A question/curiosity with a moral dilemma

[slyton]

i have always wondered what is the general opinion to this question. Now everyone says that objects/property is not worth a human life. Here is a simplified scenario compared to real life that i wonder would change that opinion.

Say there is a small town dairy producer, he owns all his own equipment. He however can not afford any type of insurance. His life and family's welfare depend on his cows and equipment to be able to produce a profit so that his family may survive.

Now comes along a person/persons/gang and they start to destroy his property. He is armed and confronts telling them to leave. They ignore his warning and continue to destroy his property, while not endangering his life. The destruction of his property and equipment will however end up endangering his family due to loss of the ability to produce a means to survive (aka money, ability to buy food and so on)

Now should he be able to stop them with necessary for force to ensure his livelihood and welfare of his family. Or let them destroy it.

Please do not get caught up in the details, I am more interested in the spirit the question is asked. Thanks all

 

[CitiusFortius]

If it's not worth dying over, it's not worth killing over. - Get a camera, record their actions. Get your money back in small claims court.

 

[Chkline]

Are there any pigs on the farm?

 

[kawtech87]

In that situation it would be best to call the local LEOs and let them deal with the thugs destroying property.

 

[CitiusFortius]

Are there any pigs on the farm?

hmmmmmm.....bacon.......

 

[jbombelli]

If it's not worth dying over, it's not worth killing over.

I prefer: If it's not worth dying over, leave it alone and you won't have to worry about it.

Judges and prosecutors may not like it, but I'll generally vote to acquit if I'm on the jury of someone who killed another to protect his property.

Now, that said... to any would-be shooters: don't count on someone like me being on your jury. The world is full of panzies who place way too much value on the lives of scumbags.

 

[88GT]

If it's not worth dying over, it's not worth killing over.

It might be worth the perp dying. Just sayin'

- Get a camera, record their actions. Get your money back in small claims court.

Get the judgement, try to collect, fail, send the judgement to collections, wait in vain for an indefinite amount of time. Meanwhile, the perp and his friends have come back to show their appreciation for your efforts.

Good luck with that.

I'm with jbombelli. I vote to acquit in righteous defense cases, even if that defense is over property and not life. Even that idiotic bastage that shot the young guy and gal from the basement and waited until the next day to report wouldn't get a guilty vote from me. It all boils down to this: don't start none, won't be none. He who starts gets no say in the consequences that play out. None. And I'll not hold any man responsible for those consequences, with few exceptions, just because he refused to take it up the tail pipe because our society has an irrational fascination with being nice to criminals.

 

[shibumiseeker]

To many people in this world, the change in your pocket is worth more than your life. IMO the onus of responsibility is on the person(s) who started the mayhem in the first place and as far as I am concerned anyone threatening my livelihood in a criminal manner is directly threatening me and will be dealt with as such.

Would I shoot in the back someone running off with a trinket? No. Would I shoot the arsonist getting ready to torch my house even if no one was inside? Hell yes. The world doesn't need people like that around.

 

[chris46131]

The way I see it, if you show up on a person's property with the intention of stealing (by way of theft or destruction of property) then you've already decided to roll the dice. If you're stealing a person's livlihood and they shoot you...I really don't have any sympathy for you.

I also think it's not always a matter of the specific monetary value of what's being stolen. It's also a question of having the right to the things you've worked for and the security of knowing that it can't be taken from you at the whim of a thief. Is that worth a person's life? I think the thief should be asking HIMSELF that question.

 

[Jack Burton]

The Indiana law is quite comfortable with using lethal force in the protection of property under those circumstances in the OP

IC 35-41-3

BTW... watching someone purposefully destroy my property while I am standing there watching sure gives ME a reasonable fear that they will start on me next when they finish.

 

[actaeon277]

If it's not worth dying over, maybe they shouldn't be doing it.

 

[DC47374]

An attack upon your livelihood is an attack upon your person. Apparently the thugs have no respect for your equipment, thus are a danger to not only you, but your family as well.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Hrm... I'm not sure I'd shoot someone over breaking my means of employment. OP, they are not threatening your life, they are placing an obstacle in front of your path to income by their actions.

If my five year-old witnessed what happened, I'd have a hard time explaining daddy killed the guy because he was hurting my things.

 

[Denny347]

If the facts fit the law...your good. If not, you're toast.

C 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
(b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in IC 35-41-1-17, IC 35-31.5-2-129, or IC 35-31.5-2-185.
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully

in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (c).
(f) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(g) Notwithstanding subsections (c) through (e), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(h) Notwithstanding subsection (f), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful trespass

on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;
(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action; or
(4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:
(A) acting lawfully; or
(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.
(k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
(A) acting unlawfully; or
(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and
(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1; P.L.161-2012, SEC.1.

IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has

probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.9; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.2; P.L.245-1993, SEC.1.

IC 35-41-3-4

 

[CitiusFortius]

It might be worth the perp dying. Just sayin'

In the subject he said "moral dilemma" not "legal question." It's legal for me to be a jerk to my wife and kid, it's not moral to do so.

Lethal force should be used as an absolute last resort. You may be able to get away with killing the people legally, but would you want to live the rest of your life knowing that you killed people over some stuff?

Maybe you really believe that, or maybe it's keyboard muscle mixed with internet bravado. Either way, it wouldn't be worth taking a life over.

In my opinion.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Lethal force should be used as an absolute last resort. You may be able to get away with killing the people legally, but would you want to live the rest of your life knowing that you killed people over some stuff?

As I posted: if it's trinkets easily replaced then no, I don't want that hanging over my head. But if it's something I've worked my whole life for or something that means that I won't be able to continue to provide for myself, then I can live with it.

What value "stuff" has is entirely dependent on context.

An MRE is not worth a whole lot to me right now, but if I haven't eaten in a week and I still have to finish walking to safety then its value goes up enormously. A candy bar is worth a buck unless I've just taken a shot of insulin and have nothing else available to eat in the next few hours, then it's priceless.

 

[eldirector]

Sticking to the "legal" side, just use "reasonable force" to protect your possessions. Soak them with the hose, yell at them, use OC spray, etc.... Now, if they decide to ESCALATE to violence (rather than stop/leave), then use deadly force to protect you and yours.

I'm NOT saying provoke them. No "Come at me, Bro" kind of stuff. More "Go Away!" while hosing them with pepper spray. All the while, your sidearm is holstered, and your wife is providing cover from the 2nd story window.

 

[CitiusFortius]

An MRE is not worth a whole lot to me right now, but if I haven't eaten in a week and I still have to finish walking to safety then its value goes up enormously.

huh, that's actually a really good point. Let me think on that a bit...

 

[LowerSW]

There are too many varaibles leading up to the contact with the people busting up my property.

Since I open carry on my property the thugs would see me with a gun on my hip. Would that cause them to back off or attack I would not know until it happened.
Would I first try to stop them and hold them for the police? It seems that I would, so once again how can someone just respond that the would shoot or not?
Now, to answer your question. No I would not shoot, but again I would not let them keep smashing things either. If that would lead to a stronger confrontation and I was fearing for my life then yes I would protect myself. Especially since I know that I am the only thing between them and my wife and kids.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Does this hypothetical gang tearing up the place wear matching uniforms and badges? In other words, are we talking about some kind of cops?

Something about the description reminded me of whole milk raids.