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
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Please post reasons why it is OK to kill people in defense of property. [View all]We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)130. Hmm to you too
That would be the stuff acquired by a citizen of the greatest empire the world has ever seen. An empire that has perpetrated human rights abuses, political mechanizations, extra legal killings and extraditions, and unnecessary wars resulting in the destruction of entire cultures and millions of lives. That's how you got that stuff. I wouldn't brag if I were you.
Excuse me? You're suggesting that because I am a citizen of the United States, and I have worked for everything I own, I do not deserve it because of the actions of the government? Many of which occurred before I was even BORN?
Um yeah - ok...
The criminal is making that decision for a given set of reasons. Those reasons may or may not be valid, nevertheless they are being made by a human being. Stopping to inquire as to the nature of those decisions is called a Theory of Mind. Most adults with an understanding of morality beyond that of a ten year old are capable of that.
His reasons do not ultimately matter. My stuff is my stuff. Period. I may consider his reasons after the fact, but at the moment, I'm only concerned with the fact that he does not respect me or my property.
Just because a 10 year old understands it does not make it wrong. 2 year olds understand the concept of personal property, and by 4 tend to have figured out (regardless of the semi-humorous "toddler rules of ownership" that if it is not theirs, they need to keep their booger hooks off of it. Apparently you have an issue with this concept and seem to believe that "I want" is a good enough reason to take it - that is the mentality of a 2 year old my friend - not an adult with a supposed understanding of morality.
The default position that you are willing to escalate the theft of any portion of your property to that of a life and death struggle is a morally bankrupt and hopelessly blinkered view of both the way people should behave and the way they have actually lived their lives throughout history.
By preventing the theft, I escalate nothing. There is nothing morally bankrupt with wishing to keep my property. If the criminal insists upon pushing the issue and gets himself killed, HE has escalated it.
The criminal is forcing you to measure the value of your property against his life. The fact that you are perfectly willing to value your property above a human live reveals a, well, truncated level of moral development. "Look what you made me do" ain't much of an excuse for killing someone over a TV.
On the one hand, you're saying "Look what you made me do" isnt an excuse, and in the prior breath you're blaming the victim for having his property stolen?
It certainly appears your moral development is well beyond your capacity for comprehension my friend.
Again - I am not claiming he is making me do it. I am stating the criminal is choosing to commit the crime and accepts the risk. You are suggesting that once the criminal makes the choice to commit the crime he should be permitted to do so without fear of retribution. Why have personal property at all, in such a case?
The decision to react the way you do is proactive, as is the default position to shoot anyone over property.
No, the decision to be prepared is proactive. Being forced to protect my property is reactive.
Or you may end up dead. Over a TV. Unless you're Chuck Norris. This "process" is one of your design and your inflexibility regarding its execution reveals a rigidity not in keeping with one who might consider themselves a productive member of society or in full possession of their full emotional faculties.
Yes, I may end up dead - and that is my choice to make. You see, I also have the choice to decide if the property is worth defending. If i've left it outside (other than a car for example) I may decide it isnt worth protecting. A TV on the other hand, is in my home. Pretty sure I don't really care WHY you are in my house without permission at that point. Violating my home is recognized as an overtly violent act in every state in the nation.
You also have no idea of the "process" i may implement. You are choosing instead to assume a process of your own manufacture.
If he elects to do that after you have demanded he stop whatever it is he is doing an escalates the confrontation to a contest of a life for life rather than a contest of a life for property, you are justified in shooting him. But you have to go through the steps, all of which may take only two or three seconds. If your default position is to shoot anyone stealing, you will fight like you train and you have removed any sense of human decency or morality from you response.
No shit. Really? As repeatedly stated, the intent is to STOP him. The decision to use lethal force depends upon a variety of factors. Further, as repeatedly stated, lethal force should only be employed as a final resort. Few criminals are stupid enough, upon looking down the barrel of a 12ga for example, and being told to stop, to continue their actions. If he's that stupid, well, I'm doing the gene pool a favor.
You are wrong. That Judeo-Christian standard of morals has been used to perpetrate some of the greatest outrages against humanity in history. If you want to argue the morality of killing someone over property I suggest you go read a book so I don't have to walk you through Philosophy 101.
Claiming Judeo-Christian morals have been misused in history somehow makes the morals themselves wrong is, well, bluntly put, stupid. From a moral perspective, protecting my property does not violate anything in the Judeo-Christian ethic. It isnt philosophy but theology. I'll be happy to walk you through that if you like. I enjoy educating the ignorant.
Oh yeah - it IS legal regardless of your opinion on the matter. So, your statement that I am somehow wrong in believing I am morally, legally and ethically in the right is itself wrong. This is not opinion - this is fact.
Wrong again. I'm advocating for compassion, justice, and civilized behavior, ideals that are not always possible, but for which we should always strive.
So you advocate for compassion by having none for the victim. Justice by expecting the victim to receive none. You consider penalty-free theft to be civilized.
Wow - just wow....
You are welcome to strive for it all you wish. I, however, will recognize the world in which we actually live and prepare and react accordingly.
Excuse me? You're suggesting that because I am a citizen of the United States, and I have worked for everything I own, I do not deserve it because of the actions of the government? Many of which occurred before I was even BORN?
Um yeah - ok...
The criminal is making that decision for a given set of reasons. Those reasons may or may not be valid, nevertheless they are being made by a human being. Stopping to inquire as to the nature of those decisions is called a Theory of Mind. Most adults with an understanding of morality beyond that of a ten year old are capable of that.
