What is the cash value of a single human life?

[Chmee]

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?

Mmmmm, that's a real toughie, because my pinko leftist liberal tendencies say "no of course not" and the fact that I hate fucking thieves says "hell yeah!"

But since this is the law, with the time for cool, calm, detached reflection of considerations other than mere vengeance, I have to say no, I'm not a proponent of cruel and unusual punishment by the judicial system, for the same reason that I wouldn't shoot the asshole in the balls just for the sake of making a dickhead suffer ... not when I have choices.

[Surlethe]

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?

How is this a diversion? You may as well ask, "How is 'If there is no imminent threat to the life of the homeowner (or his family), is use of lethal force justified to protect property?' different from 'Is use of lethal force justifiable against a trespasser?'"

I was merely pointing out the arguments containing words like "imminent threat" were immediate diversions from the topic--something you yourself said earlier--as well as indulging in my guesses as to why people are going gratuitously off-topic.

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?

Note that in the second point, I have gone officially off-topic to join the real argument--and the real argument does not presume an unarmed intruder.

You don't seriously think if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, and I go down to confront him, I'm going to ask "Hey, do you have a gun?" Armed/unarmed is on the list of unknowns--and hence, he is presumed to possess them, because he has already committed the crime of breaking and entering.

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"?

I'll admit the phrase is clunky, but if it is reasonable, hell yes!

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!

I thought I had made that point clear when I delineated the connection necessary for judging a potential intent lies between the crime already committed and the crimes which follow naturally from the former. Is having words with someone a crime? Of course not. Thus, nothing supports discarding the presumption of innocence.

[SirNitram]

I wonder how many people here have had someone break in. My experiences have been entirely with the unarmed, whose only potential danger to my life has been from the sheer fucking stench. Waving a stick of sufficient heft is generally enough to solve the problem, a few warning smacks solve it the rest of the time.

Again, society and perhaps reality is cariactured. Instead of the reality(That most robbers, quite sanely, realize that going in armed is only going to massively increase their pain and suffering, from either trigger-happy locals or the police.), we get this bizarre world where breaking in always involves a weapon brandished.

[Chmee]

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.

The problem with this 'in and of itself' argument is that you, as the homeowner, would have to somehow have a prescient level of knowledge about the intruder's intent. You don't. All you know is that somebody with no right to be in your home has forced their way in, and they did it while you were there. Maybe they knew that, maybe they didn't, the question is what presumptions are you legally entitled to make, considering they were lawless enough to force their way in without caring enough about whether you were home to find out ahead of time. What risks is the homeowner, at that point, required to take?

If it's my friend who was sexually assaulted last year, and it's inside her home, I fully expect her to open up with her Glock. I don't see any reason for her to ask herself 'what if this guy who forced his way into my house just wants my jewelry?' That burden isn't on her, it's on the nitwit who broke in.

[SirNitram]

The problem with this 'in and of itself' argument is that you, as the homeowner, would have to somehow have a prescient level of knowledge about the intruder's intent.

Oh, stop bullshitting. It's trivially easy to notice when someone isn't armed and gunning for you. What the fuck kind of parallel universe of tiny dicks do you come from?

[Chmee]

The problem with this 'in and of itself' argument is that you, as the homeowner, would have to somehow have a prescient level of knowledge about the intruder's intent.

Oh, stop bullshitting. It's trivially easy to notice when someone isn't armed and gunning for you. What the fuck kind of parallel universe of tiny dicks do you come from?

I guess the universe where people don't have infrared vision and make their potential life-and-death decisions in seconds, not sitting comfortably at a keyboard. And you may want to check your reading comprehension, since the statement you flamed was about determining the intruder's intent (burglar vs. rapist), not whether they're armed or not.

[SirNitram]

The problem with this 'in and of itself' argument is that you, as the homeowner, would have to somehow have a prescient level of knowledge about the intruder's intent.

Oh, stop bullshitting. It's trivially easy to notice when someone isn't armed and gunning for you. What the fuck kind of parallel universe of tiny dicks do you come from?

I guess the universe where people don't have infrared vision and make their potential life-and-death decisions in seconds, not sitting comfortably at a keyboard. And you may want to check your reading comprehension, since the statement you flamed was about determining the intruder's intent (burglar vs. rapist), not whether they're armed or not.

