Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
116. Well, I might be insane but I'm not a thief
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 02:24 PM
Dec 2011

and that will be the thief's position in the matter. Just like you say that if you don't want to get shot, don't steal, the thief is saying if you don't want it stolen, don't have it around. Someone who steals for a living has a, shall we say, flexible concept of private property.

When the thief goes to work and you defend your property, you guys are just going to have to work it out between you in about three seconds. The issue that you will be settling is who is most willing to die for the stuff - or who is more willing to kill for it. And that metric will depend on the level of desperation each of you has about the need for the stuff and the resulting amount of force each is willing to bring to bear to secure it.

If a thief is willing to kill for the stuff, and the homeowner is willing to kill to keep it, who has the moral high ground here? It's easy to say the homeowner since he or she obviously worked for the money to pay for it. But it's not that simple. Ask yourself these questions: Would I steal to secure medication to keep my wife alive? Would I kill for it? Who would I kill? Those questions are a variation of the Heinz Dilemma(1) based on Kohlbergs stages of moral development(2).

All of these scenarios regarding whether or not to shoot the thief assume the thief is a loser lowlife crook moral deficient. The terms get flung around a lot: thug, goblin, etc. But as current events would show, there is a growing level of serious income disparity in this country, and many who were once upstanding homeowners have been transformed into deadbeats who walk away from mortgages through no fault of their own because the richest 1% turned the housing market into a casino with a rigged roulette wheel. The greatest number of bankruptcies in this country are caused by medical expenses. The cases of big pharma charging exorbitant prices for medications and manipulating patent regulations to maintain profit margins are no secret. Given the rising social and political turmoil in this country, the Heinz dilemma is much less of an abstraction than it might at first seem to be.

It's all well and good to declare what's yours is yours and you are willing to kill to defend it. But what you have may not always be yours, and you may find yourself in the position of having to steal from others who have more than you to survive. Even a cursory glance at American history will tell you that. A morality based on wealth is a poorly founded morality and an unwise way to deal with others around you. Wealth changes hands, lives do not.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

