What is the cash value of a single human life?

[McC]

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.

I was going to point out that they might just be stealing food 'cause they're hungry, but then I called bullshit on myself, 'cause they can just go to a homeless shelter and get food for free. That's why I hate street-beggers, 'cause they obviously aren't asking for food money, they're asking for drug money.

Sorry for going OT, but just wanted to make that point about 'just looking for food' being bogus too.

[Darth Wong]

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.

No, you are spewing shit. There may be circumstances in which you legitimately feel threatened. But to make a blanket statement that anyone facing an intruder in his home (which is already a subject change from the OP, by the way) is fair game for lethal force is complete and utter bullshit. What if you come home and some guy is stealing your TV? Suppose you pull a gun and aim it at him, and he begs for his life? Are you going to say "this guy's going to come back and rape my sister; I better kill him" or are you going to say "don't fucking move; I'm calling the cops"?

[Alyrium Denryle]

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.

No, you are spewing shit. There may be circumstances in which you legitimately feel threatened. But to make a blanket statement that anyone facing an intruder in his home (which is already a subject change from the OP, by the way) is fair game for lethal force is complete and utter bullshit. What if you come home and some guy is stealing your TV? Suppose you pull a gun and aim it at him, and he begs for his life? Are you going to say "this guy's going to come back and rape my sister; I better kill him" or are you going to say "don't fucking move; I'm calling the cops"?

If he surrendurs, then I hold a gun to his head and call the cops

It depends on the situation to be honest.

[Darth Wong]

If he surrendurs, then I hold a gun to his head and call the cops

It depends on the situation to be honest.

Exactly. So you can not say that anyone found in your house is fair game; that's the point.

No one on the other side ever said that it is always wrong to shoot someone in your home, but people on your side have been saying that it should always be allowed, for reasons which just don't hold up to scrutiny.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

No one on the other side ever said that it is always wrong to shoot someone in your home, but people on your side have been saying that it should always be allowed, for reasons which just don't hold up to scrutiny.

I think it should always be allowed. That doesn't necessarily mean I will do it (millions of years of animal anti-fratricide instinct at work + education). But it should not be banned. By not banning it, you leave the decision in the hands of the person's individual conscience, rather than forcing them to risk their butts un-necessarily or just let the thief run off with your property.

Kind of like an unauthorized recce plane flying over your territory. Technically, you are allowed to shoot him down. You might choose to force him down or let him go for your own reasons, but you are not forbidden from taking the more lethal choice.

The criminal has almost no intrinsic value - it was lost on his decision to become a criminal. Not killing him is my mercy. Maybe my hope that he would use this chance ot get himself a little more intrinsic value.

Against a larger, stronger thief (especially if you are alone), the only way you can enforce your property rights is to risk taking his life (say by shooting). When you threaten him, you are only threatening to enforce your property rights. He can choose to bolt, and if you then don't shoot him, you aren't really enforcing those rights, are you?

If you ban that option because a human life is infinitely greater than your property in value, you are basically saying property rights don't exist when faced against someone you can't subdue without threatening his life - and there are plenty of those people. Especially for me. I'm small, weak and out of shape.

A right that you cannot enforce when needed is not a right.

This position can also be re-written: The thief has the de facto right to take my property if I cannot subdue him without risking his life. I don't have the right to protect my protect my property if I cannot subdue him without risking his life. In other words, Brawn makes Right - big strong guys who know martial arts can grab what they want from the small and weak, because the small and weak is not allowed to exercise the one praticable option they have to protect their own rights.

As for the police and security agencies. Well, I know they did nothing to protect my property rights of my laptop when it was stolen... as far as I'm aware, my old laptop (along with some secrets on it) is now in some second-hand store, with the thief having earned a couple grand, and the owner of said store earning a couple grand over that. Off my money!!!!!

[Darth Wong]

By not banning it, you leave the decision in the hands of the person's individual conscience, rather than forcing them to risk their butts un-necessarily or just let the thief run off with your property.

By saying that it is always OK, you open the door to vigilantism. A person should have to provide some evidence that he had reasonable justification to kill someone, and that evidence has to meet a higher standard than "he was in my place".

[Alyrium Denryle]

By not banning it, you leave the decision in the hands of the person's individual conscience, rather than forcing them to risk their butts un-necessarily or just let the thief run off with your property.

