What is the cash value of a single human life?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Biologically and chemically, humans are worth jack shit.

But I remember from my psychology class that my professor mentioned that the average human life is worth monetarily is somewhere about 1.3 million dollars.

[McC]

These threads always amaze me because they always end up with people who think that human lives are worth less than domestic electronics.

The actual property in question is immaterial to the point. Someone has violated the security of your residence. Such a violation should be met with swift, violent (possibly lethal) force.

Or, alternately, take your wife/girlfriend into a ghetto neighborhood at 1am, have her strip naked, and then go hide in the bushes and video tape the results. Don't try to interfere. Let the people in that neighborhood do whatever they want to her.

Still like the idea of not lifting a finger if someone invades your home? "That may not be what they're going to do!" you cry? So what? You wait until they've violated your wife or harmed your children to react? Fuck that. If someone violates the security of your dwelling and places you or your family in jeopardy -- perceived or real, I totally support the use of lethal force.

[Gil Hamilton]

The actual property in question is immaterial to the point. Someone has violated the security of your residence. Such a violation should be met with swift, violent (possibly lethal) force.

Actually, it does matter. If they are carrying off your stereo, they clearly aren't a threat to you or your family; they want to steal your stereo, most likely to sell it. At that point, you are not at all justified to shoot him. The loss of your stereo or any other piece of consumer electronics does not justify taking a human life.

Or, alternately, take your wife/girlfriend into a ghetto neighborhood at 1am, have her strip naked, and then go hide in the bushes and video tape the results. Don't try to interfere. Let the people in that neighborhood do whatever they want to her.

What does this have to do with someone trying to burglarize your home exactly? The two scenarios aren't even remotely similar to each other.

Still like the idea of not lifting a finger if someone invades your home? "That may not be what they're going to do!" you cry? So what? You wait until they've violated your wife or harmed your children to react? Fuck that. If someone violates the security of your dwelling and places you or your family in jeopardy -- perceived or real, I totally support the use of lethal force.

Who said anything about not lifting a finger? Don't make things so black and white; there are other options than commit murder and letting your family be attacked without doing anything.

If you have a gun, you don't have to immediately shoot him. Think logically for a second. He hasn't done anything yet, you've got your gun, and you've caught him in the act. You don't know what he's up to, but does that really matter? If he's a burglar, he'll almost certainly value his own life. If you shout at him and tell him to freeze with a gun, he'll (A) run or (B) he'll do as you say. Then you can call the cops and babysit him until they arrive to take him away. Most likely he's not going to attack you, but if he does then you are defending yourself and it's OK to protect yourself.

If he's a psychopath with intent on murder or rape and isn't in his right mind, if he doesn't stop at that point, you can still shoot him, but if he does. If he does stop, then the police can have him and he'll still go to jail for B&E.

Logically, immediately shooting him without giving fair warning and demanding surrender is unnecessary, because if you are in position to have the jump on him with a gun, the situation boils down to him stopping or fleeing, at which point he isn't a threat to you or anyone else or self-defense with him attacking you, in which case you are justified to shoot him.

[McC]

Actually, it does matter. If they are carrying off your stereo, they clearly aren't a threat to you or your family; they want to steal your stereo, most likely to sell it. At that point, you are not at all justified to shoot him. The loss of your stereo or any other piece of consumer electronics does not justify taking a human life.

Yes. However, if he's in the act rather than already leaving, you don't know what else he's planning to do.

What does this have to do with someone trying to burglarize your home exactly? The two scenarios aren't even remotely similar to each other.

The "I'm not going to attack/kill someone who may endanger my family" attitude is present in both cases.

Who said anything about not lifting a finger? Don't make things so black and white; there are other options than commit murder and letting your family be attacked without doing anything.

<snip>

Logically, immediately shooting him without giving fair warning and demanding surrender is unnecessary, because if you are in position to have the jump on him with a gun, the situation boils down to him stopping or fleeing, at which point he isn't a threat to you or anyone else or self-defense with him attacking you, in which case you are justified to shoot him.

In an ideal world, sure. What's to say he isn't holding a gun concealed and that when you surprise him, he won't promptly turn around and shoot you instead? What's to say he doesn't have a gun on him that he won't pull on you when you go to call the cops? Who's to say he won't grab your child when you flick your eyes at the phone, thus giving him a shield you can't possibly be willing to shoot at? There are too many horrible variables in taking the 'potentially lethal pacifier' route.

[Gil Hamilton]

Yes. However, if he's in the act rather than already leaving, you don't know what else he's planning to do.

So fucking what?

The "I'm not going to attack/kill someone who may endanger my family" attitude is present in both cases.

You still have to provide relevance because the scenarios aren't even close to similar, particular since in your scenario there it is you putting them in danger to begin with. Now explain what this scenario you propose has anything to do with the use of lethal force on a home intrude or concede the point.

