I am a former Chairman of the Tidewater Libertarian Party and was the 2007 LP candidate for the 14th district VA Senate. Previously, I was the Volunteer State Director for the FairTax. I am married 50 years with two grown children and 5 grandchildren.
View all posts by Don Tabor
Published
8 thoughts on “Shoplifting, looting, carjacking and burglary”
RE: “Is it time to change our laws to authorize the use of deadly force in defense of property?”
This is a tough question.
My first thought is to worry whether empowering civilians in this way might solve the problem at hand — law enforcement’s failure to protect private property — and whether it might cause new problems. I think the deterrence effects would be real and possibly profound, but that the newly created problems would be extensive.
For example, not everyone is equally capable of using lethal force to protect their property. The least capable among us would still be vulnerable. Also, how does one value the life of a criminal? As the law currently stands, the life of a criminal is as valuable as the life of his victim. This in fact is the basis for the use of deadly force in self defense. Is the life of a criminal worth more than, say, a bag of groceries, more than a used car, more than a piece of real estate? Or, what if the criminal who takes or destroys one’s property is a bank or a police department; should the law allow the victim to kill one of those “criminals”? Newly created problems such as these are not insurmountable, but they play hob with the principle of legal symetry (an eye for an eye, etc.).
In the end, when the government ceases to function, the citizen has no choice but to assert self protection, including of his property. I doubt there is any way for the legal system in practice to acknowledge its own collapse so as to empower the people, but the result will necessarily be the same, even if it doesn’t.
I wouldn’t suggest shooting a child who steals a candy bar. But at the same time, we can’t just let organized gangs of looters simply clean out a store, while the owner watches helpless.
It can’t be the law that the youngest and toughest can just take what they want with the implied threat of a beatdown if you try to impede them.
As the law stands now, if you arm yourself visibly and stand in the thief’s path to the door, you would get prosecuted for brandishing.
The imbalance in the law now is in the criminal’s favor.
RE: “It can’t be the law that the youngest and toughest can just take what they want with the implied threat of a beatdown if you try to impede them.”
I suppose you could argue that citizens have no natural duty or obligation to respond to threats to themselves, to their property or to their loved ones in any particular way. Thus, in the absence of police protection, a crime victim who uses deadly force to stop a criminal can’t really be held to account on the basis of some objective standard.
I am thinking here of a form of castle doctrine in which the victim is not assumed to have a duty to retreat under circumstances where the victim has a reasonable belief that law enforcement will not help him.
I don’t think we can draw a line under any conditions where government has ceased to function. In fact, the presumption of innocence can cover an awful lot of imperfection in a judicial system.
I really don’t like the idea that a jury, a year after the fact, and not under the stress of the moment, to decide on what is proper without a clear guideline.
I would rather simply authorize deadly force in defense of property and trust people to not shoot the kid with the candy bar.
RE: “I would rather simply authorize deadly force in defense of property and trust people to not shoot the kid with the candy bar.”
I feel the same way, but I can’t see how to craft the message or a law that would authorize deadly force in defense of property. Because of my own incompetence I am open to suggestion.
Our legal system already recognizes the natural right of personal sovereignty. The common law has its castle doctrine. The Constitution has its Forth Amendment. What’s missing is a practical way to expand the defense of personal sovereignty in a manner that covers the use of deadly force.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
RE: “Is it time to change our laws to authorize the use of deadly force in defense of property?”
This is a tough question.
My first thought is to worry whether empowering civilians in this way might solve the problem at hand — law enforcement’s failure to protect private property — and whether it might cause new problems. I think the deterrence effects would be real and possibly profound, but that the newly created problems would be extensive.
For example, not everyone is equally capable of using lethal force to protect their property. The least capable among us would still be vulnerable. Also, how does one value the life of a criminal? As the law currently stands, the life of a criminal is as valuable as the life of his victim. This in fact is the basis for the use of deadly force in self defense. Is the life of a criminal worth more than, say, a bag of groceries, more than a used car, more than a piece of real estate? Or, what if the criminal who takes or destroys one’s property is a bank or a police department; should the law allow the victim to kill one of those “criminals”? Newly created problems such as these are not insurmountable, but they play hob with the principle of legal symetry (an eye for an eye, etc.).
In the end, when the government ceases to function, the citizen has no choice but to assert self protection, including of his property. I doubt there is any way for the legal system in practice to acknowledge its own collapse so as to empower the people, but the result will necessarily be the same, even if it doesn’t.
LikeLike
I agree it is a difficult issue.
I wouldn’t suggest shooting a child who steals a candy bar. But at the same time, we can’t just let organized gangs of looters simply clean out a store, while the owner watches helpless.
It can’t be the law that the youngest and toughest can just take what they want with the implied threat of a beatdown if you try to impede them.
As the law stands now, if you arm yourself visibly and stand in the thief’s path to the door, you would get prosecuted for brandishing.
The imbalance in the law now is in the criminal’s favor.
LikeLike
RE: “It can’t be the law that the youngest and toughest can just take what they want with the implied threat of a beatdown if you try to impede them.”
I suppose you could argue that citizens have no natural duty or obligation to respond to threats to themselves, to their property or to their loved ones in any particular way. Thus, in the absence of police protection, a crime victim who uses deadly force to stop a criminal can’t really be held to account on the basis of some objective standard.
I am thinking here of a form of castle doctrine in which the victim is not assumed to have a duty to retreat under circumstances where the victim has a reasonable belief that law enforcement will not help him.
LikeLike
Well, we need clear rules, not a nuanced decision tree. People need to know where they stand.
I would not shoot a kid running away with a candy bar, but I would shoot a thief running off with a bag of handguns.
Where is the line?
LikeLike
RE: “Where is the line?”
I don’t think we can draw a line under any conditions where government has ceased to function. In fact, the presumption of innocence can cover an awful lot of imperfection in a judicial system.
LikeLike
I really don’t like the idea that a jury, a year after the fact, and not under the stress of the moment, to decide on what is proper without a clear guideline.
I would rather simply authorize deadly force in defense of property and trust people to not shoot the kid with the candy bar.
LikeLike
RE: “I would rather simply authorize deadly force in defense of property and trust people to not shoot the kid with the candy bar.”
I feel the same way, but I can’t see how to craft the message or a law that would authorize deadly force in defense of property. Because of my own incompetence I am open to suggestion.
Our legal system already recognizes the natural right of personal sovereignty. The common law has its castle doctrine. The Constitution has its Forth Amendment. What’s missing is a practical way to expand the defense of personal sovereignty in a manner that covers the use of deadly force.
LikeLike
Since reading about Alvin Bragg and his minion Meg Reiss’ crusade to allow black criminals go scott free unprosecuted for theft, robbery, violent assault, etc it seems that is all we have left. Unfortunately, if you aren’t black then you do get prosecuted for protecting yourself so it’s a catch 22. California’s drug and homeless crisis is a direct result of the same mindset that will create uncontrolable black crime in NY. Is it possible to “identify” as black to virtually get away with murder there?
https://www.foxbangor.com/news/national/alvin-braggs-deputy-says-prosecutors-have-power-to-change-justice-system-by-declining-to-charge/article_495f2e67-c363-5195-a41e-c7fb1715f1ba.html
LikeLike