Re: Joe Horn?
[ QUOTE ]
A. What if his intent wasn't to kill anyone but he just likes building death traps as a hobby?
[/ QUOTE ]
Then I think that's certainly acceptable. Proving it is of course is gray and impossible, but theoretically, I agree there is no foul in this instance.
[ QUOTE ]
B. What about the banana peel or the dog where the intent is to kill?
[/ QUOTE ]
If the intent was to kill, then I wouldn't necessarily think that's justified. I'd need to know what the reason was.
[ QUOTE ]
C. What is he posted a sign outside that said "Warning, death traps inside, do not enter"?
[/ QUOTE ]
Then ya, fair game.
My point was just that I think there often will be gray area and arbitrary lines, where while even if you can't say exactly where, you might agree there is clearly a cutoff somewhere. I (apparently erroneously) thought you were suggesting that you can rightfully protect your property to even a lethal degree without necessarily any sort of reason beyond that your property (no matter of what value) was violated. I don't think this is the case, but I guess that's a reflection of a flawed society, and maybe a flawed mindset on my part to maintain such belief. I dunno.
Ultimately I don't really disagree with anything you're saying. I was just trying to make the point that within your property certain arbitrary morals might apply. And those are up to you.
|