Criminals lives are not more valuable than the items they steal. amirite?

In my opinion, its not that my possesions are worth more than them. Its I don't know their intention, or now that they've been caught if they will resort to violence. If I'm using a gun to defend my home, its not going to be to wound.

by cbernhard 2 weeks ago

Right? Like, if you are creeping into my kid's bedroom window, I'm not waiting around to see if you "only" steal things. I'm pulling the trigger.

by konopelskidahli 2 weeks ago

Yep, always shoot to kill. Shooting to wound or as a warning in self defense could get you in some serious legal trouble.

by Pleasant_Answer3027 2 weeks ago

Why would shooting to wound or to warn her you in more serious legal trouble than shooting to kill?

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

The example would be trying to shoot their leg or somewhere else that would be considered less lethal regardless of whether it was or not. The idea basically being you choose to shoot but were not in fear of your life if you didn't do whatever it took to defend your life. Warming shots are always bad, gonna shoot through a wall/ceiling/floor with the possibility of someone being there or your round going to the next house and hitting a kid in their crib? Never a good idea.

by Kimberly34 2 weeks ago

...based on your username, are you the law? But you're not wrong, aiming to wound is a fallacy.

by Scary-Committee1467 2 weeks ago

Based on their response they carry a concealed handgun and would therefore look into laws and what may happen in case you ever have to fire in self defense. My conceal carry class was ran by the police department in town and they said the same. Do not try a warning shot, do not try to wound. If you have to pull your gun out do it with the knowledge that you'll need to take someone's life in defense of your own or another's.

by Kimberly34 2 weeks ago

Aiming with a handgun is a fallacy.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

As it never should. Always shoot to kill

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

Maybe a hot take here, but it's not about what's worth more imo. The criminal knows there is inherent risk in their actions and they make a decision to accept that risk. The property owner shouldn't be held accountable for the criminal's decision. I'm not advocating we go shooting every lowlife stealing a bike from our driveway, but if I wake up and there's someone pilfering my house, idk if they're armed or if there's more than the one and I'm not delaying any more than I have to to find out. They took the risk for a possible reward and if they lose that gamble it's on them.

by PurchaseNew7584 2 weeks ago

The way I see it, if you are actively robbing from someone, like break into someone's house, or try to carjack them. you take your life into your own hands at that point. If you are going to steal my property, and you end up dyeing or seriously injured, that's on you, not the person defending their stuff.

by Rosemarynader 2 weeks ago

The life of anyone who victimizes me is completely worthless.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

So any exes or estranged parents???😀

by GlobalWarning1635 2 weeks ago

They're dead now. They were worthless.

by ElectronicMastodon 2 weeks ago

The thing is, they have already decided themselves that the things they are stealing from inside your house are worth more than their own lives. No need for moral justification when they decide for you.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

This 1000000%. If you have never been robbed you don't understand the mental health consequences that come with it. No one's life is more valuable to me than the safety and security of my family especially when they are in their own home. Idc who you are you have no right to be in my home uninvited.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

What if they're serving a no knock warrant because someone wrote the wrong address?

by ElectronicMastodon 2 weeks ago

Then they are home intruders and should be treated as such

by Jazminbecker 2 weeks ago

This. Someone's clerical error is not my problem.

by jacqueskautzer 2 weeks ago

I believe in Texas they have it as well. And I agree

by Jazminbecker 2 weeks ago

If you think some drugged-out tweaker is some sort of valuable paragon, then I'm not the one who's stupid.

by jacqueskautzer 2 weeks ago

How many have you killed so far tough guy?

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

I place no value on their lives. They valued my things more than they did their life.

by Prestigious-Day16 2 weeks ago

That really depends. If someone is breaking into your house or car while you are in it, use lethal force. If someone is mugging you with a knife, use lethal force. If someone is stealing from your car and you aren't in it, that isn't self defense.

by Hefty_Explorer_1201 2 weeks ago

That's pretty much it. You don't know someone's intentions when they break into your house and you're inside, you need to protect yourself. But if you wake up to a noise, go downstairs, see someone with a hoodie taking something, the person sees you and starts flees, you aren't protecting yourself by shooting them, you're protecting your belongings.

by InstanceBeautiful864 2 weeks ago

Self defence of your property, don't want to get shot? Don't steal it's that easy

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

Which is not self defense...

