What is the cash value of a single human life?

[Darth Wong]

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?

Don't be a fucktard. We're comparing it to the value of inanimate property, not the law-abiding citizen's own life. No one is disputing that the citizen has the right to self-defense. What we are debating is Alyrium's morally bankrupt assertion that the mere act of breaking into your house should warrant summary death penalty vigilantism, even without an imminent threat to your life.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Alyrium's morally bankrupt assertion that the mere act of breaking into your house should warrant summary death penalty vigilantism, even without an imminent threat to your life.

I dont know how many times I have pointed out that strawman so this is the last time I will bother doing it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

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.

I have said it half a dozen times now mike. If they surrendur to you, or flee, dont shoot them. That WOULD be murder because they DONT pose a threat. But if you point a fucking gun at them, and they just laugh, or continue to loot, you had better shoot them atthat point because A) They certainly mean you harm at that point or B) if they didnt before the chances just increased because they think you are gutless. Now I suppose you could wait until they take a step TOWARD you. But I dont think anyone who is sane would wait that long.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Let's be clear on a couple things.

1 - It does depend on the statute in your state law book.

From this point on I will be speaking in relation to my state, Utah.

2 - When someone invades your house it is presumed that they mean you harm. Thus, if you can articulate that you reasonable felt they met you harm then you can use deadly force. Basically, it is up to law enforcement to prove that you unreasonable used deadly force.

3 - However, the police will still do an investigation and if they find that the intruder surrendered, or was attempting to flee then you will be charged with a crime.

[SirNitram]

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

People only have those rights they can defend Nitram.

Ignorant, inbred, fucktard, brain damaged, Voyager loving, shit flinging political lobbyist!

You would be correct if we lived in a total anarchic state. The rest of Humanity left that 12,000 years ago when we forged tribal society and laws. Get with the mileenia.

[Darth Wong]

But if you point a fucking gun at them, and they just laugh ...

Good to know you're basing your argument on such completely plausible and realistic scenarios

[Kamakazie Sith]

You are legally allowed to not give a warning if you reasonable feel that doing so would place you, or another, in danger of being seriously injured or killed.

Once again though, do so at your own risk. If the police can prove that a reasonable person wouldn't feel that their life or that of another was in danger than you're screwed.

Really, someone who breaks into anothers house is taking a serious risk, and they'd have to be stupid to not be aware of that.

The law is on the home owners side for a reason.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Here's another philosophical consideration. We'd ignore the possibility of non-lethal force for this passage, since I think most people would agree if it is safe, it is best to subdue the criminal without killing him. Of course, life doesn't allow such niceties all the time. Which is why we have moral dilemmas.

Let's say the straw is true. We use one of two possible premises - that a crime makes the criminal worth less than your property rights. Under that assumption and some utilitarianism, it makes logical sense to defend your property rights and blow the criminal off the map. Unless he clearly surrenders of course, then perhaps we can be merciful - that's one of those niceties listed above.

It may be cruel. But it is also simple and logical (after the premise everything follows). It is also not hard to avoid that little bit of cruelty in our hearts - simply don't step into our house without permission!!! What's so hard about following this simple rule, people? The unreasonableness of a draconian law is the Difficulty of Obedience multipled by the Consequences of Disobeying It. The Consequence is close to 1, but the difficulty of the obeying this law should be zero; it can't be that unreasonable.

Now let's take your (the other) premise - the criminal is (now of reduced value or not) of much higher value than your property rights. But you don't want to say you can't defend your property rights by yourself at all (since the police is relatively useless for that).

So instead of taking the safe path of blowing the criminal off the map, you choose to confront him. Actually, you aren't defending your property rights yet. You are only threatening to do so.

Never mind the psychological disadvantage you are now in, which the criminal can potentially transform quickly into a tactical one. Sure, he might surrender - either he's actually fooled that you'd really shoot, or he now suddenly agrees that your property rights are greater than his remaining right to freedom (the latter is unlikely).

But let's say the criminal decides to risk you not shooting and backs away with your jewellery in his hand towards the window for his escape. He's not engaging, just moving away. Do you shoot him? Never mind the law (which varies based on region anyway) for now. Just use your morality to make the decision - assume that your local law will back any decision you make, and the only thing berating you will be a conscience.

If you shoot him, you've just put your property above the criminal, which is not allowed under your morality scheme. If you don't shoot him, you've just decided to give up your property rights without a fight. Then what happened to our right to defend our property? Calling the police is not defending your property in a realistic sense. The chances of them being able to recover your property is roughly nil. And if you can't defend our property, then what is your property rights worth? Nothing. I don't think many of you find this idea appealing at all.

