|
|
#61
11-20-2007, 12:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Joe Horn?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You sure elwood? I'm thought you can shoot anyone that is trespassing, no? [/ QUOTE ] I would HIGHLY doubt it. Regardless, I wasn't answering for what the law is, I was answering for what it should be. [/ QUOTE ] Really? You dont think I should be able to use whatever force is necessary to stop someone from robbing me? Is that like just if he is taking the good silver, or no matter what material goods he is after? Am I allowed to maim him, just not kill him? [/ QUOTE ] It's really the Wild West around here. No you shouldn't be able to kill someone to stop them from robbing you. Obviously it's hard to put a price on human life, but surely it has to be more than your wallet or your tv set. Of course, if someone's robbing you with more than his fists, you should be able to defend your safety, but that's a little different. [/ QUOTE ] I'm asking how much of my property I'm supposed to allow him to take if my only option is to kill him. All of it, is presumably your answer right? 
|
|
#62
11-20-2007, 12:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Joe Horn?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You sure elwood? I'm thought you can shoot anyone that is trespassing, no? [/ QUOTE ] I would HIGHLY doubt it. Regardless, I wasn't answering for what the law is, I was answering for what it should be. [/ QUOTE ] Really? You dont think I should be able to use whatever force is necessary to stop someone from robbing me? Is that like just if he is taking the good silver, or no matter what material goods he is after? Am I allowed to maim him, just not kill him? [/ QUOTE ] It's really the Wild West around here. No you shouldn't be able to kill someone to stop them from robbing you. Obviously it's hard to put a price on human life, but surely it has to be more than your wallet or your tv set. Of course, if someone's robbing you with more than his fists, you should be able to defend your safety, but that's a little different. [/ QUOTE ] I'm asking how much of my property I'm supposed to allow him to take if my only option is to kill him. All of it, is presumably your answer right? [/ QUOTE ] Does every thread have to become a fantasy island hypothetical?
|
|
#63
11-20-2007, 12:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Joe Horn?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You sure elwood? I'm thought you can shoot anyone that is trespassing, no? [/ QUOTE ] I would HIGHLY doubt it. Regardless, I wasn't answering for what the law is, I was answering for what it should be. [/ QUOTE ] Really? You dont think I should be able to use whatever force is necessary to stop someone from robbing me? Is that like just if he is taking the good silver, or no matter what material goods he is after? Am I allowed to maim him, just not kill him? [/ QUOTE ] It's really the Wild West around here. No you shouldn't be able to kill someone to stop them from robbing you. Obviously it's hard to put a price on human life, but surely it has to be more than your wallet or your tv set. Of course, if someone's robbing you with more than his fists, you should be able to defend your safety, but that's a little different. [/ QUOTE ] I'm asking how much of my property I'm supposed to allow him to take if my only option is to kill him. All of it, is presumably your answer right? [/ QUOTE ] Does every thread have to become a fantasy island hypothetical? [/ QUOTE ] Seriously you cant imagine any way that could happen? Like, say I see him robbing me and he has a gun? My life isnt in danger because I could just leave. But there is no way I'm stopping him short of shooting him. Its not a fantasy-land situation, but it wouldnt matter if it was. Someone is saying I can never kill someone to defend my property. I'm interested in testing the bounds of this. He made the specific comment "if they are stealing your TV" or something like that, which was unnecessarily dismissive. I'm interested in situations where they are taking more than my TV, even though I dont see any real distinction. Why didnt you jump on him for reducing my entire question to somehow being about protecting my TV?
|
|
#64
11-20-2007, 12:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Joe Horn?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You sure elwood? I'm thought you can shoot anyone that is trespassing, no? [/ QUOTE ] I would HIGHLY doubt it. Regardless, I wasn't answering for what the law is, I was answering for what it should be. [/ QUOTE ] Really? You dont think I should be able to use whatever force is necessary to stop someone from robbing me? Is that like just if he is taking the good silver, or no matter what material goods he is after? Am I allowed to maim him, just not kill him? [/ QUOTE ] It's really the Wild West around here. No you shouldn't be able to kill someone to stop them from robbing you. Obviously it's hard to put a price on human life, but surely it has to be more than your wallet or your tv set. Of course, if someone's robbing you with more than his fists, you should be able to defend your safety, but that's a little different. [/ QUOTE ] I'm asking how much of my property I'm supposed to allow him to take if my only option is to kill him. All of it, is presumably your answer right? [/ QUOTE ] Does every thread have to become a fantasy island hypothetical? [/ QUOTE ] Seriously you cant imagine any way that could happen? Like, say I see him robbing me and he has a gun? My life isnt in danger because I could just leave. But there is no way I'm stopping him short of shooting him. Its not a fantasy-land situation, but it wouldnt matter if it was. Someone is saying I can never kill someone to defend my property. I'm interested in testing the bounds of this. He made the specific comment "if they are stealing your TV" or something like that, which was unnecessarily dismissive. I'm interested in situations where they are taking more than my TV, even though I dont see any real distinction. Why didnt you jump on him for reducing my entire question to somehow being about protecting my TV? [/ QUOTE ] Never mind, I answered my own question. In the real world (as opposed to my fantasy island hypothetical) I would never need to kill anyone, I could shoot the gun out of his hand, shoot his belt of and after he trips on his fallen pants I'd tie him up.
|
|
#65
11-20-2007, 12:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Joe Horn?
Kaj, you seem to be really looking out for everyone and everything around here. In fact, I'm not sure how this forum survived your hiatus. Some may assume you to be self-righteous and antagonizing, but your noble intentions shine through. At least to me. I'm gonna name you THE PEOPLES' WARRIOR!!! You do some big things.
Vhawk, I personally thought the point of your question was quite clear and relevant. But unfortunately it wasn't good enough for The Peoples' Warrior. You'll have to work a little harder.
|
|
#66
11-20-2007, 01:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Joe Horn?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You sure elwood? I'm thought you can shoot anyone that is trespassing, no? [/ QUOTE ] Not in most jurisdictions, if not all. There is a famous case or example (not sure if it is real, I think it was) of someone booby trapping his garage to shoot upon entry, after a number of break ins. Sure enough, someone broke in, the booby trap went off, and the burglar was killed. The owner was convicted of murder. At least that's how I recall the story. I'd have to look it up ... or maybe someone recalls better than me. [/ QUOTE ] That's absurd. I mean actively killing someone who is just trespassing is over the line, but someone getting killed by a trap you set should be completely fine.
|
|
#67
11-20-2007, 01:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Joe Horn?
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.
|
|
#68
11-20-2007, 01:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Joe Horn?
[ QUOTE ]
I would think everyone could agree is that lethal force is only justified to protect your life. [/ QUOTE ] I would use lethal force to protect the life of someone else too and possibly to protect someone who was in the process of being raped.
|
|
#69
11-20-2007, 01:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Joe Horn?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I would think everyone could agree is that lethal force is only justified to protect your life. [/ QUOTE ] I would use lethal force to protect the life of someone else too and possibly to protect someone who was in the process of being raped. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#70
11-20-2007, 01:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Joe Horn?
[ 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 ] I would say lethal force is acceptable to stop theft depending on the value of what's being stolen. Stealing a loaf of bread = no. Stealing your grandmother's engagement ring = yes. This isn't about that though. If someone wants to set traps in their home that's their business and if those traps happen to kill someone that's that person's fault for being somewhere they shouldn't, not the property owners. 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?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