by rileythiel 2 weeks ago

See, I don't necessarily have a problem defending property within reason. It's just not self defense. I do take issue with saying that you'll kill someone for it, as in, make sure they die. I'd defend my dog as readily as any other member of my family. Thing is, once someone is no longer a threat it's time to make sure they don't die.

by rileythiel 2 weeks ago

After I confirm the threat, they wont be alive long enough to take it back. Not sorry. Don't threaten my family. Besides, the only "no longer a threat" scenario, if you pull a gun, is their death. If you feel that's not yet necessary, you shouldn't have drawn. It's that simple.

by Pleasant_Answer3027 2 weeks ago

You are defending your own belongings. Criminals deserve 0 sympathy

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

Non Sequitur. It's not self defense.

by rileythiel 2 weeks ago

It should be

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

We no, because the word self means something. your stuff isn't part of yourself. Cry more I guess.

by rileythiel 2 weeks ago

Self meaning I'm protecting what belongs to myself

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

You could literally just say that. It's still not what the words mean.

by rileythiel 2 weeks ago

It's what they should mean

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

Self defense applies to people, not property. Don't own a gun if you don't know the laws

by Hefty_Explorer_1201 2 weeks ago

Self defence should apply to your belongings as you should be allowed to protect your property

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

We didn't ask for your opinion on what should be law, did we? We are telling you the law. Get educated or sell your gun, scrub.

by Hefty_Explorer_1201 2 weeks ago

I didn't ask if you asked. I don't have a gun and am saying criminals deserve what they get

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

I agree. Like people who kill others with a gun when they aren't in any danger like in the car example I mentioned. Straight to jail for murder.

by Hefty_Explorer_1201 2 weeks ago

You forfeit your right to live when you steal what doesn't belong to you.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

And hopefully you will never own a gun. We don't need people like you giving us a further bad rap. You're probably like 13 years old though, so.

by Pleasant_Answer3027 2 weeks ago

The people with a bad rep are those that steal others property

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

I'm good with this

by kailey24 2 weeks ago

There's a difference between defending yourself and being trigger happy.

by No_Blacksmith 2 weeks ago

I live in Texas and that's a very popular opinion here lol

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

How would you write the law in this case?

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

I know. But I'm asking you to expand on that opinion. As of right now, you can't kill someone for stealing property. But if your opinion was law, wouldn't it be legal?

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

Best case scenario it's someone stealing a tv because they want something to watch a movie with. Worst case scenario is someone will resort to violence upon my family out of indifference. Either way, castle doctrine through and through. Also IDC if they start running. They might come back with more firepower or help. Their friends can set up their funeral after they see the body.

by johathanwiegand 2 weeks ago

This is not unpopular especially on the internet with all the fake ass tough guys who have never shot someone or seen someone shot before.

by farrellmathias 2 weeks ago

Think of the thieves! Stealing is a basic human right!

by FirstMarionberry 2 weeks ago

Even if that life is a life of crime?

by Sage69 2 weeks ago

This is not even unpopular, it's just a stupid and cruel opinion.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

What's stupid and cruel about it?

by Sage69 2 weeks ago

Are you literally comparing your stupid stuff to a man's life and not seeing how this is cruel?

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

You atah

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

Because I think someone who chooses a life of crime has less value than my possessions?

by Sage69 2 weeks ago

I think that their lives are potentially more valuable than what they steal in the grand scheme of things, however, if there is a understanding that if you try to break into my property and steal my things I will shoot you, then that's on you if you attempt to do that and get shot. People should have the right to defend their things with lethal force for the sake of personal security and to deter rampant looting, not because of some existential comparison between the value of the looters life vs the victims property. That's totally irrelevant imo. If there were a race if undisputed Demi-gods and their lives are clearly and undeniably not only more valuable than my property but also my own life, I still reserve the right to shoot those bastards when they try to steal my property because if we let them do whatever they want they will potentially walk all over us.

by Left-Pea 2 weeks ago

In the grand scheme of things nothing we do on this planet is important much less one life

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

In the grand scheme of things our lives and experiences and, by extension, the lives and the experiences of all beings that can have experiences in general may be the only things that ever mattered at all. What else is there to matter, what other point is there

by Left-Pea 2 weeks ago

In the grand scheme of things after the heat death of the universe not a single thing will matter. It may matter to you on a personal level but when looking at the biggest picture nothing humans can do matters