Now let's take another scenario. The criminal decides to defend his freedom and engages. He whips out a gun / knive. At that point, most of you said that it is now "Self-Defense" to endanger his life by shooting him. In other words, you agree the criminal, which before is crime is presumably roughly equal in value to you, is of degraded value.

But is it? Is it really self-defense to provoke a fight (he might be stealing your shit, but it is still you who chose to challenge him to either surrender, run or fight), then when he counterattacks, use that as an excuse to kill him? If his life really is so much more precious than your property, why are you even threatening him with a gun? You knew this could happen when you confronted the criminal. If lives are really worth so much more to you than property, then why risk two lives by confronting him? Why not just let him violate your much less precious property rights so you don't have to risk hurting his very precious right to life (and maybe yours as well)?

Yet if you don't confront him, you basically say you have no real right to defend your property. The ultimate extension of the idea that the criminal's life is worth more than your property, therefore, is that you basically can't defend your property. You can threaten and bluff, but you can't really defend it.

Finally, by confronting him with the gun, aren't you saying that his life could be cheaper than your property? What really backs up your threat when you point a gun to him, other than us "immoral" people who think our property is more important than his life?

After all, if He thinks you are one of us "Immorals", he may decide to see Surrender as his best shot at survival, even if it means a loss of freedom for a time.

If he figures that you are one of those "Morals", he knows you would respect his right to life more than your own property rights, so he knows that as long as he continues his course, he can escape, that you won't really risk his life - and we know the police probably won't catch him.

By extension, the more immoral people like us in the world, the more likely it is the thief would guess you are one of us and surrender (the result you want, and the result we want too). On the other hand, if the vast majority of his targets are "moral", he would likely predict the next one he meets will be one of you. In which case, he'd try to escape, and the unlucky day he meets an Immoral will be the end of his burglary career (in other words, the result that we both don't really want).

It is utterly ironic for the Morals that a good bit of the reason their idea might work is because of our silent backing, even as they scream about how sick we are.

[Darth Wong]

Your entire argument is based on the moronic presumption that we will somehow recoil from the suggestion that you don't have the right to take life in order to defend your property, when in fact that is the whole fucking subject of this debate.

In essence, your whole long-winded bullshit-storm boils down to "you can't really be saying that a criminal's right to life is worth more than property; you just CAN'T!"

[Surlethe]

Two points.

1: The point of this entire thread is to discuss the question "If there is no imminent threat to the life of the homeowner (or his family), is use of lethal force justified to protect property?" By turning the argument into the topic of "Is use of lethal force justifiable against a trespasser?", you're diverting from the main point of contention. Presumably, this is because everyone agrees the right to life is inherently more valuable than property.

2: That said, the premise is moronic. It is entirely unreasonable to presume the presence of a trespasser presents no imminent threat to the life or livelihood of the homeowner (or, by extension, his family), because the trespasser's intent is unknown. The only known fact about the trespasser is he has demonstrated intent to break and enter your house.

He therefore has a potential intent to do anything from grab some shit and run to burn the house down to kidnap your kids to kill you and rape your wife.

Because you don't know his intentions, are you going to assume he is only there to grab shit and run? Of course, if that were the case, you would be unjustified in killing him. But you don't know that's the case! The only thing you know about him is that he is willing to intentionally violate your home. Because he is already demonstrably guilty in violating your home, he has revoked his right to be presumed innocent in any related potential crime. He intends to commit one of them, and you don't know which.

So, then, tell me: which would be more amoral: to shoot the fucker in the back, or to stand by and let him take the initiative, knowing he could be in your house in order to rape and kill you and your family?

[Wicked Pilot]

For those of you who support the use of deadly force to protect property, do you also support the death penality for theft?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

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.

What ethical principle are you using that says X loses all rights to life if X breaks into your home to steal property? I don't remember that principle anywhere in Ethics, not even in the half semester we did on Rights Ethics. There wasn't a single Philosopher I read that held that position.

On the other hand, there were SOME who said you lose your right to life when you TAKE another, but even that is losing ground, because one wrong does not make a another wrong right. It doesn't serve any purpouse.

[Darth Wong]

1: The point of this entire thread is to discuss the question "If there is no imminent threat to the life of the homeowner (or his family), is use of lethal force justified to protect property?" By turning the argument into the topic of "Is use of lethal force justifiable against a trespasser?", you're diverting from the main point of contention. Presumably, this is because everyone agrees the right to life is inherently more valuable than property.

