What is the cash value of a single human life?

[Keevan_Colton]

In light of the clear ideological differences between my fellow europeans and a great many americans on the board I'm prompted to pose this question.

For those of you who support the use of deadly force to protect property, what exactly is the minimum value of property that needs to be involved to justify ending a human life?

What is the cash value of a living person?

How many wide screen televisions is a child worth exactly?

[Civil War Man]

It varies depending on the situation. Many businessmen, contractors, and lawmakers often have to evaluate the "cost" of a human life when proposing measures that may save/cost lives. An example would be installing traffic lights at an intersection. They have to determine whether saving the lives of X people at that intersection is capable of offsetting the cost of installing the lights.

Depending on the source (and the age of the person, since that makes a difference in certain evaluations), I believe a human's life is valued most often in the tens of thousands of dollars.

It goes against emotional responses (since if you don't install the light, one of those X people who die might be either you or one of your loved ones), but putting a cost on human life allows us to keep our priorities straight and not just throw money at a worthless project because it will save a single person.

[Wicked Pilot]

For those of you who support the use of deadly force to protect property, what exactly is the minimum value of property that needs to be involved to justify ending a human life?

With only a few exceptions such as nuke guarding, you do not protect property with deadly force.

[Sea Skimmer]

Depends totally on the hitman.

[Chmee]

In light of the clear ideological differences between my fellow europeans and a great many americans on the board I'm prompted to pose this question.

For those of you who support the use of deadly force to protect property, what exactly is the minimum value of property that needs to be involved to justify ending a human life?

What is the cash value of a living person?

How many wide screen televisions is a child worth exactly?

And when you say 'a great many americans' .... you mean ... a couple comments by Castor?

Otherwise, I've yet to see somebody who actually advocated deadly force to protect property. I believe the correct UK descriptor for the premise of this topic is 'utter rot' ....

[Solauren]

And the victim

[Keevan_Colton]

For those of you who support the use of deadly force to protect property, what exactly is the minimum value of property that needs to be involved to justify ending a human life?

With only a few exceptions such as nuke guarding, you do not protect property with deadly force.

Funny, take a look at threads like this and the thread that spawned it. Got some rather trigger happy people willing to shoot to prevent vandalism...that's deadly force to defend property right there...so how much property does it have to be to justify it?

[Civil War Man]

Otherwise, I've yet to see somebody who actually advocated deadly force to protect property. I believe the correct UK descriptor for the premise of this topic is 'utter rot' ....

IIRC, you can get away with killing someone in Texas as long as you show they were intentionally trying to endanger you (i.e. home invasions).

[Keevan_Colton]

Otherwise, I've yet to see somebody who actually advocated deadly force to protect property. I believe the correct UK descriptor for the premise of this topic is 'utter rot' ....

IIRC, you can get away with killing someone in Texas as long as you show they were intentionally trying to endanger you (i.e. home invasions).

Home invasion otherwise translated out of idiot speak into "burglary when someone is home"...now, burglary is a crime against property...

[Keevan_Colton]

And when you say 'a great many americans' .... you mean ... a couple comments by Castor?

Otherwise, I've yet to see somebody who actually advocated deadly force to protect property. I believe the correct UK descriptor for the premise of this topic is 'utter rot' ....

It is not the first time such an attitude has come up here and if you look at the link I just posted you'll see I split off posts of that nature from others too. I've simply decided that this time I'd like a cash sum answer to it.

The british term for people like you is brain dead fucking goit.

[Chmee]

Otherwise, I've yet to see somebody who actually advocated deadly force to protect property. I believe the correct UK descriptor for the premise of this topic is 'utter rot' ....

IIRC, you can get away with killing someone in Texas as long as you show they were intentionally trying to endanger you (i.e. home invasions).

IIRC Texas is pretty extreme in American law, I don't think you even need a reasonable belief that the intruder inside the home intends to harm you (i.e., you see their weapon) before being legally entitled to use deadly force. Even here in the wild wild Northwest you need a reasonable belief that you are in danger.

Frankly, when a stranger is prowling my living room in the dark at 2 in the morning, I'm not sure how many risks I'm supposed to take with my loved ones' lives, waiting to determine his 'true intent.'

Personally, I give him a verbal warning to either run like hell or lay down face-first on the floor, but if he takes a step toward me, I now have a reasonable belief that he intends to harm me, and would act accordingly.

Maybe he's just a twit trying to steal my stereo ... maybe he's an escaped rapist with a knife ... the law does not require me to let him get in the first slash before making up my mind on that one when I'm inside my own home, and I don't find that particularly unreasonable.

[aerius]

To me the cash value of a human life is higher than I can count.
The cash value of a criminal scumbag's life is somewhere between zero and a day's salary.

Personally I draw the line at my car. If some scumbag is going to violate my car or my home, I have no problems with whacking him on the spot. For anything less than that a severe beating will suffice.

[Wicked Pilot]

Funny, take a look at threads like this and the thread that spawned it. Got some rather trigger happy people willing to shoot to prevent vandalism...that's deadly force to defend property right there...so how much property does it have to be to justify it?

I didn't post in that thread, why the fuck are you asking me?

