What ever happened to shooting looters?

The National Guard works well to keep order. I’ve lived in Puerto Rico where violence got so bad the governor had to order the guard to do gate duty at all housing projects and high crime areas and it worked well. This was during the time when to have a gun you needed a lawyer and to go before a judge to show just cause to have a weapon which cost about $5k. Since 2019 its a shall issue place since the first non corrupt governor took over (not elected). This is a different story I guess since most criminals in Puerto Rico are armed.


Two words: Bear Spray!


But in the context of the post we’re talking about here is 10 or less ppl swooping in grabbing what they want and running out. You sir, are moving the scope of the posting to a greater act of criminality. Still your observation of disparity of force does provide for lethal force along with not knowing if a person in the group is armed should a hired guard or police try to stop them. Which again brings up the question of who said anything about a mob because I didn’t. I happen to be of the mind that if you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. A person can apply the Rules of Stupid to themselves as well so one isn’t shot being stupid. Whether it’s a self defender, a guard or the police doing the shooting.

Property damage and theft does effect the business, the owner, and the employees. At what point does the welfare of a criminal out weight the welfare of the many?


Oh, so when you said to look up rhetorical, you didn’t mean that literally? That’s ironic.


Good one. :joy:

1 Like

I carry Bear Spray in both of my vehicles and several in the house in strategic places, I always carry pepper spray on my person. :us:

1 Like

As I work in retail, yes it’s to protect the customers and us! You let them have what they want ! It’s not worth your life


Very well put, @Alces_Americanus. Seems like all the punishments of the past wound violating someone’s “rights”, I.e., the aforementioned “non-prosecution for thefts under $900, and could no longer be implemented as a deterrent”. Should you shoot and kill, literally take another person’s life, for simply stealing something? As a general answer - no. However, if what they are stealing may possibly endanger you and/or your family or affect your ability to survive then that may be a different matter for discussion at another time. Ironically, if you catch someone stealing from you and administer an “appropriate corporal punishment” that they, IMO, so rightfully deserve and would remember the next time they thought about engaging in similar behavior, won’t have to steal from you anymore. The offender is now a victim who will sue you and the court will more than likely award damages that cost you much more than replacing the item or items they were attempting to steal in the first place. Saudi Arabia still has a good policy in place for people caught stealing. Call it barbaric or draconian or whatever but if it works…it works. I doubt you see many two-time thiefs running the streets over there.


I can’t speak for every State, but in NC if someone breaks into your home while you are there you may legally assume they indent to kill you or commit serious bodily harm. Kind of simplifies the equation.


In 1992 Hurricane Andrew hit Florida hard, and nearly leveled Homestead Air Force Base. After the storm looters entered the base housing area hoping ot grab stuff from the presumably empty homes. However, a number of the residents, all Air Force Officers, had either stayed ot returned to their homes, and stood watch armed in their front yards, primarily with rifles and shotguns. Their visible protection presence dissuaded many looters from further malfeasance, I do not know if any shots were fired.
The above situation was never reported in the news, because both state and federal governments did not want that looting situation made public. I learned about it first hand in an official conference call between some of the Homestead officers (Air Defense pilots) who had been in the armed crews on their front lawns and the headquarters where I was a staff officer.


Sooo how much do you let them take before your retail closes (like so many are) and you lose your job and your family is starving? :thinking:


Shooting looters only applies to Hillary, Obama, Soros, and other people with money and power. They loot because they know noone will do anything. The cops will show up late and even if they did, the first one they would arrest would be the guy who shot a looter. The poor cops risk their life and if they shoot somebody their life is ruined, whereas the criminal will be back out on the streets in no time. The laws seem to proptect the criminals.


I agree with you. I was stationed at Fort Belvor when Martin Luther King was getting ready to march and we was on the parade field every day with bayonets on our rifles and gas masks on getting ready for trouble if it happened. Back then all the riots and burning in the cities would not have happened because they would have been stopped before they started.


In Idaho too.

It is my understanding that self defense applies if there is a viable threat to life and limb, but you cannot legally justify shooting someone over property or merchandise being stolen.

1 Like

I’m not sure this is true in all states. I thought I read some do, in fact, allow lethal force to protect property as well as person.

A quick internet search returned:

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 ; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


I stand Corrected. Thank You.

1 Like

Ahh, but the lawyers and politicians won in the end by making money and a statement.

Here is a smash and grab in Roseville, CA last March 4.

Guns were involved. Now, what would you do?

  1. Position to try and trip the last man?
  2. Shoot because you saw a gun and thus can claim you feared for your life?
  3. Run for cover?
  4. Take video like everyone else was?
  5. Other options?