Oh, you need IR spectrum sight to see if someone's got a weapon in their hands? Gee, and I thought I could see just fine as it is... Oh, wait, I know. You're one of those fucking imbeciles who beleives you can withdraw, ready, and fire in less time than it takes to pull a trigger.

And intent means little if I have a weapon brandished and they don't. They could intend to conquer Cuba, but if I'm armed and they're not, I can deliver the beating at a moment's notice. I don't need to be proactive.

But this doesn't jive with your masturbatory nonsensical view of the world, I see, so you'll just strawman like crazy.

[Chmee]

Oh, stop bullshitting. It's trivially easy to notice when someone isn't armed and gunning for you. What the fuck kind of parallel universe of tiny dicks do you come from?

I guess the universe where people don't have infrared vision and make their potential life-and-death decisions in seconds, not sitting comfortably at a keyboard. And you may want to check your reading comprehension, since the statement you flamed was about determining the intruder's intent (burglar vs. rapist), not whether they're armed or not.

Oh, you need IR spectrum sight to see if someone's got a weapon in their hands? Gee, and I thought I could see just fine as it is... Oh, wait, I know. You're one of those fucking imbeciles who beleives you can withdraw, ready, and fire in less time than it takes to pull a trigger.

And intent means little if I have a weapon brandished and they don't. They could intend to conquer Cuba, but if I'm armed and they're not, I can deliver the beating at a moment's notice. I don't need to be proactive.

But this doesn't jive with your masturbatory nonsensical view of the world, I see, so you'll just strawman like crazy.

Ah, I see ... they don't turn the lights off at your house at night. Ironic, since most of your bulbs seem to be pretty dim at the moment .... maybe it's just a filtering effect from the spittle flying off your lips. Calm down, maybe you'll think with more clarity.

[SirNitram]

Ah, I see ... they don't turn the lights off at your house at night. Ironic, since most of your bulbs seem to be pretty dim at the moment .... maybe it's just a filtering effect from the spittle flying off your lips. Calm down, maybe you'll think with more clarity.

Spittle? Sorry, unlike you, I'm not a rabid idiot who flies into a rage when calmly pointing out someone else is delusional. I suppose this sort of ad hominem bullshit passes for an argument in the depths of your asshole, but once your head is dredged out of it and into sunlight, you'll be able to see better.

And so I segway into the point. Yes, there's generally enough light in my home to see if there's anything in someone's hands. There's the distinct chance I would mistake, say, a toolkit for getting through locks for a gun, but holding something gun-sized in your hands is something I've yet to encounter.

ANd yea, a few lights are left on. It's a reasonable way of making sure no one comes in to steal stuff. Oh wait, in your lala land, we're not supposed to be proactive.

[Surlethe]

Yes, there's generally enough light in my home to see if there's anything in someone's hands. There's the distinct chance I would mistake, say, a toolkit for getting through locks for a gun, but holding something gun-sized in your hands is something I've yet to encounter.

And have you considered concealed weapons at all?

[SirNitram]

Yes, there's generally enough light in my home to see if there's anything in someone's hands. There's the distinct chance I would mistake, say, a toolkit for getting through locks for a gun, but holding something gun-sized in your hands is something I've yet to encounter.

And have you considered concealed weapons at all?

Reading comprehension, it's your friend.

You're one of those fucking imbeciles who beleives you can withdraw, ready, and fire in less time than it takes to pull a trigger.

[Chmee]

Ah, I see ... they don't turn the lights off at your house at night. Ironic, since most of your bulbs seem to be pretty dim at the moment .... maybe it's just a filtering effect from the spittle flying off your lips. Calm down, maybe you'll think with more clarity.

Spittle? Sorry, unlike you, I'm not a rabid idiot who flies into a rage when calmly pointing out someone else is delusional. I suppose this sort of ad hominem bullshit passes for an argument in the depths of your asshole, but once your head is dredged out of it and into sunlight, you'll be able to see better.

And so I segway into the point. Yes, there's generally enough light in my home to see if there's anything in someone's hands. There's the distinct chance I would mistake, say, a toolkit for getting through locks for a gun, but holding something gun-sized in your hands is something I've yet to encounter.

ANd yea, a few lights are left on. It's a reasonable way of making sure no one comes in to steal stuff. Oh wait, in your lala land, we're not supposed to be proactive.

You get really dull when you rant, Nitro ... it's a shame, because you can actually speak rationally when you choose to.