I can understand essentials, such as insulin or scarce clean water, ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #1
Agreed- digonswine Dec 2011 #2
+1 Callisto32 Dec 2011 #37
So now you get into a judgement call. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #52
I already know what is essential in my life. ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #55
So now it's about survival? Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #66
The examples I gave were survival examples. ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #69
I dont LIKE the idea We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #72
Killing thieves is not necessary. ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #84
Citizens United 2 will make guns people. onehandle Dec 2011 #3
LMAO. LAGC Dec 2011 #111
LOL bongbong Jul 2012 #154
What if it is the tools and equipment needed to make a living? oneshooter Dec 2011 #4
In the long run safeinOhio Dec 2011 #5
It depends on your personal definition of "cheap". oneshooter Dec 2011 #6
You could sell a few of your guns instead of shooting an unarmed man rummaging through carport. Hoyt Dec 2011 #22
Why should I have to... We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #40
Exactly. n/t Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #53
Thats just a stoopid post rl6214 Dec 2011 #70
Jesus, what if that "idiot" is starving and looking for food to feed family? Hoyt Dec 2011 #101
other than what's in the safe gejohnston Dec 2011 #103
Like me -- I hope they take it so that I don't have to haul it off. Hoyt Dec 2011 #104
Food in the carport?? one-eyed fat man Dec 2011 #106
One-eyed, the world is not out to get you. Put your guns down for a week and enjoy life. Hoyt Dec 2011 #120
A lot of wisdom was engraved on Zippos half a century ago one-eyed fat man Dec 2011 #129
If he's starving.... We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #108
Sounds so TBaggerish to me. Hoyt Dec 2011 #119
Oh my! discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2011 #122
Seriously? We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #128
Actually, I'm suggesting it sounds like Newt saying 5 year olds can clean bathrooms. Hoyt Dec 2011 #132
Maybe you can explain one-eyed fat man Dec 2011 #133
So you're suggesting HALO141 Jul 2012 #152
Food? In my toolbox? AtheistCrusader Jul 2012 #147
How do I know that he is unarmed? GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #140
And when they come back to steal more, you can just sell more guns. NewMoonTherian Jul 2012 #145
Not really, Shilka-Gunluvr Jul 2012 #144
That is what I was getting at-- digonswine Dec 2011 #8
I would not generally kill just to stop a theft. PavePusher Dec 2011 #7
I agree-in general- digonswine Dec 2011 #10
The decision whether to shoot, or even the ability shoot another person is very situational ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #15
If someone is on my property without my permission and/or has come into my house uninvited Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2011 #9
That is a very broad set of circumstances there. ManiacJoe Dec 2011 #11
true, but -- Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2011 #16
Context matters in this issue ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #12
yes. context matters Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2011 #17
You post gets to the heart of the matter... SteveW Dec 2011 #141
Depends where they are. hack89 Dec 2011 #13
correct...someones in the garage, I'm not going to expose myself. ileus Dec 2011 #18
To me, it will revolve around the nature of the property being stolen. ManiacJoe Dec 2011 #14
I can only justify harming someone in self defense. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #19
You never know when a simple burglary may escalate into violent combat. alp227 Dec 2011 #20
This. TupperHappy Dec 2011 #125
Here’s a possible reason MicaelS Dec 2011 #21
If you have $100K worth of tools, I think I'd buy some insurance -- and not an S&W. Hoyt Dec 2011 #23
You get partial credit. ManiacJoe Dec 2011 #24
He also seems to assume that insurance will always fully replace ones' losses. PavePusher Dec 2011 #25
Oh, so it's OK to shoot unarmed person as soon as you calculate potential insurance coverage? Hoyt Dec 2011 #100
Surely you can cite where I said that... yah? PavePusher Dec 2011 #107
I have a friend with well over 100k in tools....he has plenty of S&W's, alarm and video monitoring. ileus Dec 2011 #89
Shoot an unarmed man for stealing and safeinOhio Dec 2011 #27
No it wont. We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #30
That is a bit scary- digonswine Dec 2011 #78
Now that's the kind of gun owner I grew up with -- and helped me realize we gotta problem. Hoyt Dec 2011 #102
In Ohio, if an home or occupied vehicle is broken into then justified self defense is presumed. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2011 #34
My reply to #21 about a truck being stolen safeinOhio Dec 2011 #51
Wrong, it is not "playing" at anything MicaelS Dec 2011 #42
"Playing cop, judge, jury and executioner" rl6214 Dec 2011 #71
It's impossible to be very specific on that. rrneck Dec 2011 #26
It is VERY possible to be very specific on it We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #43
I would say that some form of agression is required on the part of the robber. discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2011 #44
The very act of theft is agressive We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #45
As I said... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2011 #48
Well yeah, rrneck Dec 2011 #58
I think we can expand a little Euromutt Dec 2011 #139
Back in the day one-eyed fat man Dec 2011 #28
It would help... We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #29
I have seen this argument before- digonswine Dec 2011 #79
I'm not the one deciding that We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #109
My opinion is that it is not OK to shoot people in defense of property...Period. n/t Bonhomme Richard Dec 2011 #31
That and $5 will get you a Grande Mocha at Starbucks.... We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #35
There is at least one state, TX, that makes provisions for using lethal force to stop prop. crimes aikoaiko Dec 2011 #32