[Kamakazie Sith]

In light of the clear ideological differences between my fellow europeans and a great many americans on the board I'm prompted to pose this question.

For those of you who support the use of deadly force to protect property, what exactly is the minimum value of property that needs to be involved to justify ending a human life?

What is the cash value of a living person?

How many wide screen televisions is a child worth exactly?

That's a complicated question. In civil matters defense of property is not a reasonable excuse for deadly force.

However, when you're talking military equipment, like planes. Deadly force is authorized to protect that equipment from harm. Though one can consider the variable that that equipment is used to save lives on "our" side of a potenial war.

[Keevan_Colton]

...so how much property does it have to be to justify it?

I didn't post in that thread, why the fuck are you asking me?

I'm trying to keep things heading in the right direction, the question wasnt for you, it's for everyone...I see Aerius has given an answer to it already...

[Galvatron]

Home invasion otherwise translated out of idiot speak into "burglary when someone is home"...now, burglary is a crime against property...

Home invasions are often accompanied by the brutal rape and/or murder of the home's occupant.

How do you determine the invader's intent? Stop and ask him or shoot him down if you're lucky enough to get the drop on him?

[Kamakazie Sith]

For those of you who support the use of deadly force to protect property, what exactly is the minimum value of property that needs to be involved to justify ending a human life?

With only a few exceptions such as nuke guarding, you do not protect property with deadly force.

Funny, take a look at threads like this and the thread that spawned it. Got some rather trigger happy people willing to shoot to prevent vandalism...that's deadly force to defend property right there...so how much property does it have to be to justify it?

You have to consider that the property they may be defending may be their life. What if it is the only piece of equipment that they have and it is critical to their life? If it is stolen and not recovered they are out of a source of income which puts them in a very bad position. Their lives become ruined. Rare situation, but very possible.

[Admiral Valdemar]

35 litres of H2O, 20 kg of carbon, 4 litres of ammonia, 1.5 kg of lime, 800 g of phosphorus, 250 g of sodium chloride, 100 g of niter, 80g of sulphur, 7.5 g of fluorrine, 5 g of iron, 3 g of silicon and 15 other elements in trace.

The raw materials needed to compose the average adult human being are not all that expensive. Materialistically, humans are cheap and can be made from the resources of a kid's allowance.

However, what it means to be human is priceless. There can be no monetary cost attributed to a human life such as a loved one, although assassins and insurance companies will try and attach a price tag, it will never cover the cost of a respectable person.

Ergo, lethal force in defending the home or your car etc. is not justifiable. Only when your life and that of those around you is in danger must you react in kind, perhaps lethally so.

[Keevan_Colton]

You have to consider that the property they may be defending may be their life. What if it is the only piece of equipment that they have and it is critical to their life? If it is stolen and not recovered they are out of a source of income which puts them in a very bad position. Their lives become ruined. Rare situation, but very possible.

That is just fucking priceless...this car is my life! I'll die without it!

[Kamakazie Sith]

You have to consider that the property they may be defending may be their life. What if it is the only piece of equipment that they have and it is critical to their life? If it is stolen and not recovered they are out of a source of income which puts them in a very bad position. Their lives become ruined. Rare situation, but very possible.

That is just fucking priceless...this car is my life! I'll die without it!

Wow, I don't see car in my sentence at all. Do you? Are you doing some "mind expanding" drugs?

It's a theoretical piece of equipment where the person(s) derive their source of income. I was hoping your imagination would go to work and you could think of something that people might depend on for their livelihood.

[HyperionX]

35 litres of H2O, 20 kg of carbon, 4 litres of ammonia, 1.5 kg of lime, 800 g of phosphorus, 250 g of sodium chloride, 100 g of niter, 80g of sulphur, 7.5 g of fluorrine, 5 g of iron, 3 g of silicon and 15 other elements in trace.

The raw materials needed to compose the average adult human being are not all that expensive. Materialistically, humans are cheap and can be made from the resources of a kid's allowance.

Thanks Full Metal Alchemist.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You have to consider that the property they may be defending may be their life. What if it is the only piece of equipment that they have and it is critical to their life? If it is stolen and not recovered they are out of a source of income which puts them in a very bad position. Their lives become ruined. Rare situation, but very possible.

That is just fucking priceless...this car is my life! I'll die without it!

In hindsight if you were making a joke, I apologize.

Sadly there are people like that out there who have that mindset. lol

[Admiral Valdemar]

Thanks Full Metal Alchemist.

I had a list somewhere from a biology book that went the same way, then I thought fuck it, and loaded that episode up.

[Civil War Man]

There are also cases where the property in question may not have a lot of monetary value, but a great deal of emotional value. Suppose someone tried to steal something from you that would have sold for a moderate amount of money, but happened to be (for example) an heirloom given to you by your grandmother prior to her passing away? How much force would be justified in protecting something like that?

[Kamakazie Sith]

There are also cases where the property in question may not have a lot of monetary value, but a great deal of emotional value. Suppose someone tried to steal something from you that would have sold for a moderate amount of money, but happened to be (for example) an heirloom given to you by your grandmother prior to her passing away? How much force would be justified in protecting something like that?

I'd say as long as your life didn't depend on it then only non-lethal.