Should it be legal to use deadly force to protect property when there are no serious stakes?

[TPaine7]

Poll question: Should it be legal to use deadly force to protect property when there are no serious stakes?

It is legal to use potentially deadly force to protect the life, limb or physical integrity—to protect yourself or another innocent against death, serious bodily injury or rape. It is also legal to use potentially deadly force in many locales to protect against forcible felonies, like kidnapping.


These are, IMO, just laws. A person who engages in threats like these has placed his life into the hands of his victim or into the hands of any innocent bystander who elects to intervene. Armed robbers, home invaders (who do not immediately and unconditionally surrender), rapists and kidnappers are quite deserving of whatever they get.


But there is another class of people who are, I believe, in quite another category—petty thieves.


Let me spell out what I mean by “petty thieves.” For my purposes, a petty thief is someone whose theft threatens no one. Let’s say Bill Gates is driving his Jaguar and stopped at a red light when a carjacker pulls a gun on him and demands the wheel. That is not petty theft—the armed robber is threatening life and limb, and has placed his life into the hands of Bill Gates, his body guard or any other innocent person who is in a position to help.


Let’s say that Bill Gates has parked his Jaguar and is sitting at a café sipping coffee. If a thief breaks into his Jaguar and drives it off, that is petty theft. Yes it is grand theft auto, but neither Bill Gates nor his loved ones will lose their livelihood as a result. So for my purposes in this discussion, it is petty theft.


There are not a few on this board who believe that even petty theft deserves to be met with deadly force. According to this argument, the thief has devalued his own life by choosing to steal from an innocent victim. But while I agree that the thief has morally degraded himself, I also believe that a society that allows potentially deadly force to be used for the sole purpose of preventing petty theft has also morally degraded itself. I believe that medieval societies (and current ones) that cut off the hands of thieves were (and are) wrong:

The Taliban chopped off a man's hand after he was found guilty of theft by a 'Shariah' or Islamic court set up by them in the restive Orakzai tribal region of northwest Pakistan, a day after beheading a fellow militant who was accused of spying for the government. Abdul Khaliq's hand was cut off by members of the banned Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan at Qureshan Chowk in Mamozai area of Orakzai tribal agency.


The act was witnessed by local residents, the Dawn newspaper reported today, adding that Khaliq was found guilty of theft by the Taliban.


Source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/Taliban-cut-off-man-s-hand-for-theft/Article1-646218.aspx

I disagree with the Taliban, but as horrific and disproportional as their “justice” is, there is a more horrific theory of justice that has been propagated here. It is shocking to me that so many appear to believe that they can legitimately use potentially deadly force to defend property when absolutely no one’s life, physical integrity, health or livelihood is at stake—and no home is being invaded leading to a reasonable and lawful presumption of serious ill intent.


I would like to think that the vast majority in this place do not take a position that makes the Taliban relative moderates! So I am posting a poll:

From a moral standpoint, should the law allow potentially deadly force to be used to protect property when no one’s life, physical integrity, health or livelihood is at stake? For example, should my snatching a penny off of the table in front of you in a restaurant and sprinting for the exit legally justify your shooting me in the back (assuming, of course, that you didn’t thereby endanger any innocent bystanders)? Should we have a legal system where your establishing that factual history would guarantee a not guilty verdict?