Secondly, where exactly did I say that that defending a family member from harm is wrong? If you read my fucking post, you'd see that it's perfectly justified to use for to actually protect someone. However, I don't consider my consumer electronics to be family members or consider the mere present of an unwanted person in my home to be immediate danger, consider since in the actual context of this discussion I got the drop on them with a gun.

In an ideal world, sure. What's to say he isn't holding a gun concealed and that when you surprise him, he won't promptly turn around and shoot you instead? What's to say he doesn't have a gun on him that he won't pull on you when you go to call the cops? Who's to say he won't grab your child when you flick your eyes at the phone, thus giving him a shield you can't possibly be willing to shoot at? There are too many horrible variables in taking the 'potentially lethal pacifier' route.

Ah yes, because guns magically teleport to a persons hand and the hand to an aiming position faster than it takes to squeeze a trigger. Or that the scenario automatically have my kid within grabbing reach of the perp, also faster than he could be shot. Or that I'm stupid enough to turn my back to someone who broke into my house. You are trying to rig the scenario when lethal force is mandated. The problem with this is that you are trying to use very specific artificial situations to justify committing murder out of hand in a general sense. That is flawed logic and you damn well know it.

Now you might as well concede before you make yourself look like any more of a psychopathic little shit.

[McC]

So fucking what?

...so until he actively makes a move to threaten your family, you'll just operate under the pretense, "Hey, the dude just wants money, he's not looking to hurt anyone. I'm cool with that." Great plan. Excuse me if I don't follow it.

You still have to provide relevance because the scenarios aren't even close to similar, particular since in your scenario there it is you putting them in danger to begin with. Now explain what this scenario you propose has anything to do with the use of lethal force on a home intrude or concede the point.

The "putting them in danger" part. Disagree to your heart's content, but allowing someone to invade your home without disabling them regardless of what their intentions appears to be is, in my mind, no different than dropping your family naked and helpless into a den of ghetto thugs and saying, "Leave them alone, but take their stuff." You're still responsible for endangering their lives by not taking appropriate action.

Secondly, where exactly did I say that that defending a family member from harm is wrong? If you read my fucking post, you'd see that it's perfectly justified to use for to actually protect someone. However, I don't consider my consumer electronics to be family members or consider the mere present of an unwanted person in my home to be immediate danger, consider since in the actual context of this discussion I got the drop on them with a gun.

Your opinion. Mine differs. Someone's unwanted presence in my home is an immediate danger until proven otherwise, and will be dealt with harshly unless they immediately leap on the growd, covering their hands over their head begging for mercy and forgiveness.

Ah yes, because guns magically teleport to a persons hand and the hand to an aiming position faster than it takes to squeeze a trigger. Or that the scenario automatically have my kid within grabbing reach of the perp, also faster than he could be shot. Or that I'm stupid enough to turn my back to someone who broke into my house. You are trying to rig the scenario when lethal force is mandated. The problem with this is that you are trying to use very specific artificial situations to justify committing murder out of hand in a general sense. That is flawed logic and you damn well know it.

Right, because your reflexes are so good that you can dial 911 and keep your eyes on the guy that you can react to him pulling a gun but not accidentally shoot him when he goes to pick his nose? Some of the situations are pretty specific, I concede that much. But the idea that you're home free once you have him at gunpoint is utterly ludicrous to me.

Granted, such commotion would likely be enough to wake your family members and they could call 911 or some such. I'll concede that too. But an invader in a residence is still automatic grounds for violent force, and an invader with a weapon is automatic grounds for lethal force.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Ah yes, because guns magically teleport to a persons hand and the hand to an aiming position faster than it takes to squeeze a trigger. Or that the scenario automatically have my kid within grabbing reach of the perp, also faster than he could be shot. Or that I'm stupid enough to turn my back to someone who broke into my house. You are trying to rig the scenario when lethal force is mandated. The problem with this is that you are trying to use very specific artificial situations to justify committing murder out of hand in a general sense. That is flawed logic and you damn well know it.

You sure? Sure, the physical action to pull a trigger is very quick, but there is psychology to consider. Up to the point you warned him, you had the absolute advantage. But you have decided not to shoot. That means somewhere deep in your mind, you already assumed that since you had the gun on him, he would just nicely surrender.

So you've just killed your initiative. In fact, you've just handed over your initiative to the thief if he's determined (or just psycho) enough. Action is always quicker than counteraction, and now you are making yourself the party to has to counteract.

If he chooses to fight back, he might not only be the fastest draw in the West, but you are severely disadvantaged. You have to get over your surprise that he has chosen to fight back (if you actually thought he was going to fight back, you would probably have shot him already), then decide to press the trigger after all. You would take at least a few hundred milliseconds to get past both, and in that time, the thief could maneuver out of your line of aim. Then you have to reacquire him, and he's lining up, and he's now a moving target so he's harder to hit, and he could easily be a better shot than you. Nice, you just turned an ambush into a gunfight, one that you could easily lose.