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

In the grand scheme of things if conscious experience exists outside of time in the sense that we don't experience time before or after our existence, it could mean that all lives that are lived are experienced in a manner that makes the end of the universe irrelevant to all lives that do not directly experience it

by Left-Pea 2 weeks ago

There is no evidence of consciousness existing outside so I can't base any opinions on that

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

It seems like you are trying to walk a fine line with your unpopular opinion and not offend either side, boring!!!A criminal's life is not worth more than your property but you don't want to take their life if they make a living stealing yours and other people's property. This is unpopular opinion baby, you gotta own it. If I see someone in my driveway breaking into my car in the middle of the night. I should get to use deadly force and ambush them since their life is worth less than my property. If my property was this much of a burden to society as criminals/thieves were I would dispose of it.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

Every once in a while, I'm reminded by stuff like this of how broken Americans really are inside.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

I will shoot someone if they break into my house. If I'm carjacked or mugged on the street however I'm just letting them have my car or wallet. I'm probably off guard and compromised and can't determine if they have help or not.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

This is not an unpopular opinion

by EmbarrassedStar3338 2 weeks ago

This would not be considered an opinion, but an animalistic instinct. Humans are typically able to think themselves out of this base level morality. It's one of the main things that distinguishes us from animals.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

That and the glutes.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

This is a tricky thing, but people lives are worth more than any item. And that always stands no matter what.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

It's not the ítem, it's the lenghts they go to get the ítem.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

I have a teenage daughter and too much experience with men with bad intentions. If a stranger enters my home without my permission, they are leaving in a body bag. I don't aim to maim.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

Usually a pretty serious divide between home-owning parents and childless renters on this issue also why are people discussing "the law" without citing specific statutes/jury instructions. These things vary by jurisdiction.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

Just...no. What if someone accidentally steps on your property? What if it is someone you know but you don't reacognize them in the dark? What if they are stealing out of absolute necessety? What if they're just drunk teenagers? I agree it's bad behaviour, but it shouldn't result in death. What is wrong with people? Someone steps on your property big whoop.

by Ok_Physics 2 weeks ago

Well, yeah something to consider. But like I said, I wouldn't be out to kill anyone, thats why I'm giving the warning. Also, assuming that my family room is on the way to where the sound of a break in is from, I would probably tell them to call 911 and hide. So if said family isn't there, gonna be more careful.

by cbernhard 2 weeks ago

The stealing out of necessity invalidates your whole point… It's infiltrating someone's private property/home in this situation. It's just like how a squatter should be able to be forced out of a house someone else owns and lives in.

by No_Blacksmith 2 weeks ago

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

by Pleasant_Answer3027 2 weeks ago

Not sure where you're getting ‘step foot on property get shot' from ‘breaking into a house and stealing' but ok. You don't make very good points

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

Placing a greater value on your material possessions than a fellow human being's life makes you no better than the person who is willing to kill you to get to your possessions, as does how readily you are willing to take the life of someone who poses no threat to you, while meanwhile you're risking your own life, and the lives of your family members, over things that can be replaced.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

Why should I have to know anything about them? They are the ones who have illegally enter my property with nefarious intentions. Therefore I'm fully within my rights to defend my property with deadly force

by Jazminbecker 2 weeks ago

If you are in my home, breaking and entering, you are an immediate threat to me.

by Jazminbecker 2 weeks ago

Surely that's a bit absolutist for a matter of life and death. And if they're running away?

by DepartmentFun5724 2 weeks ago

I think, under those circumstances, you'd be better off stealing from a store. You might get away with it, and if you don't, you won't be killed.

by jacqueskautzer 2 weeks ago

What makes anyones life valuable? and what ever your answer, then ask how does being a criminal lower that value.

by abernathybuddy 2 weeks ago

I mean we apply value to essentially everything. And the saying that I'm responding to ("Their life is more valuable than your possessions") is in and of itself stating their life has value. All I'm asking is what makes their life so much more valuable than your possessions, if they live a life of crime and causing harm to others. Wouldn't/shouldn't their value as a person go down due to their actions. Specifically, the causing of harm to other people.

by Sage69 2 weeks ago

Unless someone invents a cure for a deadly disease, they aren't valuable, except in the minds of those closest to them. In reality, most of us are about as valuable as the average bacterium. Petty criminals as well as violent criminals can snuff it for all I care.