How is this a diversion from the main point of contention? This is the main point of contention. With no imminent threat to your safety, can you kill someone over property?

2: That said, the premise is moronic. It is entirely unreasonable to presume the presence of a trespasser presents no imminent threat to the life or livelihood of the homeowner (or, by extension, his family), because the trespasser's intent is unknown. The only known fact about the trespasser is he has demonstrated intent to break and enter your house.

If you have a gun and he is unarmed, there is no imminent threat. How is that a "moronic" scenario?

He therefore has a potential intent to do anything from grab some shit and run to burn the house down to kidnap your kids to kill you and rape your wife.

"Potential intent"? You feel that it's OK to kill someone for "potential intent"?

Because you don't know his intentions, are you going to assume he is only there to grab shit and run? Of course, if that were the case, you would be unjustified in killing him. But you don't know that's the case! The only thing you know about him is that he is willing to intentionally violate your home. Because he is already demonstrably guilty in violating your home, he has revoked his right to be presumed innocent in any related potential crime. He intends to commit one of them, and you don't know which.

So, then, tell me: which would be more amoral: to shoot the fucker in the back, or to stand by and let him take the initiative, knowing he could be in your house in order to rape and kill you and your family?

Do you realize that if you are allowed to kill someone for "potential intent", he doesn't even need to be in your house? He could be on your front lawn. Hell, he could just be someone that is on the sidewalk and who had words with you. Better kill him, in case he comes back at night when you're sleeping!

[Chmee]

For those of you who support the use of deadly force to protect property, do you also support the death penality for theft?

I think that's a pretty good point ... although, I never supported deadly force to protect property.

However, on the use of force against intruders, I think the focus on 'value' is a red herring. I'm not going to kneecap the burglar because my TV is worth more than his knee .... I'm going to kneecap the burglar because he is a person who made the conscious decision to fuck with my life, in my home. Only an idiot could think there would not be consequences for doing this.

Want to stay 100% safe? Stay out of my house. I haven't even been in so much as a shoving match in decades because I'm 6'5 and 230 lbs. ... even complete idiots are smart enough to say 'Nah, gotta be somebody easier to fuck with.'

My motto in this regard is simple: don't fuck with me, and I won't fuck you up. But if you break into my house, scare my girlfriend, and cast an acquisitive eye toward my belongings, you had better not act surprised when you wake up in a prison hospital and spend the next couple months on a liquid diet. What the hell else would you expect? If you fuck with people who never did a thing to you and never would, you reap the whirlwind.

[Darth Wong]

For those of you who support the use of deadly force to protect property, do you also support the death penality for theft?

I think that's a pretty good point ... although, I never supported deadly force to protect property.

However, on the use of force against intruders, I think the focus on 'value' is a red herring. I'm not going to kneecap the burglar because my TV is worth more than his knee .... I'm going to kneecap the burglar because he is a person who made the conscious decision to fuck with my life, in my home. Only an idiot could think there would not be consequences for doing this.

Want to stay 100% safe? Stay out of my house. I haven't even been in so much as a shoving match in decades because I'm 6'5 and 230 lbs. ... even complete idiots are smart enough to say 'Nah, gotta be somebody easier to fuck with.'

My motto in this regard is simple: don't fuck with me, and I won't fuck you up. But if you break into my house, scare my girlfriend, and cast an acquisitive eye toward my belongings, you had better not act surprised when you wake up in a prison hospital and spend the next couple months on a liquid diet. What the hell else would you expect? If you fuck with people who never did a thing to you and never would, you reap the whirlwind.

Yes yes, you're trying to prove what a tough take-no-shit kind of guy you are, we get it. Aerius does the same thing. But let me ask you this: what if the guy gets on his knees and begs you not to hurt him? Are you going to beat the shit out of him anyway? If not, then you're admitting that the act of robbery itself does not actually warrant that kind of retaliation.

[Wicked Pilot]

If someone breaks into your house, steals your TV, and generally fucks with your life, from in your home, but you or your family are not around to see it happen, could you still shoot them later?

[Chmee]

For those of you who support the use of deadly force to protect property, do you also support the death penality for theft?

I think that's a pretty good point ... although, I never supported deadly force to protect property.

However, on the use of force against intruders, I think the focus on 'value' is a red herring. I'm not going to kneecap the burglar because my TV is worth more than his knee .... I'm going to kneecap the burglar because he is a person who made the conscious decision to fuck with my life, in my home. Only an idiot could think there would not be consequences for doing this.

