Bottom line, loss of property can be devastating to a family. And if you think allowing the innocent to suffer is worth saving the life of someone who preys on the weak then I think you should consider flushing your head down the toilet.

"...2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony..." (from Califonia Penal Code, Section 197).

Rodney, comparing your statements to the exact text of California Penal Code, Section 197(2) yields the fact that the "application of that law" has been pushed to the point to where that law has been usurped. I am not surprised. It is a provable fact that all of the courts in the United States are fraud and treason and that one of the things that those fraudulent courts do is engage in selective prosecution in favor of physically violent parasitic degenerates. You can take a look at the legal evidence against the courts at http://home.absolute.net/xode/nwofraud/Bankruptcy_Fraud/Bankfraud1.htm

Never confuse the law with actual application of that law.

The commission of felony clause in Section 197 is understood

to apply to a felony against a person (i.e. the felony must be life-threatening), not property. There was a recent incident where a person woke up, went outside, and saw two guys trying to steal his car. He ended up shooting and killing one of the guys and now faces a murder charge.

In CA, the right to self-defense ceases where there is no further danger from an assailant. Thus, if the guy is driving away from you in *your* car, you cannot shoot him.

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or, 2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or, 3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or, 4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

That's California law.

What some of arguments above says to me is that someone's property is more valuable than someone else's life, and that is wrong. I have a California CCW, and whenever I'm carrying, I often have remind myself of that.

Aren't you just proving your point here? Lack of consideration for other people? Isn't killing someone the ultimate lack of consideration? And for stealing your car?

The moment they started their attempt to steal my property they forfeited their right to receive my consideration or respect.

You're saying that if you were across the street, and saw someone jimmying your lock, you'd be justified in shooting them dead?

Personally, I think that particular scenario is a bit of gray area. From across the street, it might only look like they're attempting to steal my car. So, no, I don't believe I would be justified in shooting them. If, however, I witnessed them smash my window to gain entry or saw them in the act of hot-wiring my car or about to drive away in it, then yes, I would like it if I was legally allowed to shoot them assuming I was properly licensed to carry a gun, was proficient in its use as determined by the state (I am neither), and had zero chance of putting anyone else in danger, i.e. there was no one else in the area where I was firing the gun and that includes potential people in buildings who I cannot see, etc.

Anyway, when you value your car more than a person's life (any person's life), then yes, you are part of the problem. Or more specifically, you are the problem.

It's not the car itself, but the woeful disregard for the owner of the car. A person who hasn't learned to respect another person and their property by the time they're old enough to go around stealing cars probably isn't going to learn. And if they prefer to take their chances stealing cars knowing that someone might shoot them dead, then so be it. Under the right circumstances, and I admit those circumstances wouldn't be all that common, they forfeit their lives. Oh well. No great loss as far as I'm concerned. And quite likely better for society overall.

But, putting that aside, it all boils down to my feeling that one of the basic things wrong in our society is a lack of consideration for other people. If someone feels justified in stealing another person's car (generally considered a significant item in our society), then they obviously have little or no regard whatsoever for the person. If that's how you feel about people you don't know, then you're part of the problem. I would prefer to see you removed from society.

Aren't you just proving your point here? Lack of consideration for other people? Isn't killing someone the ultimate lack of consideration? And for stealing your car? Jeez! Learn to forgive, and get over it. I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished, but you're pretty much advocating vigilante justice.

And again, this wasn't a carjacking, where your life could (possibly) be in danger. You're saying that if you were across the street, and saw someone jimmying your lock, you'd be justified in shooting them dead? Wow, talk about being part of the problem.

I agree that one of the biggest problems in our society is lack of consideration (and respect). But shooting someone dead earns you no respect (or shouldn't). Quite the contrary.…

Anyway, when you value your car more than a person's life (any person's life), then yes, you are part of the problem. Or more specifically, you are the problem.

But, putting that aside, it all boils down to my feeling that one of the basic things wrong in our society is a lack of consideration for other people. If someone feels justified in stealing another person's car (generally considered a significant item in our society), then they obviously have little or no regard whatsoever for the person. If that's how you feel about people you don't know, then you're part of the problem. I would prefer to see you removed from society.

Interestingly, I am opposed to the death penalty. Not because I think it's cruel, but because it is implemented unfairly, with a bias towards executing poor/minority individuals, and it is most definitely not foolproof, as Project Innocence has shown.

Rob

Even looking back on it years later, I don't think I'd feel any regret or remorse over it.

I'm not sure that you could know this without having actually done it. Regardless, I don't think the use of deadly force to prevent any type of larceny should be justifiable and I'm not sure it is morally supportable. There is no physical injury occurring or being threatened in the commission of a GLA, why should you have the right and why do you see it as justifiable to shoot the person(s) responsible? For a burglary I can understand it simply because if you're in the house and someone's burglarizing it, you can reasonably assume that your life might be in danger. But larceny?

Also, if you had had the opportunity to shoot the individual(s) during the commission of the crime it would mean you would have been there, which would change the entire scenario depending on what their reaction would be to your presence.

Rob