By saying that it is always OK, you open the door to vigilantism. A person should have to provide some evidence that he had reasonable justification to kill someone, and that evidence has to meet a higher standard than "he was in my place".

how is it vigilanteism to defend your property when someone invades your property> You arent hunting him dopwn after the fact, you are defending your rights in the only way possible. The cops cant do it in all honesty, and the chance of recovering that property is small. If we dont allow people to defend their property they may as well not own it and just give it to the next guy with the inclination and ability AND WILLINGNESS to use phyical force against them.

[Master of Ossus]

how is it vigilanteism to defend your property when someone invades your property> You arent hunting him dopwn after the fact, you are defending your rights in the only way possible. The cops cant do it in all honesty, and the chance of recovering that property is small. If we dont allow people to defend their property they may as well not own it and just give it to the next guy with the inclination and ability AND WILLINGNESS to use phyical force against them.

You can't be serious. By taking it upon yourself to not only judge guilt/non-guilt, but ALSO to sanction and then punish someone without any sort of judicial oversight you ARE being a vigilante.

[SirNitram]

how is it vigilanteism to defend your property when someone invades your property> You arent hunting him dopwn after the fact, you are defending your rights in the only way possible. The cops cant do it in all honesty, and the chance of recovering that property is small. If we dont allow people to defend their property they may as well not own it and just give it to the next guy with the inclination and ability AND WILLINGNESS to use phyical force against them.

'People own property therefore they should be judge, jury, and executioner.'

That's going on the list of 'most retarded arguments'. Right under 'Magic forcefields are more likely than secondary backups.'

[Admiral Valdemar]

There is a reason we have the police force and the justice system. If everyone was allowed to lay down the law like a modern day Judge Dredd, there would be anarchy. That is why when someone is in the news found to be fighting an intruder who is fleeing their premises, the police condemn the action and may charge the homeowner too. The law cannot just say "oh, well he was defending his property and wanted payback. It's only fair, because we'd all do that I bet". The law is inflexible, so unless you have good cause, any intruder should be dealt with non-lethally unless they DIRECTLY threaten you.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You can't be serious. By taking it upon yourself to not only judge guilt/non-guilt, but ALSO to sanction and then punish someone without any sort of judicial oversight you ARE being a vigilante.

Then I suppose we can just extend this logic to include all home invasions then? They are IN YOUR HOME there is no question of guilt. If they seek to steal things I work hard for, they are not only worthless but evil. Now, if they mean to do me harm, they will die. If they are large enough to harm me they will die. And if they attempt to steal my property, I sure as hell wont simply let them do it. I may not use lethal force, but I will use what I need to defend MY rights which THEY violate. They are responsible for their death or injury when they decide of their own free will to risk that life/well being in the commission of a felony crime. They make that choice, knowing the risk of their evil criminal actions.

'People own property therefore they should be judge, jury, and executioner.'

People only have those rights they can defend Nitram.

[Alyrium Denryle]

There is a reason we have the police force and the justice system. If everyone was allowed to lay down the law like a modern day Judge Dredd, there would be anarchy. That is why when someone is in the news found to be fighting an intruder who is fleeing their premises, the police condemn the action and may charge the homeowner too. The law cannot just say "oh, well he was defending his property and wanted payback. It's only fair, because we'd all do that I bet". The law is inflexible, so unless you have good cause, any intruder should be dealt with non-lethally unless they DIRECTLY threaten you.

If they flee the premesis when I draw a shotgun, they can go ahead and run, but if they continue to stay and loot they will be shot. At that point, it is fair to think that they wont stop at simply robbery.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh, and as an addendum. The police can only act after the fact. The cops showing up do you no good after your life savings is gone and your home is robbed clean, forcing you to start over again rebuilding your shattered livelyhood.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Oh, and as an addendum. The police can only act after the fact. The cops showing up do you no good after your life savings is gone and your home is robbed clean, forcing you to start over again rebuilding your shattered livelyhood.

Perhaps, but only the police have the powers to arrest and carry out justice on the street. Not the Average Joe. When that guy leaves your house, he's no longer fair game (amazingly, many seem to forget this). Even then, your first port of call should be calling the cops if you can before taking things into your own hands. There are just as many who fuck up plainly trying to control a simple burglar and escalate things into a shootout.

[Master of Ossus]

Then I suppose we can just extend this logic to include all home invasions then?

Barring any imminent danger of bodily harm to one of the occupants, then yes.

They are IN YOUR HOME there is no question of guilt. If they seek to steal things I work hard for, they are not only worthless but evil. Now, if they mean to do me harm, they will die.

This is ridiculous. If a school bully means someone else harm, is it okay for that kid to bring a gun to school and shoot him?

