What ever happened to shooting looters?

Guess it depends on what you think brandishing is. Having a gun pointed at a third party to me is a threat of death. Somebody that’s pissed off at you and pulls up his shirt is brandishing. Not sure what menacing would be.

Sure. Me, neither. I don’t believe there is a way to put an objective timestamp on my figurative “invention of humanity” — and it doesn’t really matter for the purpose of my argument. Which is why I referenced the case of Cain Eveson as a marker for the appearance of bad guys early in the narrative of the vain and jealous coyote common to many popular faith systems…

I don’t believe that either is humane, but both are clearly human. Until our human imperfections are cured of the inability to deliver swift and accurate justice, I think it appropriate for us to judge and punish with care lest we be judged in turn and found wanting.

I live in Oregon, where the state has no legal opinion, definition, or use for brandishing at all. It’s just a dictionary word. Your examples range from “display” to “threaten” to perhaps “defend” (depending on the actual role of your third party). As a justification for the use of deadly force, that seems to be a very floppy loop to throw.

By Oregon statute, “[a] person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.” Class A misdemeanor, same as Assault 4. Pointing a firearm at another “with or without malice” is a simple infraction. Neither, by themselves, would justify use of deadly force. That is a whole other jumble involving “reasonable belief,” “actual or imminent use”, degree of force allowed, and whatnot (basically Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy). Simply being upset about the lack of consequences facing miscreants in society will not carry the burden.

I would never steal from another, regardless. It is called character or moral fortitude. If you are committing crimes that harm others, you should pay the consequences. When stealing creates a condition that would put the victim into a harmful situation, lethal force should be acceptable. I have little pity on those that steal, rather than find lawful means. We have numerous government programs and charities that aid the poor.

4 Likes

Others have pointed out how that is now illegal, so that’s that.

However, I firmly believe that We The People should, ASAP, rectify the 3 Strikes Law by getting the speaking weasels to change the penalty from “life imprisonment” to “extinction”. 3 (or 4) Strikes and You’re OUT.
Serial criminals simply learn worse crimes every time they land back in prison, and virtually =nobody= “repents”.

3 Likes

I wonder what the bread thief in Les Miserables would say if he saw looters in $400 sneakers grabbing designer handbags and TVs.

8 Likes

You said: what if you were in the position that I had to steal food to feed my family?

That’s an extremely simple one to answer. I don’t know about other countries but in the US many churches have food kitchens where all all you need to do is show up, listen to preaching. You can go sign up for food stamps(get a prepaid store card) from the government. In today’s society, steal for for isn’t about hunger. It’s about getting away with the act of stealing. Making it a morals question.

3 Likes

What would I do if it was my child?

Another extremely simple question to answer. I made extremely clear to my son that he stole anything and I caught him with it, I would haul his ass down to the police and turn him in! Dad

4 Likes

But aren’t we talking about a criminal coming in pointing a gun at you to rob you or the store. That’s a different situation from what you bring up.

1 Like

KRS 503.070

(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when:

(a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person against imminent death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055

1 Like

KRS 503.070

Paraphrasing says you can defend a third party if you have reasonable belief of immediate death, kidnapping, forcible sex or severe physical harm to a third party.

Pointing a gun at another person during a robbery is, I think, is reasonable suspicion and believe of of death or serious physical harm.

1 Like

Oh, I thought we were talking about “Whatever happened to shooting looters?”
Misled by the topic title, I guess… My bad. :wink:

There is a subtle but significant difference between “believes…” and “reasonably believes…”

A defensive shooter might honestly believe any true or nonsensical thing, and have an airtight defense.
Good for the shooter; maybe not so good for the rest of us. If that is how case law in KS actually plays out, I think I might choose to stay home.

OTOH, a “reasonable” standard is harder for the defensive shooter, because it clearly assigns someone else (judge, jury, DA, police, witness) the job of figuring out in retrospect whether the act was justified — while the shooter had to make that life-altering decision in an instant, without knowing for certain how their decision would be seen by others. “Reasonable” attempts to protect most of us from loose cannons with wiggy ideas about use of force, but it makes the job of the responsibly armed (to defend while staying out of jail) more complicated.

We are talking about shooting looters but in my mind armed robbery isn’t looting . I specifically said smash and grab. Ppl coming in a store grabbing what they can and running out, no better than ppl looting to me. Armed robbers should be shot on sight since they ARE pointing a weapon of some sort at them or holding them.

1 Like

Never use bear spray, it is weak version of Mace and being intended for use on bears, not humans, could open one up for a liability problem.

If you are going to spray someone use the proper type Mace preferably a gel as that greatly reduces a chance of a blow back nailing the person using it not the person it was intended to be used on.

Also keep in mind some people are resistant to Mace, spraying them could just make them more aggravated and dangerous.

2 Likes

Personally I would like to see the laws in reference to looting allow a person trying to protect their property to be allowed to use lethal force, even if that force is never used, it very well could deter some from thinking about looting.

