[MineralMan]

"I worked hard for my car and some low life scumbag will pay dearly if I catch them in the act of stealing my vehicle"

If you believe that your automobile is more valuable than a human life, then I suggest that you need to reexamine your priorities.

Deadly force is appropriate to stop a violent felony or to defend yourself or another person when a life is actively and immediately threatened. That's my opinion, and it's the law in most jurisdictions.

A car is just a car, no matter how much you may care about it. Yes the thief is a scumbag, but we don't execute car thieves in this country.

Someone steals my car, I call the cops. Someone breaks into my house, they're dead. Someone threatens me or mine, or anyone with deadly force, and I'll act immediately. A car? My insurance will cover the loss.

[mgc1122]

If you believe that your automobile is more valuable than a human life, then I suggest that you need to reexamine your priorities. OK ... I took the challenge, and still hold the opinion that a thief needs to be shot on sight.

[Stu Cohen]

If you believe that your automobile is more valuable than a human life, then I suggest that you need to reexamine your priorities.

Please repphrase that to: "Is the car more valuable than a CAR THIEF's life?"

I've re-examined my priorities, and have found myself comfortable with them.

That's my opinion, and it's the law in most jurisdictions.

Some laws and opinions stink, whaddya gonna do?

This guy could have been breaking into my neighbors house tonight. I doubt he was strictly limited to "car theft".

A car is just a car, no matter how much you may care about it. Yes the thief is a scumbag, but we don't execute car thieves in this country.

Just like skydiving, car theft is not a risk-less endeavor. the state may not execute, but you are laying your bets that the owner is not.

An armed society is a polite society.

Someone steals my car, I call the cops.

Do they come running back with your car? Cops are tax xollectors and cleanup men. Only citizens can prevent crime.

Someone breaks into my house, they're dead.

What, you wouldn't call the cops?

Someone threatens me or mine, or anyone with deadly force, and I'll act immediately.

Now you're talking.

A car? My insurance will cover the loss.

Is that what it comes down to? Insurance? What about the poor guy who can only afford liability? He still needs to get to work, no?

And the car theif has a better than average chance of committing another, sometimes more violent crime later. Do society (and your insurance company) a favor.

[Atlas Sneezed]

If you believe that your automobile is more valuable than a human life, then I suggest that you need to reexamine your priorities.

---

A lawfully owned automobile is worth more than the life of a thief because the thief's life has NEGATIVE value. Society is better off if he is DEAD. Killing a thief is not a cost to offset against protecting property, but a benefit to be added to it.

Moreover, a car can represent the savings of years of a person's labor, or years of a person's life. To steal the property is to steal years of a life. There is no moral difference between murdering a man 2 years before he would have died naturally, and burning the home he spent two years of hard labor building. Property is life.

For your position to make any sense, putting the life of another above the value of a possession, we would have to be talking about the life of an innocent, whose life has presumptive value. You can't (if it were possible) drop a deadly concrete barrier in front of a skidding vehicle that is about to total your parked car to protect the car. But you morally can do the same on someone who is intentionally about to destroy your property.

[beelzepug]

"My insurance will cover the loss."

And my rates will go up as a result.

[TigersEye]

A car is just a car, no matter how much you may care about it.

To some people feelings are everything.

You've got it right. No matter how offended I feel about theft killing a man for it means that my feelings are more important than his life not that my property is more important. A rather perverted order of priorities.

[GunnyHartman]

If you believe that your automobile is more valuable than a human life, then I suggest that you need to reexamine your priorities."

I don't consider car thieves to be human life

[CSM]

Therefore, you don't draw a link between Liberty and Property. How can we be truly free if we can not legally defend our property as well as ourselves. If we can not enjoy the fruits of our personal labor, then we are not free.

Of course, this same LA DA would completely support the state taking property with the force of a gun. We can confiscate property with guns, we just can't defend it.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

If you believe that your automobile is more valuable than a human life, then I suggest that you need to reexamine your priorities.

You have the question backwards. The question isn't whether the car is worth me taking a human life.

The question should be (to the criminal): Is stealing that car worth dying over?

Since the theft is the predicate action, the instigator of that action should be the one to judge the possible reactions to their behavior and make the determination of risk v. reward. The thieves obviously thought that stealing the car would be worth the risk of getting killed. If that simply had not been an option they were aware of... well, ignorance is not always bliss.

[El Gato]

Someone breaks into my house, they're dead

But some jurisdictions, you must retreat before a home invader, only if you cannot retreat are you legally justified in using deadly force against them. So unless you live in an upstairs apartment with only 1 entrance, and no fire escape, you have to retreat, and then just grin and bear it.

Glad I live in Texas. About 8-10 years ago, a man shot into a car containing a group of gang bangers, one of which had been stealing the custom wheels off of his car, killing at least one of them. He used an SKS for the job. The grand jury no-billed him. (That is they refused to indict him). They did this because he was clearly within the law of the state of Texas.

[LibKill]

If you believe that your automobile is more valuable than a human life, then I suggest that you need to reexamine your priorities.

When someone steals from you, they are stealing however many hours of your life you worked to pay for what they are taking.

Unless you're very well paid, or it was a gift, a car represents a significant portion of your life.

Car thieves should be shot on sight, medals should be awarded for killing one, certificate for a free movie for wounding one.

Of course, liberals will disagree with me.

[bk1000]

" My insurance will cover the loss."

Gosh, that's like saying 'the government will take care of you'. Your insurance pays, then everybody elses' goes up in price. We all end up paying for your stolen car. All but the perp, that is. IF he gets caught he may go to jail for awhile
and will most likely not become remotely rehabilitated. Sure, a car is not worth a life to you, but it was to that thief.
IMHO, he got what he deserved, and I hope it sends a message to potential thieves everywhere.

[Mr Rogers]

We don't execute thieves...but what do you suggest the owner should have done? Shouted, "Hey guys, come on - it's MY car!"

Now, if he unloaded a revolver & followed up with a shotgun, that might be too much - but going out with a handgun is pretty reasonable. And if the thieves don't desist, then in MY book they are dangerous & worth shooting.

I'm a good shot, but I don't advocate waiting for the other guy to draw first, or trying to shoot a gun out of their hands. If they aren't intimidated by a handgun, they are either 1) very stupid, or 2) well armed themselves...and I'm not waiting to find out if it is number 2.

[Wurlitzer]

"A car? My insurance will cover the loss"

How nice of you to have this liberal view then have the rest of us kick in with higher insurance payments. You want the thief to go free, fine you pay for the car out or your own pocket.