If they are large enough to harm me they will die.

If they present some credible threat of bodily harm to someone, then it might be reasonable to shoot them. While breaking into someone's house is certainly threatening and a violation of personal safety, it doesn't in and of itself represent a threat of serious bodily harm.

And if they attempt to steal my property, I sure as hell wont simply let them do it.

I have no problems with someone calling the police and then holding the perp until he can be handed over. I do have a problem with randomly shooting them on sight.

I may not use lethal force, but I will use what I need to defend MY rights which THEY violate. They are responsible for their death or injury when they decide of their own free will to risk that life/well being in the commission of a felony crime. They make that choice, knowing the risk of their evil criminal actions.

I agree that the felonious nature of the entry suspends some of their rights, but it is ultimately the STATE's decision to come up with an appropriate punishment for them and an individual citizen who happens to own a shotgun is not a substitute for a trial.

[Civil War Man]

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.

Weapons designed to be non-fatal can still kill (a rubber bullet to the head, for example, will put someone down for good).

Then, of course, what do you do if you run up against someone who, let's say, has developed a resistance to mace (perhaps they were involved in a lot of riots or something)?

I'm not advocating the use of violence. I'd rather nobody gets killed. I'm just pointing out that non-lethal weapons are a) not always reliable, and b) not guaranteed to be non-lethal all the time.

[Xon]

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!

If you are out in the middle of the Australia outback, your transportation is your live.

Cos unless someone knows you are out there and responds within a few days of you not showing up to were you are going, you are as good as dead.

[Xon]

Oddly enough in California , people are taking down the "Beware of dog" sign, because trespassers getting bitten can sue you for negligence, because you knew the dog would bite, as evidenced by your sign.

In Australia, "Beware of Dog" signs indicate you are taking your live into your own hands if you cross that line. And you cant sue if there is such a warning sign on the conventional entrance points(such as a gate).

There are a number of light industrial sites near were I used to live which had the "Beware of savage dog" signs all over the 2 metre high fenses. Presumable those puppies werent gong to roll over and beg for invaders.

[Smuggler's run]

Cash value of a human life: ten bucks. no more. no less. watch out for inflation. they r havin a sale down at target.

[Pcm979]

"I like your style hombre, but this is no laughing matter. Assault on a police officer. Theft of police property. Illegal possession of a firearm. Five counts of attempted murder. That comes to...$29.40. Cash, check, or credit card?"

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh, and as an addendum. The police can only act after the fact. The cops showing up do you no good after your life savings is gone and your home is robbed clean, forcing you to start over again rebuilding your shattered livelyhood.

Perhaps, but only the police have the powers to arrest and carry out justice on the street. Not the Average Joe. When that guy leaves your house, he's no longer fair game (amazingly, many seem to forget this). Even then, your first port of call should be calling the cops if you can before taking things into your own hands. There are just as many who fuck up plainly trying to control a simple burglar and escalate things into a shootout.

One does not have the time to contact the police with someone prowling their house. Hence the need to at least incapacitate the criminal, THEN call the cops

Barring any imminent danger of bodily harm to one of the occupants, then yes.

And how do you know there isnt imminent danger? They have alright violated you right to property, and many burglars that are caught... well lets just say they go sour and the home owner is the one that gets killed when they startle the burglar who pulls out a gun Hence the need to shoot first.

Again, they give up their right to exist when they violate a person;s rights in their own home. Knowing the risk in doing so. They are not innocent, and there is no question of guilt when caught red handed. Is calling the police preferable? SUre. Is it always or even usually a viable option and will they ever retrieve your stolen property in most cases or even catch the criminal? FUck no.

This is ridiculous. If a school bully means someone else harm, is it okay for that kid to bring a gun to school and shoot him?

No, because one can act proactively in that situtation. IN a burlary, one cannot, and by the time the police arrive the crime is already commited and you have already lost thousands of dollars and have possibly been harmed.

If they present some credible threat of bodily harm to someone, then it might be reasonable to shoot them. While breaking into someone's house is certainly threatening and a violation of personal safety, it doesn't in and of itself represent a threat of serious bodily harm.

True, but it is a reasonable assumption on your part when staring down someone who could easily overpower you. Having a gun is the only thing that equalizes that situation and holding the crook at gunpoint is the only way you can actually get him punished for the crime. If he then decides to remove your ability to equalize the situation, it is time to make good on your threat.

I agree that the felonious nature of the entry suspends some of their rights, but it is ultimately the STATE's decision to come up with an appropriate punishment for them and an individual citizen who happens to own a shotgun is not a substitute for a trial.