Want to stay 100% safe? Stay out of my house. I haven't even been in so much as a shoving match in decades because I'm 6'5 and 230 lbs. ... even complete idiots are smart enough to say 'Nah, gotta be somebody easier to fuck with.'

My motto in this regard is simple: don't fuck with me, and I won't fuck you up. But if you break into my house, scare my girlfriend, and cast an acquisitive eye toward my belongings, you had better not act surprised when you wake up in a prison hospital and spend the next couple months on a liquid diet. What the hell else would you expect? If you fuck with people who never did a thing to you and never would, you reap the whirlwind.

Yes yes, you're trying to prove what a tough take-no-shit kind of guy you are, we get it. Aerius does the same thing. But let me ask you this: what if the guy gets on his knees and begs you not to hurt him? Are you going to beat the shit out of him anyway? If not, then you're admitting that the act of robbery itself does not actually warrant that kind of retaliation.

So, you're saying that the guy who just broke into my home with malicious intent ... I'm supposed to treat his sudden contrition as being especially credible, because he was caught? Riiiiiight. I should just give him a cookie and send him on his way so he can have better luck finding a more vulnerable victim on his next break-in? That'll teach him!

But to be perfectly honest, he will get 2 options with me -- run like hell, or lay down face-first on the floor while I call the cops. I have no desire to injure another human being unnecessarily, it does not elevate me as a person, it only lowers me to their level. I won't shoot him if he tries to run, not even 'wing him' in the leg for the cops, because it's too easy for him to bleed out and die on me, and that's not my desire.

But if he resists? Threatens? Vandalizes? Bad choice.

So me personally, yeah if he blubbers crocodile tears and surrenders, I'm not gonna do a damned thing except call the cops. But if I'm on a jury for some homeowner who beats the shit out of a guy in a similar situation, I have a hard time convicting on a criminal charge ... the burgler was 100% responsible for the forseeable consequences of his act.

[Chmee]

If someone breaks into your house, steals your TV, and generally fucks with your life, from in your home, but you or your family are not around to see it happen, could you still shoot them later?

See above, but to answer directly, no. I would generally feel real good about hearing that another homeowner shot him while catching him in flagrante delicto, or that he lost a leg to enthusiastic Rottweilers when he hopped over grandma's fence, but I can't see stalking him.

[Darth Wong]

So, you're saying that the guy who just broke into my home with malicious intent ... I'm supposed to treat his sudden contrition as being especially credible, because he was caught? Riiiiiight. I should just give him a cookie and send him on his way so he can have better luck finding a more vulnerable victim on his next break-in? That'll teach him!

Nice strawman, fucktard. I already said earlier that I would call the cops and have him thrown in jail, remember? No one said anything about letting the guy go and giving him a cookie. The fact that you need to use such strawman distortions only goes to prove what I'm saying about the dishonesty of your position.

But to be perfectly honest, he will get 2 options with me -- run like hell, or lay down face-first on the floor while I call the cops. I have no desire to injure another human being unnecessarily, it does not elevate me as a person, it only lowers me to their level. I won't shoot him if he tries to run, not even 'wing him' in the leg for the cops, because it's too easy for him to bleed out and die on me, and that's not my desire.

Then you are admitting that robbery itself does not warrant killing, hence you agree with the premise of the OP that the people who say it does automatically warrant killing are wrong. If you want to start a new thread about your attempt to change the subject, feel free.

[SirNitram]

When one mentions the cariacture in a thread, it's usually referring to an argument(IE, it's pointing out someone's Strawmanning), or it's involved with an insult. It also sends quite a few users scrambling for their dictionaries, as I'm sure it will do now.

We appear to be experiencing a cariacture of society, into some ridiculous tribal notion of every man for himself. While I'm sure it strokes the egos of those who are less certain about their masculinity, it's all rather absurd to those of us evolved to civilized reality.

[Wicked Pilot]

See above, but to answer directly, no. I would generally feel real good about hearing that another homeowner shot him while catching him in flagrante delicto, or that he lost a leg to enthusiastic Rottweilers when he hopped over grandma's fence, but I can't see stalking him.

Well let's say the police caught him. Would you support something a little less than execution, such as say cutting off a hand?

[J]

I think the main sticking points here are

1) How do we judge imminent threat to life?
2) What presumptions can be made on someone violating your property?

The law, depending on state, country, etc. will have differing interpretations and viewpoints on the above, which leads to the wide range of use of force laws on property defence in various areas. Some places allow shoot on sight no question asked, others require a duty to retreat, even from your own home.