by jacqueskautzer 2 weeks ago

Items are replaceable , lives are not. This is a low key psycho take.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

I don't trust that you are looking up their history before opening fire to see if they are truly a lifelong petty thief taking your hard-earned possessions. Do you trust others to 100% fairly judge when you should die or not? There are no take backsies when you are ending someone's life. If you are a criminal and you spend most of your life stealing and taking other people's hard earned property, You already have this preconceived perfect offender in your head. The world is simply not so clear cut whatsoever. You should honestly be more humble and empathetic.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

It's really difficult to judge the value of a life. It's fair to say that you don't want people to just steal, but killing someone over item based value does not seem right. If I am endangered then lethal force is acceptable but otherwise it should not be the first reaction these kind of things.

by Formal_Cheesecake83 2 weeks ago

So according to you if someone steals from your house and you catch them as they are running away and then run them down and shoot them, that is justified?

by Lower_Illustrator 2 weeks ago

justification: if they get away, you lose your stuff. if you shoot them, you get your stuff back. besides, shooting doesn't necessarily mean killing. you can just shoot them in a leg. you don't kill them and you still get your stuff back

by Business-Low 2 weeks ago

Yeah because everyone is always perfectly accurate. If you do this, you are a bad person

by Lower_Illustrator 2 weeks ago

That wasn't exactly my point. My opinion was more of a stance that a criminal who chooses a life of crime, their life value goes down because of their actions. I directly quoted a talking point that is often said by others "Your possessions aren't worth their life". My mine point was, why is their life more valuable than my possessions if they spend that life being crappy humans and stealing from innocent people. For example If I have a car that I saved up and spent thousands of dollars on, and it's my only way to get to work, how is the life of a criminal trying to steal my car, more valuable than my car.

by Sage69 2 weeks ago

I would bet my last dollar this guy turns around and advocates for the criminalization of abortion, unable to recognize the profound irony.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

Every human life is worth more than any material possession. I genuinely find it difficult to understand how anyone could view otherwise. Would you want someone to decide that because they don't like something about you or your actions that your life is worth less than some stuff?

by Ninamacejkovic 2 weeks ago

Well, that's a false equivalence fallacy. I won't die being a criminal because I don't break into people's dwellings or rob people. In fact, I am very much against stealing except when it comes to poor people stealing from businesses out of necessity.

by Hefty_Explorer_1201 2 weeks ago

It's not. You view breaking into people's houses or robbing people as something that lower the value of someone's life. Someone else might not like something about your or how you live your life and decide that lowers the value of your life. Who gets to decide what lowers the value of someone's life so that it's worth less than objects?

by Ninamacejkovic 2 weeks ago

The personal safety of the person who is being robbed or experiencing their dwelling being broken into while they are in it is much more valuable than the life of the criminal. A victim's life and well being matters more than a criminal's desire to live.

by Hefty_Explorer_1201 2 weeks ago

A home invasion where someone is put into a self-defense situation is obviously a bit different.

by Ninamacejkovic 2 weeks ago

What does it mean when a person is robbing another? It is the act of taking property unlawfully from a person or place by force or threat of force. A victim's life and well being is more important than a robber's desire to live.

by Hefty_Explorer_1201 2 weeks ago

The difference is that your actions matter and have meaning. I dont live a life of crime. I don't steal other peoples things. I don't spend my life causing harm to others. To me, those things lower your life's value. It has nothing to do with liking someone. I'm talking about people who live a life of crime.

by Sage69 2 weeks ago

They key to what you said is "to me". What if someone didn't like something about you and said "to me those things lower your life's value"?

by Ninamacejkovic 2 weeks ago

It would depend on what things they were referring to. Im basing my opinion on the fact that stealing is illegal, and doing so you are actively causing harm to other people. Your life choices are bringing harm to others. That's not the same as just not liking someone and thinking their life is less valuable. Not only is stealing wrong legally, it's also wrong morally.

by Sage69 2 weeks ago

It's valuing someone else's life based on your own values and morals. The same could be done to you by someone who has vastly different values and morals, and I suspect you might not be ok with it. To be clear, I'm not defending criminals. I just think their lives are worth more than a pile of stuff.

by Ninamacejkovic 2 weeks ago

you didn't read a word of what OP wrote.

by Keeblercharlott 2 weeks ago

OP, the only people who think human life doesn't have value are serial killers. Please get yourself some help.

by Treykoelpin 2 weeks ago