Should PA allow deadly force to stop thieves?

[GunLawyer001]

Spent a few seconds researching this issue and found that Tennessee has been thinking about doing exactly that for a few years now, allowing property owners to use deadly force against people trying to steal their stuff.

It would be in-Constitutional (cruel & unusual punishment, I suppose) for the govt to execute perps for stealing a car. It's NOT un-Constitutional for the state to NOT outlaw the killing of a thief by a private citizen; the Bill of Rights only applies to government, not you in your boxer shorts at 3 AM shooting junkies stealing your car.

What do you think? Would reducing crime while winnowing the career criminal population be a good or a bad thing? Too great a risk of morons with guns shooting some innocent person who is driving by in a similar car, or too great a cost to allow criminals to destroy civilization?

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/te...property-crime

[bogey1]

I'm all for it.

[Curmudgeon]

The devil is always in the details. It depends on how it is written,
but i can imagine scenarios where an attempt to stop a theft in
progress by simple force escalates into a self-defense situation.

I'd like to know I have options. I'd like to see the law provide for
a person to engage a thief while allowing for the use of deadly force
if the perp escalates his crime.

Sometimes a theft is just a theft and I think we've all seen videos where
the thief is seen and run off. And sometimes it's a desperate act
by an even more desperate and determined individual.

[Noah_Zark]

It should be legal to use deadly force against DAs that refuse to prosecute criminals, and parole boards who let repeat offenders out early.

Just sayin'.

Noah

[Delkal]

Yup. The devil is in the details. Should you be allowed to kill a bunch of teens that broke into your shed? Or one that stole your pumpkin on mischief night? Will there be a dollar amount to where you are OK to blast them? And what happens if you are $1 under?

[Sandcut]

As much as my initial reaction is to say, "Yes!", my rational side thinks, " maybe".

There are two possible outcomes to allowing for allowing deadly force for property crimes:

1. The one most people think would happen, which is that the increased threat of violence would make bad guys recalculate their criminal calculus, realizing that getting killed over small items is not worth the risk. This is the most probable outcome.

However,

2. Increasing the risk of receiving return fire for pilfering items that aren't theirs causes bad guys to simply escalate the amount of violence that they are willing to exert, even over small-ticket items. Rather than risk being shot for a face-first confrontation, bad guys would just snipe people from the shadows, without even showing themselves, then roll in, scavenge, and roll out.

The total number of incidents would likely decrease, but the violence would escalate in those that did occur.

[Walleye Hunter]

I support using deadly force against anyone who is taking anything of mine anywhere, anytime. I know a guy who lives in GA and he says that he is allowed to shoot an intruder caught in his garage with no penalties but I never researched it.

[Curmudgeon]

It should be legal to use deadly force against DAs that refuse to prosecute criminals, and parole boards who let repeat offenders out early.

Just sayin'.

Noah

I think I'd be happy to see a big chunk taken out of qualified immunity.
Watching idiots held to account for, and pay for, their reckless acts
would be a nice start.

[cephas]

Living out in the middle of nowhere, hell yes, if need be, caught in the act.

[Curmudgeon]

I support using deadly force against anyone who is taking anything of mine anywhere, anytime. I know a guy who lives in GA and he says that he is allowed to shoot an intruder caught in his garage with no penalties but I never researched it.

Perfect example of 'not enough detail'.
His "garage" could be attached to the residence where
he is sleeping.

Or it could be a work space across town.