Should it be legal to kill someone trying to steal from you, even if it isn't in self-defense?

Should it be legal to kill someone trying to steal from you, even if it isn't in self-defense?
It 'feels' right, honourable and fair. Maybe if I were a piece of shit thieve I'd feel different.

Other urls found in this thread:

wdrb.com/story/13163654/former-u-of-l-football-player-dies-in-shooting
dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/32.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Not just kill them, but also forcefully impregnate their wife.

If they are subhuman non-whites sure.

Now that you mention it, the definition of rape could take a trimming. If someone teases you go ahead! Same if someone dares you to punch him, you should be all clear.

Killing criminals instead of locking them up is for poor countries.

Before modern age stealing was a greater sin than robbery, because you probably wont know who was the thief and then you wont recognize him. Also people had very little goods.

You guys seriously can't defend your property? What the fuck is wrong with your countries, even commiefornians can.

yes
lynching should be an acceptable defense like stand your ground

you could just kill them and say he was threatening your life, it doesn't matter if they die, they resign the right to live the moment they threat you with phisical force

I'm not talking about cold justice like death penalty or even lynching by the audience, although I think the penalties should be higher.

I'm talking about who's responsible if you're trying to steal from someone and they get so mad they kill you.

why keep them alive?

it is right to rape a thief's wife in self defence

You should be able to defend your property. This includes shooting.
However you shouldn't be allowed to execute a man just because he's stealing. If you've already stopped the thief there's no need for further violence. Just call the police.

You can't even kick squatters out. Not even the police can.

That's why you always keep a disposable, "See officer, I told you he was armed" gun around.

>"human" rights

>Should it be legal to kill someone trying to steal from you, even if it isn't in self-defense?

It is in Utah

I think it should be allowed. However, humanely unlike niggers in Africa setting people alive on fire and stoning pregnant women. Although the latter is kind of necessary at this point thanks to foreign aid. Nothing is really black and white.

Alright Muhammad.

Someone decided that their well being was so much more important than yours that they're entitled to take your shit. I'm deciding that a person who thinks like that could easily turn to murder to further themselves, and is a potential deadly threat within my property.

Potential deadly threats to myself and my family don't deserve a swift death, but its easier to defend in court than tying him up and ensuring he never commits another crime due to a lack of fingers and eyes.

Someone breaking the law and endangering you should always mean the law no longer applies to you until that threat is dealt with.

I was just thinking about this earlier this morning
>cold outside so start car to let it warm up
>come inside
>feed cats
>look window to make sure no one is stealing my car
>imagine what would happen if someone tried to jump in my car and steal it right now
>what would I do?
>what could I do?
>nothing really, besides shoot them
>imagine what would happen if I shot them and they died or had "serious injuries" like a limp or organ damage
>imagine just letting someone steal my car
Fuck that, I think I'd shoot the guy just out of principle

Also
>imagine the irony of being sued over shooting a guy in the leg because it messed his leg up and now he can't get around very well
>don't shoot him in the leg and get my car stolen and now I can't get around very well

Legal in Texas

Pickpocketing your wallet is not a potentially deadly threat to you.
If someone tresspasses on your property I agree you should be able to shoot him down. But most forms of thievery are not dangerous for your life and health.
It takes a lot of money to bring up an adult human so killing them over petty crimes is not the best idea. Most petty criminals can still be salvaged.

No real consequence of course causes a spike in criminal activity, just look at the politicians, they can do absolutely whatever they want without any retaliation from the population.

If a thief isn't beaten into a coma, why shouldn't he continue? What does he have to fear?

ehh.. I thought it Was?


oh my goodness those zeroes


the thing I wonder about this is
if you're squatting somewhere
doesnt that mean you're Trespassing?

last I checked they can grab you just for walking through somebody's property, put you in jail for like 1-3 months for it too.


pic related


That money is wasted, there's no guarantee the person will make up for what was put into them. Honestly its an investment in memories for the parents thats all, income disposed of willingly.

life is a privilege not a right

The only expenditure is on how much effort That Person put into their life, learning to walk, slaving through school and so on.

If anything you're saving them more trouble by putting them down.

> but if they're a criminal like this, they probably arent going to have more than trouble and hard work ahead of them anyway

Yes; google Castle Doctrine in KY.

KRS Chapter 503

KRS 503.055

(1) 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 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 was in the process of
unlawfully and forcibly 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 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) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any
other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right
to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or
she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm
to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a felony involving
the use of force.
(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.

KRS 503.080

(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the
defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:
(a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony
involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to
KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his possession
or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or
(b) Theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable
property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose
protection he acts.

(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable
under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that the person against whom
such force is used is:
(a) Attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of
right to its possession; or
(b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony
involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to
KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or
(c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building in
his possession.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she
has a right to be.

KRS 503.085

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in KRS 503.050, 503.055, 503.070, and
503.080 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution
and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom the force
was used is a peace officer, as defined in KRS 446.010, who was acting 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 force knew or reasonably
should have known that the person was a peace officer. As used in this subsection,
the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and
charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of
force as described in subsection (1) of this section, but the agency may not arrest the
person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force
that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss
of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action
brought by a plaintiff, if the court finds that the defendant is immune from
prosecution as provided in subsection (1) of this section.