His reasons do not ultimately matter. My stuff is my stuff. Period. I may consider his reasons after the fact, but at the moment, I'm only concerned with the fact that he does not respect me or my property.
Just because a 10 year old understands it does not make it wrong. 2 year olds understand the concept of personal property, and by 4 tend to have figured out (regardless of the semi-humorous "toddler rules of ownership" that if it is not theirs, they need to keep their booger hooks off of it. Apparently you have an issue with this concept and seem to believe that "I want" is a good enough reason to take it - that is the mentality of a 2 year old my friend - not an adult with a supposed understanding of morality.
The default position that you are willing to escalate the theft of any portion of your property to that of a life and death struggle is a morally bankrupt and hopelessly blinkered view of both the way people should behave and the way they have actually lived their lives throughout history.
By preventing the theft, I escalate nothing. There is nothing morally bankrupt with wishing to keep my property. If the criminal insists upon pushing the issue and gets himself killed, HE has escalated it.
The criminal is forcing you to measure the value of your property against his life. The fact that you are perfectly willing to value your property above a human live reveals a, well, truncated level of moral development. "Look what you made me do" ain't much of an excuse for killing someone over a TV.
On the one hand, you're saying "Look what you made me do" isnt an excuse, and in the prior breath you're blaming the victim for having his property stolen?
It certainly appears your moral development is well beyond your capacity for comprehension my friend.
Again - I am not claiming he is making me do it. I am stating the criminal is choosing to commit the crime and accepts the risk. You are suggesting that once the criminal makes the choice to commit the crime he should be permitted to do so without fear of retribution. Why have personal property at all, in such a case?
The decision to react the way you do is proactive, as is the default position to shoot anyone over property.
No, the decision to be prepared is proactive. Being forced to protect my property is reactive.
Or you may end up dead. Over a TV. Unless you're Chuck Norris. This "process" is one of your design and your inflexibility regarding its execution reveals a rigidity not in keeping with one who might consider themselves a productive member of society or in full possession of their full emotional faculties.
Yes, I may end up dead - and that is my choice to make. You see, I also have the choice to decide if the property is worth defending. If i've left it outside (other than a car for example) I may decide it isnt worth protecting. A TV on the other hand, is in my home. Pretty sure I don't really care WHY you are in my house without permission at that point. Violating my home is recognized as an overtly violent act in every state in the nation.
You also have no idea of the "process" i may implement. You are choosing instead to assume a process of your own manufacture.
If he elects to do that after you have demanded he stop whatever it is he is doing an escalates the confrontation to a contest of a life for life rather than a contest of a life for property, you are justified in shooting him. But you have to go through the steps, all of which may take only two or three seconds. If your default position is to shoot anyone stealing, you will fight like you train and you have removed any sense of human decency or morality from you response.
No shit. Really? As repeatedly stated, the intent is to STOP him. The decision to use lethal force depends upon a variety of factors. Further, as repeatedly stated, lethal force should only be employed as a final resort. Few criminals are stupid enough, upon looking down the barrel of a 12ga for example, and being told to stop, to continue their actions. If he's that stupid, well, I'm doing the gene pool a favor.
You are wrong. That Judeo-Christian standard of morals has been used to perpetrate some of the greatest outrages against humanity in history. If you want to argue the morality of killing someone over property I suggest you go read a book so I don't have to walk you through Philosophy 101.
Claiming Judeo-Christian morals have been misused in history somehow makes the morals themselves wrong is, well, bluntly put, stupid. From a moral perspective, protecting my property does not violate anything in the Judeo-Christian ethic. It isnt philosophy but theology. I'll be happy to walk you through that if you like. I enjoy educating the ignorant.
Oh yeah - it IS legal regardless of your opinion on the matter. So, your statement that I am somehow wrong in believing I am morally, legally and ethically in the right is itself wrong. This is not opinion - this is fact.
Wrong again. I'm advocating for compassion, justice, and civilized behavior, ideals that are not always possible, but for which we should always strive.
So you advocate for compassion by having none for the victim. Justice by expecting the victim to receive none. You consider penalty-free theft to be civilized.
Wow - just wow....
You are welcome to strive for it all you wish. I, however, will recognize the world in which we actually live and prepare and react accordingly.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
165 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Please post reasons why it is OK to kill people in defense of property. [View all]
digonswine
Dec 2011
OP
You could sell a few of your guns instead of shooting an unarmed man rummaging through carport.
Hoyt
Dec 2011
#22
One-eyed, the world is not out to get you. Put your guns down for a week and enjoy life.
Hoyt
Dec 2011
#120
Actually, I'm suggesting it sounds like Newt saying 5 year olds can clean bathrooms.
Hoyt
Dec 2011
#132
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
If you have $100K worth of tools, I think I'd buy some insurance -- and not an S&W.
Hoyt
Dec 2011
#23
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
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
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
I would say that some form of agression is required on the part of the robber.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Dec 2011
#44
My opinion is that it is not OK to shoot people in defense of property...Period. n/t
Bonhomme Richard
Dec 2011
#31
There is at least one state, TX, that makes provisions for using lethal force to stop prop. crimes
aikoaiko
Dec 2011
#32
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 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
Apparently there is a policy that they have to show up for stolen firearms. (Tucson, AZ)
PavePusher
Dec 2011
#96
If the property is replaceable, regardless of cost, then killing for it is rarely justified.
Starboard Tack
Dec 2011
#68
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
My home is a physical manifestation of the portion of my life that I have spent working
slackmaster
Dec 2011
#81
Only way that would work is if the criminal was nice enough to leave a warning note.
Clames
Jul 2012
#148