Its not the only one We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #36
I will use deadly force to protect... jeepnstein Dec 2011 #33
+1 n/t Bonhomme Richard Dec 2011 #39
There is no simple yes or no answer Lurks Often Dec 2011 #38
Its simple for me. We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #41
That's the best answer right there. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #54
Thank you We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #57
We each have our own choice to make Lurks Often Dec 2011 #56
Man - sucks for you.... We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #60
I was thinking of "should" shoot- digonswine Dec 2011 #80
The "should" shoot and "legal" shoot question is important... SteveW Dec 2011 #142
Premise appears generally flawed in that the victim will have zero idea... LanternWaste Dec 2011 #46
I have no duty to wait until I am attacked before taking action to defend my health and property. PavePusher Dec 2011 #59
I imagine any "duty" we have are merely the ones we set for ourselves... LanternWaste Dec 2011 #63
Depends on the state, actually. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2011 #64
I have been giving a lot of thought to this thread since I posted last Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2011 #87
My police department is 3 minutes down the road... so I'd guess 5-10 mins. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2011 #88
When I called about my last two vehicle break-ins in my driveway, the police never came. PavePusher Dec 2011 #91
interesting -- Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2011 #94
Apparently there is a policy that they have to show up for stolen firearms. (Tucson, AZ) PavePusher Dec 2011 #96
What was your truck doing in a bar? n/t oneshooter Dec 2011 #97
Trying to pick-up chicks..... PavePusher Dec 2011 #99
are kids considered property? ileus Dec 2011 #47
no We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #61
There are many people living hand to mouth. aikoaiko Dec 2011 #49
Why it's OK to kill in defense of property. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #50
Never judge a man with a gun in your hand. rrneck Dec 2011 #62
I can't. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #65
There is a huge difference rrneck Dec 2011 #67
Their life is forfeit if they try. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #73
You can't honestly shift the moral responsibility of your position onto others. rrneck Dec 2011 #76
Of course I can. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #113
Would you steal medicine to keep your wife alive? nt rrneck Dec 2011 #117
Would I? We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #118
Imagine harder. rrneck Dec 2011 #123
Yes. I would murder to keep my wife alive. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #124
As would I. rrneck Dec 2011 #126
That's pretty rude. ileus Dec 2011 #127
Lets look at the ultimate cause of the issue here shall we? We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #115
Hmmmmm. rrneck Dec 2011 #121
Hmm to you too We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #130
It's nice that you agree with me rrneck Dec 2011 #131
As I originally said.... We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #136
I agree! bongbong Jul 2012 #158
If you dont want to get shot while stealing... We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #74
What are the terms of the contract? nt rrneck Dec 2011 #77
That is the question- digonswine Dec 2011 #82
At the risk of speaking for others and getting it wrong rrneck Dec 2011 #85
Actually, there is rationality to "It is legal here - so watch out"... SteveW Dec 2011 #143
It sounds good until... rrneck Dec 2011 #86
Let me get this straight.... We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #110
Well, I might be insane but I'm not a thief rrneck Dec 2011 #116
Careful with a post like this bongbong Jul 2012 #160
In that effort, I am under no obligation to endanger myself. PavePusher Dec 2011 #92
Sure. rrneck Dec 2011 #95
You know, it is interesting one-eyed fat man Dec 2011 #134
If the property is replaceable, regardless of cost, then killing for it is rarely justified. Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #68
One more time for the REALLY slow ones in the group.... We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #75
i read it ten times- digonswine Dec 2011 #83
No, at that point he is no longer a danger to you. If you shoot then YOU are in the wrong. oneshooter Dec 2011 #98
Of course not. mvccd1000 Dec 2011 #105
Depends. We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #114
My home is a physical manifestation of the portion of my life that I have spent working slackmaster Dec 2011 #81
Anytime... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2012 #150
I will defend my family and property 41mag Dec 2011 #90
my body is mine StarsInHerHair Dec 2011 #93
It is never "OK" to kill people in defense of property DWC Dec 2011 #112
I think I posted about this on DU2, but will repeat. chrisa Dec 2011 #135
I agree with almost all of that.... We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #137
I probably should have said "anyone." chrisa Dec 2011 #138
Bank guards and museum guards. Remmah2 Jul 2012 #146
Only way that would work is if the criminal was nice enough to leave a warning note. Clames Jul 2012 #148
One must always draw one's own lines. discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2012 #149
I definitely would not shoot someone unless there was personal danger. digonswine Jul 2012 #159
Thanks discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2012 #162
I don't recall anyone proposing killing to defend property. HALO141 Jul 2012 #151
Boy-I barely remember posting that OP. digonswine Jul 2012 #157
EXCELLENT bongbong Jul 2012 #153
Interesting bongbong Jul 2012 #155
Interesting #2 bongbong Jul 2012 #156
I agree- digonswine Jul 2012 #161
Don't forget bongbong Jul 2012 #163
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Glaug-Eldare Jul 2012 #164
I think I remember now-- digonswine Jul 2012 #165
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Please post reasons why i...»Reply #116