If you try and use the phone, it is even worse. Even assuming you are the type that can use the phone without looking at it (which I'm not), your attention will be further diverted by the phone. You would have to get over your surprise, then your diversion, then make the decision to shoot all over again.

Is your life worth so little to you that you are willing to chance all that? Do you really see his life as equal in value to your own, or even that it'd win out in this formula:

Value of Shameless Stereo Thief
vs
Stereo + (Your Value * Additional Probability of Getting Killed from Giving Warning) + extras*

Extras include the probably of getting disabled or badly wounded, or the possibility he'd go after your family in your moment of hesitation.

I'd forgive someone for not thinking that.

[McC]

<snip>

Thank you, Kaz. You put what I was trying to say far more eloquently than I could

[Alyrium Denryle]

I have said it before and I will say it again. Humans are not intrinsically valuable. A criminal has no worth, in fact I would go so far as to say they generate negative utiles. The value of the security of my home, my rights to property, and my psychological weel being are worth far more than some scumbag who would violate those rights. He knew the risk when he entered a domicile within a state with as "liberal" gun laws as AZ and they deserve that penalty iof only due to their own stupidity and scumbaggery.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

The actual property in question is immaterial to the point. Someone has violated the security of your residence. Such a violation should be met with swift, violent (possibly lethal) force.

Actually, it does matter. If they are carrying off your stereo, they clearly aren't a threat to you or your family; they want to steal your stereo, most likely to sell it. At that point, you are not at all justified to shoot him. The loss of your stereo or any other piece of consumer electronics does not justify taking a human life.

According to the SF Chronicle, the home invasions I mentioned earlier started off ass burglaries until they realized that they could get away with more. The criminals stole shit from every home, then proceeded to rape the inhabitants.

Clearly you can see why you may not want to wait to find out what the intruder is up to. If he's in your house, you are in danger. He can always change his mind and decide to attack you the moment he gets an opportunity.

[walsingham]

What is the cash value of a living person?

Pragmatically, the cash value of a living person is whatever the society you live in decides it's worth through the laws that it enforces.

It doesn't really matter what an individual thinks the cash value of a living person is except to the extent to which one can influence the creation of, enforcement of, or disobedience of those laws.

[wolveraptor]

Jesus, people, couldn't you carry a tranquilizer gun instead? Or a tazer or some other non-fatal weapon? Both are near instantaneous like guns, without the death part. Better unconcsious than dead. Far too many innocents or petty thieves are grouped with rapists and murderers here, and it's fucking stupid.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Then there is the very real chance that, get ready for this folks,

PEOPLE DON'T AUTOMATICLY FREEZE WHEN SHOT! Many shot people still have the ability to shoot!
Drawing and firing can continue after being shot!
By the time you have figured out the burglar plans on shooting, he can be diving and/or drawing. Or just plain soaking up the punishment with an adrenaline burst he got when you told him to "freeze."

Get this too,


YOU MIGHT BE SO UPSET ABOUT CONFRONTING THIS THIEF YOU FUCKING MISS THE FIRST SHOT!

You may need the time for the second shot that you don't have.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Jesus, people, couldn't you carry a tranquilizer gun instead? Or a tazer or some other non-fatal weapon? Both are near instantaneous like guns, without the death part. Better unconcsious than dead. Far too many innocents or petty thieves are grouped with rapists and murderers here, and it's fucking stupid.

If it really is as fast and reliable or better, then I won't mind using one. The point is that I don't see myself putting significant extra risk on my neck just to avoid killing that worthless fucker.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

<snip>

I think most people know this. It is wierd, but even at point blank ranges, if you can't control your adrenaline, a lot of people (even if trained in guns) will miss. On the other hand, if you've learned to control it, at point blank you can hit the enemy.

Lots of cops, as I understand it, get killed in the US by knivers. Of course they had a gun and presumably were pointing it at the thief.

There's also a reason for the "reactionary gap" taught to police, which IIRC was, what, 12 feet in the US?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

unbeataBULL.

Where to start?
First, you watch too much TV, and probably never studied a martial art.
The sad ugly truth is it is easier to kill with 100% certainty than to knock someone out.
The force needed to stun a large man is way over the limit of death for a smaller man. Be it blunt force, chemicals, or electricity, humans vary too much for any weapon to work on a large one without being lethal to a small one.
So force is erred on the side of overkill.

[aerius]

Jesus, people, couldn't you carry a tranquilizer gun instead?

Takes many seconds to minutes to have any effect. Gives the scumbag more than enough time to kill you and the rest of your family.

