Joe Horn?

[Actual God]

[Metric]

Is the audio edited/time compressed or not? It sounds like he just ran out and gunned them down before they even knew what was happening, but somehow I doubt that's the whole story.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Where do you draw this arbitrary line? If I leave a banana peel lying somewhere in my home in the hopes that an intruders slips on it, busts their skull opens and dies, is that murder? If I get a guard dog and it mauls an intruder to death, is that murder?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because the line is arbitrary, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Is [censored] an 18-year-old OK? Ya, sure. 16? Eh. 12? 9? It's an arbitrary cut off but I'm sure you agree that eventually you're molesting a child.

I generally agree that when you're intruding on someone else's property you sort of surrender the benefit of the doubt, but I don't think it's so simple as to say, basically, anything goes. The trap, as I see it, is sort of like a proactive defense. You're putting it there for a purpose, and not just cause you like the way it looks from the living room.

When someone flicks my ear they're violating my property, but I don't think I necessarily have the right to then punch them in the nose. Certainly not to stab them. So I don't see why you necessarily have the right to proactively set a trap that will kill someone who might be stumbling through your property. I mean, sometimes people cut through my lawn. It's sort of accepted that while it's my property, it's safe to assume I won't mind very much, and if I do I'll ask them to stop. So it's almost like implied consent. Would it be OK to set a deadly booby trap, and if someone sets it off that's just their fault for walking through my lawn?

I'm an ACist and I don't think my perspective here is contradictory to AC or the regard for property rights.

I think there are a lot of fine lines in justice, which is why I (and you, I'm sure) feel strongly that courts need an efficient means of incentive, so that we can have the right people (rather than people reacting to the mechanism of knee jerk public approval) making these important decisions distinctions.

[ALawPoker]

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).

So I guess what I said above only applies subjectively to how we view fairness based on what we are as a society today. I have no problem with justice being subjective, but I'm not really sure exactly why. I guess believing that it's not necessarily OK to kill someone who is violating your property is basically an acceptance of bias. Maybe that makes me weak. But it also just seems right, since I guess it isn't "fair" to gravely punish one piece of the puzzle (the person violating your property) when society itself is very flawed, and thus encourages flaws.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where do you draw this arbitrary line? If I leave a banana peel lying somewhere in my home in the hopes that an intruders slips on it, busts their skull opens and dies, is that murder? If I get a guard dog and it mauls an intruder to death, is that murder?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because the line is arbitrary, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Is [censored] an 18-year-old OK? Ya, sure. 16? Eh. 12? 9? It's an arbitrary cut off but I'm sure you agree that eventually you're molesting a child.

I generally agree that when you're intruding on someone else's property you sort of surrender the benefit of the doubt, but I don't think it's so simple as to say, basically, anything goes. The trap, as I see it, is sort of like a proactive defense. You're putting it there for a purpose, and not just cause you like the way it looks from the living room.

When someone flicks my ear they're violating my property, but I don't think I necessarily have the right to then punch them in the nose. Certainly not to stab them. So I don't see why you necessarily have the right to proactively set a trap that will kill someone who might be stumbling through your property. I mean, sometimes people cut through my lawn. It's sort of accepted that while it's my property, it's safe to assume I won't mind very much, and if I do I'll ask them to stop. So it's almost like implied consent. Would it be OK to set a deadly booby trap, and if someone sets it off that's just their fault for walking through my lawn?

I'm an ACist and I don't think my perspective here is contradictory to AC or the regard for property rights.

I think there are a lot of fine lines in justice, which is why I (and you, I'm sure) feel strongly that courts need an efficient means of incentive, so that we can have the right people (rather than people reacting to the mechanism of knee jerk public approval) making these important decisions distinctions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lawn != in the house. Although I would say that it's fine so long as you have a fence. Everything else in your post completely ignored the points and questions made in my post. The fact that it was arbitrary had nothing to do with my point, yet you latched on to that.

[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 ]
Lawn != in the house. Although I would say that it's fine so long as you have a fence. Everything else in your post completely ignored the points and questions made in my post. The fact that it was arbitrary had nothing to do with my point, yet you latched on to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The lawn was my example not yours. I know you didn't say that. I was just offering that as an example of my thought process.

I wasn't trying to attack your post or anything. I originally responded with only my first paragraph, with the point being that just because a cutoff is arbitrary I think it can still exist. The rest was just because I started thinking about it more, so I added on. Sorry if it came off as I was attacking your post.

[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).

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
I can confirm that you are liable in civil and probably criminal court for setting a trap that results in death. I'm curious why Alex thinks otherwise. I would think everyone could agree is that lethal force is only justified to protect your life. An intruder killed by a trap usually doesn't qualify because the owner is usually well away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are there any cases where the people who'd set the traps also put up signs announcing the danger that awaited the robbers? Would this make a difference in the eyes of the court if there was a clear warning to criminals that they would be shot upon entering?