Now I am not advocating shooting looters, the idea of shooting anyone is abhorrent to me and should only be used as a last resort.

If someone pulls the trigger and kills another person and does so 100% legally that are in for a going through He** experience, the civil side of shooting someone can cost a person everything they have worked their entire life for, but worse is the mental effect it will have on the person who pulled the trigger.

Some people like to talk boldly about killing a criminal, that has two problems, it is borne out of a lack of experience and if posted online can be a real serious problem in court.

The problem is once posted those words never go away.

Shoot to kill looters is when there is breakdown in law and order, generally with a curfew they want enforced. Not the case with common theft in stores.
The question was why didn’t pols issue that edict during the riots of summer 2020.

2 Likes

seems this is a touchy subject… lot of divergent opinions…

thinkin back our ancestors had a different opinion for what I see as major reasons?

IMHO it’s not so much about what is being done as the attitude held by those behind it…

perhaps it should be considered if they are willing to do certain things…

what else are they willing to do? Especially if they believe there is no penalty???

are we safer because of this or actually being placed in more danger later?

local elections matter… so perhaps replace or even recall the politician that allows this???

if your state does not allow for recalling out of control politicians perhaps that should be the first step?

in some states you have a duty to retreat??? Argument is your things are not worth a human life???

IMHO it isn’t about things… never was… it’s about your peace your safe place… AND…

the safety of your loved ones… and your right to have that peace and safety…

what good is it to build a home and family if it can be uprooted and force out by a criminal acts?

So I guess what I’m saying is it’s not about possessions n such as it is to the rights connected to them?

Your home is your sanctuary or should be…

the things happening in some cities is a forewarning!!!

AND IMHO the acts of certain politicians and DA’s is deliberate and aimed at us and our society…

vote em out or even recall em… As to shooting them… I can see an argument for such…

and at some point… when they come for your things… as in food??? what ya gonna do???

you truly need some things… and someone taking those things can destroy you and your family…

3 Likes

One of the things I’ve learned from this community are two major forces to be sensitive to:

  1. Threat to life & limb
  2. Threat to one’s risk of imprisonment or fine for attempting to defend

Educate oneself on the laws, particularly the state laws. Remember if you harm someone, aside from possible criminal charges, one could face “civil” damages.

They may differ from state to state.

Protect yourselves, before you have to defend yourselves. Avoid the risk first. Lock up, take cover. No need to go to a looting situation.

I ran into a client at work who told me a story about how he had to defend himself against looters. It happened at his job, where he had to protect others behind him. I can tell he was a good man and proud of his long tenure at his job. It was a fascinating part of his life.

However, he could not avoid it; It came to him, and there was argument to be made that he had to defend. Friends, bear in mind, it is a fine line, and there is also a lot at stake, including your freedom, and your finances.

5 Likes

I think many of us feel the same except for shooting looters if they aren’t threatening us. Sadly, I believe more powerful people behind the scenes are orchestrating these and other destructive events to eventually destroy this society. Antonio Gramsci was already plotting this decades ago. His list of goals is frightening because a lot of them were eventually met long after he died. The LAPD was told to stand down during the 1965 Watts Riots. That was the beginning of law enforcement’s hands-off policy, which many of us clearly saw recently during the “peaceful protesting” a few years ago.

4 Likes

I would be very surprised if i found that your well-expressed opinion is not shared by a vast and widening majority of clear thinking Americans. Your comment about the perpetrators setting the value of their lives by their illegal, anti-social actions is one I have been making repeatedly for several years now, and applies as much to looting as it does to assaults, rapes and armed robberies.

The uniform principle at work in each case is our Natural (God given) Right to control our own lives and destinies (“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”). Stealing and looting for example, whether done under force of arms individually or as a mob, is the taking of property not earned by the thief and representing time and money belonging to another. That time and money represents part of the life of the person who DID earn it, and characterizes value he or she placed on his/her life … or for which he/she was willing to spend that portion of their life producing.

Consequences visited upon someone willing to take or damage a life in pursuit of illegal, immoral gain should be recognized as a rightful reaction or defense of that life. Indeed, the taking of a life (murder) or depriving another individual of his/her HUMAN Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness has been recognized for millennia, across most societies and civilizations, in one form or another, as the original justification for the Death Penalty for Capital Crimes.

We need to learn from Human history, and stop the reverse punishment of Society by spending excessive funds for housing the dregs of society in comfort in prisons, when they showed no concern for the Rights of others in committing the crimes that put them there.

3 Likes

Its a fine line you tread when it comes to looters. When does it warrant shooting someone who loots? Is it worth plugging someone who stole 5 bottles of Mt Dew and a box of Slim Jims? But the other side of the coin is that the store owner depends on that stuff to put food on his table. He paid for it and now he is out that money. It may seem like pennies to everyone else but to that store owner it could mean he is out of business. Pennies add up.
I have no real answer to this.

6 Likes