Or a tazer or some other non-fatal weapon?

Tazers have a pretty high fail rate, plus they're a one-shot device with shit accuracy.

Both are near instantaneous like guns, without the death part. Better unconcsious than dead.

Gunshot survival rates as I recall are somewhere between 90-95%. Getting shot is not an automatic death sentence.

Far too many innocents or petty thieves are grouped with rapists and murderers here, and it's fucking stupid.

If only I had magic psychic powers and could tell if a guy was just going to rob me or kill me....

[Darth Wong]

Based on the prevailing redneck "criminal life has no value" logic in this thread, we should have the death penalty for all felony offenses. Will that make you guys happy?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Based on the prevailing redneck "criminal life has no value" logic in this thread, we should have the death penalty for all felony offenses. Will that make you guys happy?

If they are in the process of violating my rights in my own home, they dont get the benefit of the doubt. If they get caught later as far as I am concerned the punishment should fit the crime. But I am not waiting until they make off with my belongings and come back to rape my sister before I act with lethal force.

[McC]

Based on the prevailing redneck "criminal life has no value" logic in this thread, we should have the death penalty for all felony offenses. Will that make you guys happy?

Slippery slope, I think. Might be mistaken, though.

Point being, not all felony offenses ought to be, not all convicted felons are guilty, and not all felonies endanger others' lives. Show me someone who willfully and knowingly endangered another person's life when they broke the law, and I'll show you a scumbag who really oughtn't be walking around. Proof's the problem. When someone invades your home, you have undeniable proof. You know this person has verifiably invaded another person's private dwelling and that this person poses a potential threat to the occupants of that dwelling.

Killing enemy soldiers invading your country with the intent to loot and pillage it is a good thing, right? How's this any different, except for the fact that it's on a smaller scale?

[Darth Wong]

Based on the prevailing redneck "criminal life has no value" logic in this thread, we should have the death penalty for all felony offenses. Will that make you guys happy?

If they are in the process of violating my rights in my own home, they dont get the benefit of the doubt. If they get caught later as far as I am concerned the punishment should fit the crime. But I am not waiting until they make off with my belongings and come back to rape my sister before I act with lethal force.

Yes yes, everyone who espouses this "touch my stuff and you die" mentality always tries to change the subject to imminent threat of violence. It's as reliable as fundie would-be theocrats accusing critics of being "intolerant of our beliefs".

[Darth Wong]

When someone invades your home, you have undeniable proof.

The law, however, does not. The law has only your testimony as evidence, and the fact that the dead guy was found in your home. They have no way of knowing whether he charged at you or whether he said "please dear God, don't hurt me!" and put his hands in the air before being blown away.

[McC]

The law, however, does not. The law has only your testimony as evidence, and the fact that the dead guy was found in your home. They have no way of knowing whether he charged at you or whether he said "please dear God, don't hurt me!" and put his hands in the air before being blown away.

Since when is this discussion about what it's legal to do, rather than what it's "right" to do?

[Darth Wong]

The law, however, does not. The law has only your testimony as evidence, and the fact that the dead guy was found in your home. They have no way of knowing whether he charged at you or whether he said "please dear God, don't hurt me!" and put his hands in the air before being blown away.

Since when is this discussion about what it's legal to do, rather than what it's "right" to do?

It's about both. Is it "right" to give people the right to execute summary justice on their property? I think not.

As for the morality of killing someone over property, the fact that everyone who defends the idea almost invariably resorts to a subject-change to "imminent threat of assault on my person" proves that few people can honestly accept the moral implications of taking life over property at face value. Instead, it's a gut-reaction upon which they try to paint justifications after the fact.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Based on the prevailing redneck "criminal life has no value" logic in this thread, we should have the death penalty for all felony offenses. Will that make you guys happy?

If they are in the process of violating my rights in my own home, they dont get the benefit of the doubt. If they get caught later as far as I am concerned the punishment should fit the crime. But I am not waiting until they make off with my belongings and come back to rape my sister before I act with lethal force.

Yes yes, everyone who espouses this "touch my stuff and you die" mentality always tries to change the subject to imminent threat of violence. It's as reliable as fundie would-be theocrats accusing critics of being "intolerant of our beliefs".

Bullshit Mike. A person has no way of knowing whether or not a home invader means to rob you, or rob you then come back and rape your little sister. If they invade your home, it is a safe assumption that they mean you harm and they need to be killed or incapacitated. And you cant tell me that if you heard something downstairs at night and came downstairs with your Glock, that you wouldnt shoot someone prowling inside your home.

If they are simply making off with my stuff, they are still scumbags however, and chances are irredeemable anyway.

If you can show me that they have any worth whatsoever, I will conceede. But even people who are commiting crimes as petty as simple burglary are probably going to be career criminals who do nothing but harm society regardless.