05 August 2022

I Have To Agree

FAFO from RedState.

I am not certain where we came up with the idea that since a thief, robber or burglar isn't trying to injure the rightful owner of the property they are stealing that the rightful owner cannot injure or kill them for taking the property.

Considering that thieves were being strung up as recently as the 1880's, this is not an old Blackstone legal tradition.

I've long held that such crooks should be subject to lethal force.

Fuck 'em.

The law does not, as of yet, support my position... mostly.

Florida's default state is anyone who's broken into your house is there to do grievous bodily injury so you can plug them as you encounter them.

But that doesn't stop them in the lawn with your TV.

3 comments:

  1. For all those people who loudly proclaim, "The thief only wants your stuff, not your life!", I ask, "How do you know?".

    It appears to be a contract offer - let me take this stuff, and I won't hurt you - but why should I trust such an offer from someone who has already demonstrated that they can't be trusted to obey the "no stealing" laws. The incidence of people complying with a thief's demands only to be shot, stabbed, or otherwise injured anyway is rising.

    All of my stuff was paid for with money that I earned by sacrificing part of my life to an employer's benefit, so in a way, the thief IS demanding my life - or at least part of it.

    All of that is a long-winded way of saying, "I agree!"

    Try and take my stuff with threat of force, and you may get more force than you bargained for, and I won't be artificially limiting my options.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, just went through the LTC (License to carry) classes here in Texas and the position in this State is... Slightly different. Guessing closer to your statements above...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here in Texas you can use use lethal force to stop someone who is making off with your property... after dark and if you don't reasonably have another way to recover it. People have been no-billed for shooting thieves in the back who had items like a TV on their person and were outside the dwelling. Given some of the DA's these days a person exercising those rights can expect to face one or more grand juries however.

    ReplyDelete

You are a guest here when you comment. This is my soapbox, not yours. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.

Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.

If you're trying to comment anonymously: You can't. Log into your Google account.

If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.