Joe Horn?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Also Alex, I think your way of looking at it is probably correct in truly objective terms. My way is only "fair" as long as we live in (and I guess, accept) an imperfect society. As we progress, and become more prosperous and more secure, I'd say violations that are objectively equivalent become interpreted as bigger burdens. So it becomes more reasonable to apply severe consequence and it thus approaches the point where you can apply lethal defense/retaliation at the slightest violation (as you're talking about).

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's not what I'm talking about at all and I don't even agree with that. My point is that this is like a "hate crime."

A. What if his intent wasn't to kill anyone but he just likes building death traps as a hobby?

B. What about the banana peel or the dog where the intent is to kill?

C. What is he posted a sign outside that said "Warning, death traps inside, do not enter"?

It's not really about the line being arbitrary so much as me being unable to see where you're drawing it, how, or why. The age of consent is arbitrary but at least I know what it is.

[ALawPoker]

[ 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.

[ALawPoker]

I'm not expressing what I'm trying to say very well.

Since you own the property, I agree no one else can rightfully say the trap was "wrong" in the sense that they should have the right to force a punishment on you. But I guess what I'm getting at is that the trap might still be wrong (for no clear or exact reason) in the sense that it is -EV *to you* (because of how you might feel if someone dies in it and/or the social stigma that might come when people hear about it).