I don't think there's any one answer. Going by ethics in an ideal world, it's not right to kill someone over property, even if he's broken into your home and cleaned it out. On the other hand practicality also enters into it, in some places a law which states that property can't be defended by force or lethal force will lead to high rates of property crime. A balance has to be found between what is ethical and what is practical and effective in the real world. I'm also not going to deny that tradition factors into it as well, witness how many of the Redneck states have shoot to kill laws in regards to property violations.

[Chmee]

So, you're saying that the guy who just broke into my home with malicious intent ... I'm supposed to treat his sudden contrition as being especially credible, because he was caught? Riiiiiight. I should just give him a cookie and send him on his way so he can have better luck finding a more vulnerable victim on his next break-in? That'll teach him!

Nice strawman, fucktard. I already said earlier that I would call the cops and have him thrown in jail, remember? No one said anything about letting the guy go and giving him a cookie. The fact that you need to use such strawman distortions only goes to prove what I'm saying about the dishonesty of your position.

But to be perfectly honest, he will get 2 options with me -- run like hell, or lay down face-first on the floor while I call the cops. I have no desire to injure another human being unnecessarily, it does not elevate me as a person, it only lowers me to their level. I won't shoot him if he tries to run, not even 'wing him' in the leg for the cops, because it's too easy for him to bleed out and die on me, and that's not my desire.

Then you are admitting that robbery itself does not warrant killing, hence you agree with the premise of the OP that the people who say it does automatically warrant killing are wrong. If you want to start a new thread about your attempt to change the subject, feel free.

Or I could just blow off the trolling as not particularly interesting ....

I'll reiterate that I think the focus on value is misleading, because those who find the use of force acceptable against intruders are not generally focused on monetary value, but on personal privacy, security, and the general desire to not have strangers fuck with their lives 'just because they can'.

To respond to a point you've made, however, you seem to put quite an emphasis on a homeowner determining whether an intruder is armed before using deadly force. I guess I would ask just what risks you think a homeowner should take to gather this data? It's late, it's dark, some guy is in your house with things in his hand -- could be a candlestick from your mantle, could be a Glock. Now me, I have a Maglite near the bed and I'd be trying to illuminate him to (a) determine whether he's armed and (b) provide a nice clear target for the Sig in the other hand if it turns out he is. But I'm still relatively young, strong and not particularly fearful ... should I put the same burden on a woman who fears sexual assault in her home, or should I give her the right to use deadly force and err on the side of caution? These incidents don't occur in a clearcut classroom hypothetical, they always occur with little time to make decisions and potentially disastrous consequences for hesitating and making the wrong one. Who should face the greater consequences for the mis-step here, the innocent homeowner or the culpable intruder?

In this state, the mere act of breaking and entering while you're inside lets you presume they intend to use deadly force against you ... and I'm okay with that, although personally I'll try to verify that before just blazing away.

[The Third Man]

Yes yes, you're trying to prove what a tough take-no-shit kind of guy you are, we get it. Aerius does the same thing.

You know, there's something strange going on here. I see a peculiar tendency for the biggest, strongest, deadliest, axe/sword/baseball-bat/uzi-wielding, jedi-like uber-warriors - in short, those with nothing at all to fear from a mere non-violent intruder, to be the ones who are so much terrorised by the thought of unexpectedly encountering someone on their property that they need to reserve the right to shoot (club/stab/chop/ninja-ise as applicable) first and ask questions later.

(I'm, of course, little and weedy, but I sure can make a long sentence when I try)

If someone breaks into your house, steals your TV, and generally fucks with your life, from in your home, but you or your family are not around to see it happen, could you still shoot them later?

I think we can safely assume the answer is yes, given that some people are proposing killing before any of those things happen, as some sort of bizarre preventative measure against crimes that someone may or may not have the "potential intent" to commit at some point in the future.

[Darth Wong]

Or I could just blow off the trolling as not particularly interesting ....

What trolling? Yours? You refuse to address the thread subject as-is, you insist on caricaturing other peoples' positions, and you have the gall to accuse anyone else of trolling?

I'll reiterate that I think the focus on value is misleading, because those who find the use of force acceptable against intruders are not generally focused on monetary value, but on personal privacy, security, and the general desire to not have strangers fuck with their lives 'just because they can'.

Irrelevant to the point that the act of entering a home does not in and of itself warrant lethal force.

To respond to a point you've made, however, you seem to put quite an emphasis on a homeowner determining whether an intruder is armed before using deadly force. I guess I would ask just what risks you think a homeowner should take to gather this data?

That question is subject to debate but it is irrelevant to the point that the act of breaking in and stealing something in and of itself does not warrant lethal force.