Right to Steal

@eladar said
A mechanic is having his tools stolen at night. He could not stop it, police could do nothing, so he electrified his tool chest.

The guy breaks in, tries to steal the tools, but gets electrocuted and dies instead.

The mechanic gets put in jail for murder?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

@eladar said
In the US criminals have the right to walk into businesses and steal. If 50 criminals crash a store overpower the people in the store and do a mass robbery, nobody has the right to stop them, except the police.

People are not allowed to use weapons to stop the robbery.

Are the laws the same in all countries?

Personally, I believe once you commit a crime, the person y ...[text shortened]... their property. But hey, I am not a criminal so I am not big on giving criminals the right to steal.

@no1marauder said
Since you seem rather confused by this point, let me clarify:

Just because Person A isn't legally allowed to kill Person B for doing Thing 1, doesn't necessarily mean that Person B has a "right" to do Thing 1.

Hope that helps.

@eladar said
If persons b and c overwhelm person a, then the b and c are free to steal from person a.

@no1marauder said
That doesn't mean they have a "right" to do so.

@eladar said
If person a is not allowed to defend himself it does.

@no1marauder said
Jesus Christ, you're a stubborn moron.

I'm not wasting further time here; I've explained the law. Nowhere does it say you are not allowed to defend yourself.

@eladar said
If you are not allowed to use deadly force when you stand no other chance, then you are not allowed to defend yourself.

Many men could not defend themselves without weapons and even more women.

@no1marauder said
You are allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself from a reasonable threat of deadly force. You're not allowed to use deadly force to protect your toolbox.

What part of this can't your feeble mind grasp?

Here's some homework; NY seems rather typical on self-defense and the use of force:

35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:

(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or

(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:

(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:

(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or

(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or

(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

S 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary.

1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises.
Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly physical force if he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson.
2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon such premises. Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three.

3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such
burglary.

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.htm

@eladar said
Yet if they are just stealing from you, then you do not have the right to stop them if you cannot stop them without a weapon.

Most cases that would mean that you cannot stop them. If you are not allowed to stop them, then they are given the right to do it.

As I said.

@eladar said
As I said.