Only a cuck could oppose this

If you have reason to believe that the felon whom stole from you will again steal you could use the fleaing felon laws and kill away.

If there is a reason to feel threatened, yes

Someone breaking into your home indicates that they do not respect the law or fear jail and thus could potentially kill you in the process of robbing you. You should be able to defend yourself with adequate force if you feel your life might be in danger.

KY passed this law in 2006 when some nigger's family tried to sue someone defending themselves.

Read this joyful story:

wdrb.com/story/13163654/former-u-of-l-football-player-dies-in-shooting

>even if it isnt self defense

Defending your own rights or the right of others is what self defense is.
So thats only possible if he steals from you and then for example throws the object away.

In that case killing the thief is unjustified because you cannot "right the wrong" anymore.

Not just home, but any dwelling and your automobile.

That is why your are in the position your are in Germany.

OP explecitly stated "even if it isn't in self defense"

The law texts yall quoted only permits defending your shit in case of an invasion.
I doubt that there is a single country where you are allowed to just gun down a thief when you recognize him on the streets, a few month later maybe even.
Because that is basically vigilantism.

Also anglo law tradition makes for clustfuck legal texts, Sad!

It's my property, I decide whether I think its right for a thief to be shot or not if he's on my property. God Bless Texas

>KRS 503.080

You failed to read. It applies to any serious felony at any location to include robbery and burglary or any felony involving use of force; if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

That means if I'm at the local supermarket and haj comes in to rob the cashier, I can defend myself and others with deadly force.

what are you carrying on about? You can't even buy a book or speak out in Germany, Sad!

Which is all good and right.

Still there is a huge difference between defending against a currently present (and potentially even escalating) threat and killing somebody in cold blood because of an already "completed" violation, be it of your property or health.

i want to fuck the rabbit

Indisputably.

Of course, it depends. Someone breaking into your house or take your wallet? They objectively deserve to die, no question asked.

Someone LEAVING your house with your stuff? Absolutely

Someone leaving your house after you chased them off? Probably not.

Someone copied your mix tape? No.

Scaling it down: if someone keys your car right in front of you, don't you think the law should give you enough slack to punch him once, or at least push him?

as a business owner iv had people who iv employed steal from me.

the most iv done is ask them if they did it..

nobody ever says they did and i dont usually have proof..

and thats about it.

if it keeps happening inusually take over the duty they were performing and fire them.

its about as much as any reasonable person can do.

probably my own fault anyway.

Yes. Should by legal.

What are laws like in Germany?
>inb4 shariah

That is still promoting vigilantism.
And of course vigilantism feels "right", because it is (if you follow the english school of state philosophy) the natural state of things.

It collides however with the rule of law principle, so no state will want to tolerate it, since you are basically doing their job for them.

muslim btw..

the whole cutting of hands thing just aint my cup of tea.

dont know who they did it for anyway.

The german self defense paragraph:
dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/32.html

§ 32
1. Who is acting in self defense is not acting unlawful

2. Self defense is the necessary acts to stop a current, unlawful attack on yourself or another.

Pretty good.

Now, what about use of force in instances of theft?
Like OP's question

If your in texas you can.

My uncle shot a guy that was running away from hI'm after breaking in to his truck. He wasn't a threat, he was simply running away from his crime

All my uncle got was a court date and lawyer bill.

You are supposed to use the mildest means to self defense that promises the same likelyhood of success.
Retreat is not seen as a means of defense, so you can always fight back, except if you provoked the situation yourself.
So for example if you are a karate god and are attacked by an unarmed manlet you cant shoot him when its clear to you that you can just knock him out.
You don't have to take any gamble though, so if you whine enough how you were scared you might get away with it anyways.

Is there any website with a list of states where you can just shoot a burglar no questions asked?

I know Alabama is the same.

So yes, there were people acquitted who shot thieves running with their property because else they couldn't have stopped them.

The edge case where it starts to become unlawful is the "Kirschbaumfall", where an old guy shot a kid out of his trees that was stealing cherries. So you cant take it to total silly extremes, but even low value property is generally defendable with deadly violence if you cannot stop it in another way.

So if I lived in Germany and Ahmed was trying to steal my car, could I get away with shooting him in the leg to stop him?
What if I missed and hit his groin and he bled out?
What if I hit and he just had a limp after he recovered?

No mention of weapons anywhere? Here if 12 unarmed gyppos try to assault you you're only allowed to self-defend with your bear hands, even picking up a stick will get you on the wrong stand and paying thousands of € (there have been some very rage induced sentences in this regard).

>invite someone to your house
>shoot them when they're inside
>claim they tried to rob you
>get away with it
Great system.

No, you can use whatever it takes.
You still might get charged seperatly for illegal firearm possession though.


The thing is, lots of this obviously depends on the witnesses and testimonies.
So the best case is: You say you shot at his legs, but unluckily you hit him in the head and he died on the spot (no witness against you).
Also you shoot a second time in the air but say that was a warning shot to the cops.
But unless you are a recognized master shooter, nobody can prove you fully intended to kill instead of just wound him.

Of course.

And if they are subhuman whites too. Scum is scum regardless the skin colour.

> going to the house of someone you don't trust
> going to the house of someone who may have reasons to kill you

>going out of the house at all