But that triel will not usually happen unless the perp is caught and held at gunpoint

[Darth Wong]

One does not have the time to contact the police with someone prowling their house. Hence the need to at least incapacitate the criminal, THEN call the cops

Irrelevant to the proposition that a homeowner should always be allowed to shoot the crook without having to establish a credible threat of imminent danger.

And how do you know there isnt imminent danger? They have alright violated you right to property, and many burglars that are caught... well lets just say they go sour and the home owner is the one that gets killed when they startle the burglar who pulls out a gun Hence the need to shoot first.

So even if he goes to jail he might come back and get you, so you might as well kill him now, right? And you honestly thought this bullshit would refute my accusation of vigilante thinking on your part?

Again, they give up their right to exist when they violate a person's rights in their own home.

Circular logic. You are trying to prove that this is the case; you cannot do so by simply stating it as a premise. The rest of your post is based on more long-winded circular bullshit in this style.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So even if he goes to jail he might come back and get you, so you might as well kill him now, right? And you honestly thought this bullshit would refute my accusation of vigilante thinking on your part

Nice strawman. DO I need to spell this out for you

Burlar breaks into home
Homeowner hears it
Homeowner comes downstairs to investigate
Criminal gets startled and pulls gun
Homeowner gets shot

It happens all to often. Now, lets change it to a more favorable outcome

Burlar breaks into home
Homeowner hears it
Homeowner comes downstairs to investigate armed with a revolver
Criminal gets startled and pulls a gun
Criminal gets shot

SHould it always be allowed for a homeowner to shoot a criminal? No. if the criminal surrendurs or runs, as I have already said they should be spared. Buit if they hold their ground in any way that is evidence for a credible threat to the victim.

Circular logic. You are trying to prove that this is the case; you cannot do so by simply stating it as a premise. The rest of your post is based on more long-winded circular bullshit in this style.

WHy dont they give up their rights Mike? DO they have some sort of inherrrant worth simply for having the same genetic makeup as me? No.

DO they contribute to society in any way? No

DO they wantonly violate the rights of others? yES

Do they know full well the risk they take when they invade someone's home? Yes

Frankly mike, I am amazed that you feel they have any sympathy for them when they get shot at all. The simple matter is they make a choice to take a risk. When they make this choice by provoking another person into defending what they worked hard for/their lives the criminal makes a concious choice to disregard his own safety and initiate force against another person. Be this force physical and harmful, or with a crowbar against a window. They were the ones innitiating actions, they were the one who commits a crime. By initiating force to violate the rights of the victim, the victim has a right to defend those rights if other options do not present themselves, if they wait to call the police they may as well put a sign on their front door that says "Burglarize me, please take everything" because they would then be unable to defend their rights when it mattered, while the crime is taking place.

People only have those rights whch they can defend mike, the cops cant do it but retroactively punish those that violate them, but when they arrive the damage is already done.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Circular logic. You are trying to prove that this is the case; you cannot do so by simply stating it as a premise. The rest of your post is based on more long-winded circular bullshit in this style.

Speaking hypothetically, given that a human's value (beyond the value of his constituent components or the recent black market prices for human organs) is not scientifically determinable, what kind of evidence would you accept for a determination of the value of a criminal relative to the value of a normal upstanding citizen?

[Darth Wong]

Burlar breaks into home
Homeowner hears it
Homeowner comes downstairs to investigate
Criminal gets startled and pulls gun
Homeowner gets shot

It happens all to often.

How often does this happen to an armed homeowner who is pointing a gun at the burglar? Let's see you back up this claim with evidence. You're saying that armed homeowners (since an unarmed homeowner does not have the choice of shooting the burglar hence making this whole question moot) are routinely killed by burglars who are "startled" and kill the armed homeowner as a result. Prove it.

WHy dont they give up their rights Mike? DO they have some sort of inherrrant worth simply for having the same genetic makeup as me? No.

Thanks for proving that you are incapable of justifying this assertion without simply stating it as a premise.

DO they contribute to society in any way? No

DO they wantonly violate the rights of others? yES

Do they know full well the risk they take when they invade someone's home? Yes

I notice that "imminent threat" is not in that list. Hence, you do feel that it's OK to kill someone simply for being in your house even with no threat to your own safety.

Frankly mike, I am amazed that you feel they have any sympathy for them when they get shot at all.

And I'm amazed that you don't understand ethics. You speak the words but you don't understand the underlying principles and values.