 scenarios. Bottom line, no one should get in trouble for shooting an intruder in their home. Adding penalties for protecting yourself will lead to innocent people getting hunted down as you say.

1 point

If my life is endanger on the grounds of my own home because an intruder shows obvious signs that he/she is unable to conform with the laws of the land, then I the victim should have every right to use armed forces on this person(s). Now I am not saying if I see someone breaking into my home that I am going to kill them; I would more or less try and scare them off my property but if that does not work and it leads to something more strenuous where I feel as though those person(s) are physically challenging me (as in attacking me), I will then use my weapon to shoot this person somewhere that will not cause immediate death and then resume to calling the police.

JustIgnoreMe(4290) Clarified
1 point

What do you think the law should be in such instance? Should there be a legal duty to assess the threat, or to aim to preserve the intruders life, etc.?

Blxchs(23) Clarified
1 point

If it were myself making these laws, no I wouldn't "aim to preserve the intruders life" why you may ask? Simple, humans have a choice between right and wrong, correct? So, why should I put any thought into a criminal who has decided to go against the grain and break laws that were enforced for a reason that reason being to protect the people. I believe these intruders should simply be placed inside of prison for their actions, unless they have provoked the home owner into using their weapons in a act of self-defense which could possibly cause death.

Yet again this would bring faults upon us, it would be up to the officers etc, to understand or figure out if the act of shooting an intruder was really self-defense or just a mere cover up.

(Also, I'd like to assure, when I say we all have a choice between right and wrong, I'm excluding or giving an acception to those who forced beyond their will to commit the offense)

If your friend got robbed and she called you after and said that because of the financial harm and the emotional harm the robber caused her, and the potential for great physical harm, etc. - that she felt the need for self-defense and killed the robber - would you understand where she was coming from and think that what she did should be legal?

1 point

I think it is okay to defend property. .

JustIgnoreMe(4290) Clarified
1 point

I posted the same question from the other debate just above you if you can answer there.

Thanks.

When any property of yours is being taken. They should look like a slice of swiss cheese when your through with them. There are very few first time thieves. If you let them leave your property, they just move onto the next property.

JustIgnoreMe(4290) Clarified
1 point

What if you don't catch them in the act of stealing, you just stumble upon a strange person in your house and happen to have your gun handy - would it be ok to shoot them?

Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

What if you don't catch them in the act of stealing, you just stumble upon a strange person in your house and happen to have your gun handy - would it be ok to shoot them?

I wouldn't shoot the stranger wondering around my house, instead I'd offer the stranger a beer and give them a tour. Of course I'd shoot the stranger. The stranger has no business being in my house without my permission and since I'd have to give the person my permission, they wouldn't be stranger.

1 point

When loss of said property will result in death, or injury. If someone wants to steal chewing gum from me, I would be wrong to shoot, but if someone wants to steal my lifesaving medication, they better run fast.

JustIgnoreMe(4290) Clarified
1 point

What if they have their pockets full with valuables (money, jewelry, etc.), a laptop over their shoulder, and your tv in their hands, etc.?

Sitar(3680) Clarified
1 point

I would not kill them for that reason. It would be wrong. .

Shooting should not allowed at all. Call the police and let them handle the situation.