• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Store owners protecting their store against looters?

Should store owner be able to use deadly force against looters?

  • No, even if it destroys the owner & family, property can not be defended

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    31

joko104

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The police pull out, eliminating all police protection and essentially eliminating the rule of law.

Looters are breaking into a store owner's store. Insurance will not cover the lose. If the owner loses his inventory, he and his family become homeless, bankrupt and completely financially ruined. His wife will no longer be able to continue cancer treatment, for which lose of inventory is a death sentence for her. Daughter will have to drop out of college. The family will be on the street begging for food until food stamps are given and they find a homeless shelter.

Can the store owner use deadly force (such as a firearm) to protect his merchandise? Or he is required to lose everything he has, all efforts lost, future obliterated, watch his wife die, and his child's education ruined?

What do you say?
 
Last edited:
The police pull out, eliminating all police protection and essentially eliminating the rule of law.

Looters are breaking into a store owner's store. Insurance will not cover the lose. If the owner loses his inventory, he and his family become homeless, bankrupt and completely financially ruined. His wife will not longer be able to continue cancer treatment, for which lose of inventory is a death sentence. Daughter will have to drop out of college. The family will be on the street begging for food until food stamps are given and they find a homeless shelter.

Can the store owner use deadly force (such as a firearm) to protect his merchandise? Or he is required to lose everything he has, watch his wife die, and his child's education ruined?

What do you say?

Yes he/she can.
 
The police pull out, eliminating all police protection and essentially eliminating the rule of law.

Looters are breaking into a store owner's store. Insurance will not cover the lose. If the owner loses his inventory, he and his family become homeless, bankrupt and completely financially ruined. His wife will not longer be able to continue cancer treatment, for which lose of inventory is a death sentence. Daughter will have to drop out of college. The family will be on the street begging for food until food stamps are given and they find a homeless shelter.

Can the store owner use deadly force (such as a firearm) to protect his merchandise? Or he is required to lose everything he has, watch his wife die, and his child's education ruined?

What do you say?

Depends on the State, not all have the same interpretations of right to kill over property law. Now being in harms way is another matter, but one could argue going to a store with your family during a riot is not exactly for the best intentions.
 
The police pull out, eliminating all police protection and essentially eliminating the rule of law.

Looters are breaking into a store owner's store. Insurance will not cover the lose. If the owner loses his inventory, he and his family become homeless, bankrupt and completely financially ruined. His wife will not longer be able to continue cancer treatment, for which lose of inventory is a death sentence. Daughter will have to drop out of college. The family will be on the street begging for food until food stamps are given and they find a homeless shelter.

Can the store owner use deadly force (such as a firearm) to protect his merchandise? Or he is required to lose everything he has, watch his wife die, and his child's education ruined?

What do you say?
If it were up to me, I'd authorize him to use a machine gun to shoot the cockroaches who think they have an excuse to riot and burn.

But, that's just me.

The law doesn't allow this, unfortunately.
 
Wish I could find the link to one of the recent riots were every store was looted - but one. The convenience store "owned by Koreans." They were standing visibly holding shotguns refusing to flee from or abandon their store.
 
The police pull out, eliminating all police protection and essentially eliminating the rule of law.

Looters are breaking into a store owner's store. Insurance will not cover the lose. If the owner loses his inventory, he and his family become homeless, bankrupt and completely financially ruined. His wife will no longer be able to continue cancer treatment, for which lose of inventory is a death sentence for her. Daughter will have to drop out of college. The family will be on the street begging for food until food stamps are given and they find a homeless shelter.

Can the store owner use deadly force (such as a firearm) to protect his merchandise? Or he is required to lose everything he has, all efforts lost, future obliterated, watch his wife die, and his child's education ruined?

What do you say?

Yes he can but his wife would get cancer treatment anyway, and insurance would cover the losses.

You have an incredible knack for making it hard to agree with you even when you're right.
 
If it were up to me, I'd authorize him to use a machine gun to shoot the cockroaches who think they have an excuse to riot and burn.

But, that's just me.

The law doesn't allow this, unfortunately.

Are you certain that isn't legal (firearm, not machine gun) in every state? I suppose if there was a cot in the back the owner could claim it also is one of his/her "residence."
 
Are you certain that isn't legal (firearm, not machine gun) in every state? I suppose if there was a cot in the back the owner could claim it also is one of his/her "residence."

Don't know about Maryland, but in Arkansas you can shoot burglars, residential or commercial.
 
Yes he can but his wife would get cancer treatment anyway, and insurance would cover the losses.

You have an incredible knack for making it hard to agree with you even when you're right.

Quote the law that assures everyone has free commercial property and inventory insurance and free cancer treatment? Neither of those exist whatsoever. Most Mom-Pop businesses do NOT have inventory insurance and do NOT have business provided medical insurance. Even with Obamacare if a person doesn't have the deductible, there is no treatment NOR can a person instantly obtain Obamacare. Yes, hospitals refuse cancer treatment without first being paid.
 
The police pull out, eliminating all police protection and essentially eliminating the rule of law.

Looters are breaking into a store owner's store. Insurance will not cover the lose. If the owner loses his inventory, he and his family become homeless, bankrupt and completely financially ruined. His wife will no longer be able to continue cancer treatment, for which lose of inventory is a death sentence for her. Daughter will have to drop out of college. The family will be on the street begging for food until food stamps are given and they find a homeless shelter.

Can the store owner use deadly force (such as a firearm) to protect his merchandise? Or he is required to lose everything he has, all efforts lost, future obliterated, watch his wife die, and his child's education ruined?

What do you say?

crank up the LMG and hose em down. I say the best cure for violent looters is lead poisoning
 
Quote the law that assures everyone has free insurance and free cancer treatment? Neither of those exist whatsoever.

I don't know where you got the word "free" from but any store owner in his right mind has insurance, and you're not going to get refused cancer treatment by reason of poverty, you'll just get billed to heck afterwards.
 
Are you certain that isn't legal (firearm, not machine gun) in every state? I suppose if there was a cot in the back the owner could claim it also is one of his/her "residence."

Oh, it's perfectly legal to have firearms. (no, not machine guns). I'm not sure it's really legal to shoot people in defense of property, however. I suppose if they were standing in the door of their store and a mob of thugs was closing in, they could plead self defense.

But, I'm not sure that they would be found innocent.
 
Oh, it's perfectly legal to have firearms. (no, not machine guns). I'm not sure it's really legal to shoot people in defense of property, however. I suppose if they were standing in the door of their store and a mob of thugs was closing in, they could plead self defense.

But, I'm not sure that they would be found innocent.

actually a mob descending onto your store is proper grounds to light them up assuming they have started smashing the windows etc. the disparate numbers alone justify serious firepower.

Mobs attacking a store should be shot down. Its a win win for society and the innocent owners

BTW people are not FOUND INNOCENT

they are presumed innocent until they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

if the jury fails to find that, their presumption of innocence remains intact
 
If it were up to me, I'd authorize him to use a machine gun to shoot the cockroaches who think they have an excuse to riot and burn.

But, that's just me.

The law doesn't allow this, unfortunately.

It just might, dpending upon your state's law:

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Texas Gun Laws - Use of Force and Deadly Force - Self Defense
 
Oh, it's perfectly legal to have firearms. (no, not machine guns). I'm not sure it's really legal to shoot people in defense of property, however. I suppose if they were standing in the door of their store and a mob of thugs was closing in, they could plead self defense.

But, I'm not sure that they would be found innocent.

In Texas they would stand a very, very good chance of not being found guilty. ;)

See post #14 in this thread.
 
actually a mob descending onto your store is proper grounds to light them up assuming they have started smashing the windows etc. the disparate numbers alone justify serious firepower.

Mobs attacking a store should be shot down. Its a win win for society and the innocent owners

BTW people are not FOUND INNOCENT

they are presumed innocent until they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

if the jury fails to find that, their presumption of innocence remains intact

A distinction worth noting.
 
I may not agree with automatically using deadly for for every instance of looting but US law says it is legal so I had to pick option number one. Looters are cowards who loot the property of others because they want to get something that they are not entitled too because they cannot or do not want to pay for it.

Looting is a serious and cowardly crime and if you do that in the US you risk getting shot, it is just that simple.
 
If I'm in my store, how do I know they wont just kill me?
 
The police pull out, eliminating all police protection and essentially eliminating the rule of law.

Looters are breaking into a store owner's store. Insurance will not cover the lose. If the owner loses his inventory, he and his family become homeless, bankrupt and completely financially ruined. His wife will no longer be able to continue cancer treatment, for which lose of inventory is a death sentence for her. Daughter will have to drop out of college. The family will be on the street begging for food until food stamps are given and they find a homeless shelter.

Can the store owner use deadly force (such as a firearm) to protect his merchandise? Or he is required to lose everything he has, all efforts lost, future obliterated, watch his wife die, and his child's education ruined?

What do you say?


Ferguson crisis: Most business insurance covers riots - St. Louis Business Journal

why do you set up insanely false hypotheticals?
 
The police pull out, eliminating all police protection and essentially eliminating the rule of law.

Looters are breaking into a store owner's store. Insurance will not cover the lose. If the owner loses his inventory, he and his family become homeless, bankrupt and completely financially ruined. His wife will no longer be able to continue cancer treatment, for which lose of inventory is a death sentence for her. Daughter will have to drop out of college. The family will be on the street begging for food until food stamps are given and they find a homeless shelter.

Can the store owner use deadly force (such as a firearm) to protect his merchandise? Or he is required to lose everything he has, all efforts lost, future obliterated, watch his wife die, and his child's education ruined?

What do you say?

Killing is never the answer and one life is not above the other.
 
Killing is never the answer and one life is not above the other.

This seems to be an ongoing theme. It appears the idea is to eliminate the consequences of knowingly destroying property thru public humiliation (I.E. racism, islamophobia, etc.) so that protesters have the upper hand over those who provide goods and services. Much like the Atlanta teaching case, I think the only way to end it is to impose harsh penalties for it. Those teachers going to jail for several years should make others think twice about engaging in such behavior. Likewise, when outside influences invade a town and destroy property that will then have to be replaced by the residents after the protesters have had their fun and left and the police department stands down for their own safety, the citizens are left to defend themselves in a lawless environment that has been created by the outside protesters. In my view the only way to end this is to deal with the protesters for what they are, an invading force. In a situation where there is no law enforcement I'll defend myself and my property.
 
I vote YES of course but thats my personal "feelings" and OPINIONS

Laws vary from place to place and the "looting" would have to be more specifically defined before legal answers are given.


For me its simply though, I'm at work alone or even worse with family, or even at the most worse I love above, below or within my store and a person or persons are violently trying to gain entry . . . . .they are already not to be trusted and there is a risk of life, if my home/business is breached expect deadly force to be used.
 
Back
Top Bottom