• 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?

  • Yes, you can defend the interior of your property with deadly force

    Votes: 27 87.1%

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

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Maybe, it depends on the level of actual harm to the owner if looted

    Votes: 1 3.2%

  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • Total voters
    31
Dittohead not! said:
11179942_10205630447654762_6324139766898724384_n.jpg
Click to expand...

But he poo pooed the vileness of destroying property. He would still be an apologist for these riots.
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

mrwu.png
 
OrphanSlug said:
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.
Click to expand...

See, this is where theory and practice sometimes diverge.

In theory, yes, you are correct.

In practice? Good luck finding a jury willing to convict a man under the circumstances outlined in OP.

The man would walk in all 50 states
 
Peter Grimm said:
See, this is where theory and practice sometimes diverge.

In theory, yes, you are correct.

In practice? Good luck finding a jury willing to convict a man under the circumstances outlined in OP.

The man would walk in all 50 states
Click to expand...

We *think* he would, but as I said it would all come down to interpretation of intentions. And we both know how that is portrayed in the media vs. inside of a court room is a very different animal. I am not arguing against the idea, just saying we have seen stranger things play out when it comes to property defense vs. a murder charge.
 
joko104 said:
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?
Click to expand...

My take? LET`S ROCK!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom