Poll: Should it be legal to shoot looters on sight during a catastrophic event like a hurricane, earthquake or riot? (attorney, terrorists)

[mzfroggez]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

I guess a death penalty for any/all infractions sounds good to you, but it doesn't make any sense to me. Even Iranians, or Taliban don't have views as extreme as yours.

Bizarre statement on your part. The question did not deal with theft under normal circumstances. It dealt with a crisis environment. At a time of crisis, the people that are on the streets looting are a dangerous element. An extremely dangerous element. Looters are people not governed by societal norms. You have no idea what boundaries they do exercise. Due to that, members of society that do practice self-governance will have to assume the responsibility to protecting the weaker members of that society which may well be stopping looters with deadly force. Just like a rabid animal, you don't have the faintest idea what a rabid bi-ped will do. Step outside the law and risk the consequences.

The people who have responded to you are not talking about blowing off someone's head that walks into the 7/11 one day and takes a case of beer. One may draw their gun and detain them , while calling 911. Or one may shoot out their knee caps to stop them from leaving but one is not going to shoot to kill. The discussion here is looting - mobs on the street . Serious civil unrest. The people looting in Houston are certainly not stealing for lack of food at this point in an emergency. They are just doing what thugs do when they get the chance.

As for the Iranians or Taliban? Your knowledge of those societies obviously is minimal......

[geekigurl]

Originally Posted by War Beagle

Simple question.

Yes. I wouldn't. I don't think I could. But I won't say it's wrong for another person. It's wrong for me.

[LeaveWI]

Originally Posted by kevinm

An armed society is a polite society.

Oh REALLY? With the murder and violent crime rate in your society over there, polite is the last label that comes to mind when discussing American society. Warped, violent, greedy self-absorbed, yes; polite: not even on a good day over there.
Maybe if you all realize that not EVERY situation needs to involve use of guns, or that giving the WEALTHY even MORE money won't cure your economy, then MAYBE you might get there in a few generations.

[LeaveWI]

Originally Posted by Workin_Hard

Whatever works. In the circumstances (e.g., times and place of a natural disaster and times of civil breakdown) where resources of any and all kinds may be in short supply, those who seek to steal for any reason should immediately face the most severe consequences, particularly when a lack of proper moral judgment may not prevent them from committing crimes against others. You likening my ideals to those of the Taliban does not make it a valid comparison.

However, I will agree that certain infractions, whenever they may occur, do deserve a death sentence without benefit of arrest and/or trial. If I catch someone whom I have not invited in my house, even if they're there to take a dirty sock from the floor, I'll shoot them - in the back if necessary. I once asked a local police officer about such a situation. He said "Just don't shoot them on the front lawn." I asked what happens if I hit them in the back, to which he replied "Roll 'em over quick and put three more in the chest." Yes, I keep a loaded handgun in the nightstand and at times have ventured out to see what may have gone bump in the night. Once I ascertain the location of my wife and child, anything/anyone else I find moving is going to die. The locks on my doors are less for my protection than for the protection of those who may not respect the boundaries of my home.

I think everyone should have the right to protect themselves and loved ones from harm, even with lethal force if the situation calls for it.

That said, shooting somebody in the back is cowardly-another aspect of American "culture"
Note- speaking of coward, I fully expect the CD firearm vigilante to send me a snarky, anonymous rep comment.

[LeaveWI]

Originally Posted by Vegabern

Considering we don't give out the death penalty for theft, what makes you think you can be judge, jury and executioner?

Sadly" for many here- the answer to your valid question is " the gun in my hand" Way too many feel that owning a firearm appoints them as all 3

[LeaveWI]

Originally Posted by War Beagle

I would shoot looters threatening my property. I also have a different view of people scavenging for food, water, medicine and other essentials. If markets stop functioning, you do what you have to in order to survive. I suppose beer could be considered an essential, but for god sakes at least loot a better beer than heineken.

But the people who would use a massive crisis to rob people who are vulnerable simply for a materialistic desire to enrich themselves? Those are people who don't deserve a society and should be put down.



You can defend your own property in texas with deadly force. I have no idea about other people's property, but I'm not concerned with other people's property. If I owned a business, I'd shoot looters to protect that property.

We may not always agree, but I'm totally in agreement with you on this post- especially the Heineken statement

[Scotty011]

Should it be legal to shoot looters on sight during a catastrophic event like a hurricane, earthquake or riot?


Yes! Definitely!

[McGowdog]

Originally Posted by War Beagle

Simple question.

Simple answer, who would know?

[steven_h]

Originally Posted by War Beagle

Simple question.

Not just Yes, HELL YES!

When I think of a looter I see someone exploiting the situation. Just like those who gouge people. There's a huge difference between people who are starving days into a disaster and those who break into shops and homes carrying big screen TVs (IDIOTS!). LOOTERS should be shot.

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by LeaveWI

Sadly" for many here- the answer to your valid question is " the gun in my hand" Way too many feel that owning a firearm appoints them as all 3

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(a) Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or
(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
(2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(3) The presumption set forth in subsection (2) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or
(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Thems the laws.
Stand your ground/castle doctrine

So long as you yourself, are not engaging in crime, criminal activity, and your life or property is at risk. You are clear to engage to stop the threat. That's the law. Don't like it. Dont live in a Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine State. Move to Hawaii.