Deadly Force and the Defense of Property

Deadly force is generally not justified in the defense of property but is that best for a civilized society?

Should deadly force be justified in the defense of property? At first glance, the obvious answer for most would be of course not as property is replaceable but a human life is not. Property is insured and if stolen can easily be replaced. When a human life is taken it’s gone forever, there is no replacing that person.

But is that view skewed by societal factors and maybe not as correct as it seems? For example, my family and most of the people with whom I interact daily would be considered middle or upper middle class meaning we typically carry insurance covering the things we own. But what about Americans that are struggling financially, and there are many more than you would think, for whom insurance is a luxury they are forced to do without?

If my truck is stolen it would be inconvenient for a bit, but I would eventually end up with a new, better truck. Not much reason for me to risk my life. But what about the family that owns a single vehicle and doesn’t have the resources to insure it beyond the required liability insurance? What if that vehicle represents transportation to and from work for the two working adults in the family? What if loss of that vehicle means loss of income? What if that vehicle is the difference between that family living in an apartment and being homeless? Would it be reasonable to use deadly force in defense of that vehicle?

Consider the impact on crime. Does telling criminals there is no danger from legally armed citizens defending property encourage more property crime and by extension more violent crime resulting in increased injury or death? In California where we have single party rule, the corrupt, incompetent politicians in Sacramento decided to decriminalize shoplifting for theft valued less than $950. This resulted in a drastically increased number of shoplifting incidents by organized gangs, which in some cases were seen calculating the value of items as they were stealing to ensure they stayed under the $950 limit. The resulting loss to businesses, injuries to employees, and burden to police got so bad that the legislature is now amending the law to address the problem they created.

To be clear I’m not saying we should be shooting trespassers or criminals stealing bicycles, but should there be limited circumstances where the consequences of property loss would be severe enough to justify deadly force in the defense of such property? Consider two examples from 2020 when racist BLM thugs and Antifa fascists were rioting across the country encouraged by Democrats and the media. This rioting resulted in billions of dollars in property damage, thousands of assaults, and dozens of murders.

Kyle Rittenhouse may be a name that sounds familiar. Rittenhouse was a young man wrongly arrested and prosecuted for defending himself from rioters, specifically from two criminal rioters, who were angry at him for having the audacity to put out an arson fire they started. Rittenhouse was in the area to help defend property and to render aid to those in need, he also had the presence of mind to arm himself. Strictly speaking, Rittenhouse didn’t use deadly force to directly defend property but to protect himself from criminals who were upset that he dared interfere with their arson. Some like his persecutors in the media and on the left would say that he shouldn’t have been there in the first place, but is that saying that we have no right or responsibility to defend property from criminals or to assist our neighbors in such defense? For those unfamiliar with the case, you can read the details in my article from 2021.

A name you may not remember is Jake Gardner. Gardner was a veteran of the Iraq War and a business owner in Omaha, Nebraska. During the BLM riots, Gardner along with his 68 year old father and a security guard were attempting to protect his two businesses, bars called The Hive and The Gatsby. When rioters smashed the plate-glass window of The Hive, Gardner and his father went outside to prevent rioters from entering the bar. When his father was knocked to the ground Gardner went to assist him and they both backed away from the mob and towards the bar as Gardner raised his shirt to reveal to his attackers that he was armed. Two rioters rushed Gardner knocking him to the ground where Gardner fired two warning shots causing his attackers to flee. A third attacker then jumped Gardner from behind placing him in a choke hold. After pleading with his attacker to stop, Gardner raised his gun and shot killing his attacker.

All of what is described above was captured on video. The local DA and a team of homicide detectives thoroughly reconstructed and investigated the incident and determined Gardner acted in self-defense. The incident was then politicized, and Gardner was charged with manslaughter and making terrorist threats. Facing trial and a possible 95 year sentence, Gardner took his own life. Ann Coulter wrote an article titled Innocent Until Proven Trump Supporter which describes in detail the incident including why an innocent man was charged, smeared, and prevented from raising money for his defense. I highly suggest spending a few minutes reading Coulter’s article.

So, in conclusion I ask is it time that we reconsider how we look at use of force and use of deadly force in particular? This is not just a subject for gun owners or concealed carriers but something that all members of a civilized society should consider. The value we place on human life and the restrictions we place on defense of life and property are a function of culture. The frequency with which we allow innocent people like Rittenhouse and Gardner to be smeared and persecuted by political activists over the better judgement of professional law enforcement and prosecutors is a function of culture. Are our current societal norms doing more harm than good?

In less than 20 days there will be an election in which the two candidates have very different views of America, our society, and the direction in which the country should be moving. The winner will have a great deal of influence in shaping our societal norms in the coming years, in how we view human life, self-defense, use of force, and a million other things. The days between now and November 5^th might a good time to reflect on these things.

©2024 Joseph T Drammissi

This article and more of Joe’s work covering the Second Amendment and other topics can be found on Substack at