All I can say, picking the few little peanuts of thought out of the steaming brick you dropped, is that I love your hypothetical world where everyone has perfect knowledge, perfect vision, knows what the intruder is holding in their hand, knows what they want, and is so sure of their defensive abilities that they can err on the side of generosity and not caution. I wish the rest of us lived in that world, but I don't think we do.

Trained law enforcement professionals still shoot people who aren't armed in situations where they have to make a split-second decision based on what they can see and what they know, but you want to hold homeowners to a higher standard? I'd point out the complete irrationality of that viewpoint, but you make it pretty clear that rationality isn't something you put a lot of stock in.

[SirNitram]

You get really dull when you rant, Nitro ... it's a shame, because you can actually speak rationally when you choose to.

Sorry, Speaker For Animals, you must be delusional again. My position is the one, after all, built on experience... Yours is the one built on rantings and ravings and screamings.

All I can say, picking the few little peanuts of thought out of the steaming brick you dropped, is that I love your hypothetical world where everyone has perfect knowledge, perfect vision, knows what the intruder is holding in their hand, knows what they want, and is so sure of their defensive abilities that they can err on the side of generosity and not caution. I wish the rest of us lived in that world, but I don't think we do.

Another strawman fallacy; can you reply to a post without them? Go on, try. Just once.

Trained law enforcement professionals still shoot people who aren't armed in situations where they have to make a split-second decision based on what they can see and what they know, but you want to hold homeowners to a higher standard? I'd point out the complete irrationality of that viewpoint, but you make it pretty clear that rationality isn't something you put a lot of stock in.

Yea, yea. You strawman my position, then attack the strawman as irrational. Could you try to be a little less biblically moronic? Really, it would be nice if you could make a real rebuttal.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

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!"

You apparently choose not to challenge the logic loop of possibilities.

Yes, of course you can say what you just said. I've just seen a bunch of people who just did. I'm just pointing out some consequences of seriously doing what you said. Which is that you can't defend your property at all against certain targets, and that if your plan of just threatening the guy works at all, it is because of people like us. If you are willing to accept this, fine. If not, show me how you can seriously defend your property under these circumstances, how how a threat to shoot is supposed to work if everyone in the world won't shoot the criminal, because life is more valuable than property.

[Surlethe]

Reading comprehension, it's your friend.

And my good friend reading comprehension tells me

You're one of those fucking imbeciles who beleives you can withdraw, ready, and fire in less time than it takes to pull a trigger.

implies a drawn weapon, not a concealed one.

[SirNitram]

Reading comprehension, it's your friend.

And my good friend reading comprehension tells me

You're one of those fucking imbeciles who beleives you can withdraw, ready, and fire in less time than it takes to pull a trigger.

implies a drawn weapon, not a concealed one.

I see your reading comprehension is subpar. Obviously, if a weapon is to go from concealed to doing me harm, it must enter some form of transitional stage.

Or perhaps your think you're clever, and are referring to weapons which are held so that they can't be seen but could be fired. Let's see: A man has a hand in his coat and is not acting intimidated. Gee, really hard to make a call there. The differnece, my oh-so-mentally challenged friend, is that someone appearing to be concealing a weapon in a ready-to-fire position is noticable, and will be considered 'reasonable threat'. As opposed to what I have repeatedly pointed out: That most of these invasions are not conducted with guns out.

[Surlethe]

Well, let's examine this quote in context:

Oh, you need IR spectrum sight to see if someone's got a weapon in their hands? Gee, and I thought I could see just fine as it is... Oh, wait, I know. You're one of those fucking imbeciles who beleives you can withdraw, ready, and fire in less time than it takes to pull a trigger.

Now, to whom exactly are the bolded pronouns referring? Obviously to Chmee. So who's the one drawing the weapon? Chmee. So, then, who's the one squeezing the trigger? The trespasser.

Squeezing the trigger implies the trespasser has already drawn his weapon. Hence, I infer, from your quote, a drawn weapon, not a concealed weapon.

[SirNitram]

Well, let's examine this quote in context:

Oh, you need IR spectrum sight to see if someone's got a weapon in their hands? Gee, and I thought I could see just fine as it is... Oh, wait, I know. You're one of those fucking imbeciles who beleives you can withdraw, ready, and fire in less time than it takes to pull a trigger.

Now, to whom exactly are the bolded pronouns referring? Obviously to Chmee. So who's the one drawing the weapon? Chmee. So, then, who's the one squeezing the trigger? The trespasser.

I suppose if one is being ignorant, this is an acceptable claim. Unfortunately, I'm not ignorant, so it's not.

Squeezing the trigger implies the trespasser has already drawn his weapon. Hence, I infer, from your quote, a drawn weapon, not a concealed weapon.

Then maybe you should get some sense into your head. Who is more likely to be concealing a weapon: Someone illegally using it in an invasion of a house, or a person brandishing a weapon to defend themselves? To actually use context, consider that the speaker has already mentioned using the weapon to scare off the unarmed, so would it be concealed?

Just put on your goddamn dunce cap and slither off already.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I wonder how many people here have had someone break in. My experiences have been entirely with the unarmed, whose only potential danger to my life has been from the sheer fucking stench. Waving a stick of sufficient heft is generally enough to solve the problem, a few warning smacks solve it the rest of the time.

Lucky you. You've had peaceful thieves so far

Oh, you need IR spectrum sight to see if someone's got a weapon in their hands? Gee, and I thought I could see just fine as it is... Rolling Eyes Oh, wait, I know. You're one of those fucking imbeciles who beleives you can withdraw, ready, and fire in less time than it takes to pull a trigger.

Hadn't we discussed these counter-action scenarios two pages ago? The issue is not the physical action time to pull the trigger. It is the psychological reaction time that has to all go before you decide to pull the trigger.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

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'd kill for such a physique. I'm weak, small and out of shape, with no martial arts training. To put it simply, if I don't have that equalizer called a gun, I basically won't be able to seriously defend my property. Since I live in Hong Kong (no guns), my property rights are basically for any willing robber or thief to take, in the vain hope the police would somehow catch him (yeah, they will).

[SirNitram]

I wonder how many people here have had someone break in. My experiences have been entirely with the unarmed, whose only potential danger to my life has been from the sheer fucking stench. Waving a stick of sufficient heft is generally enough to solve the problem, a few warning smacks solve it the rest of the time.

Lucky you. You've had peaceful thieves so far

I don't doubt I've had good luck. I'm just wondering whether anyone playing the macho-man bullshit is speaking from anything but a comfy position of abject, total ignorance.

Oh, you need IR spectrum sight to see if someone's got a weapon in their hands? Gee, and I thought I could see just fine as it is... Rolling Eyes Oh, wait, I know. You're one of those fucking imbeciles who beleives you can withdraw, ready, and fire in less time than it takes to pull a trigger.

Hadn't we discussed these counter-action scenarios two pages ago? The issue is not the physical action time to pull the trigger. It is the psychological reaction time that has to all go before you decide to pull the trigger.

Then I guess I'm blessed with an exceptionally quick mind; I've been able to pick out that the invaders I've had were unarmed cowards(The stink of booze helped). Or perhaps I'm just keeping a cool head(At the time of the event; much like other scary things, once it's past, I tend to fall to the ground).

[Chmee]

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'd kill for such a physique. I'm weak, small and out of shape, with no martial arts training. To put it simply, if I don't have that equalizer called a gun, I basically won't be able to seriously defend my property. Since I live in Hong Kong (no guns), my property rights are basically for any willing robber or thief to take, in the vain hope the police would somehow catch him (yeah, they will).

Maybe us large folk are just aware that if the intruder has a weapon, our size is pretty irrelevant (except in providing a bigger target, yay). If I lived in that happy world where it was impossible for crooks to have a cheap handgun, then a softball bat would probably be all the home defense I'd ever need.

[Surlethe]

I suppose if one is being ignorant, this is an acceptable claim. Unfortunately, I'm not ignorant, so it's not.

Well, then: is "you" referring to Chmee, or to some hypothetical robber?

[SirNitram]

I suppose if one is being ignorant, this is an acceptable claim. Unfortunately, I'm not ignorant, so it's not.

Well, then: is "you" referring to Chmee, or to some hypothetical robber?

The robber. It would be rather bizarre to be arguing I don't need IR eyes to see a weapon pointed right at me. Well, maybe not that bizarre, Chmee has demonstrated the level of ignorance required for that sort of patient explanation.

[Alyrium Denryle]

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.

The whole concept of rights is that they exist independantly of the permission of others. The only way to take them is to initiate force against another person. A person only has rights if they are willing and able to defend those rights against those who initiate force against them.

A person who initiates force against another person does so at the risk that the victim will defend their rights. It is a concious choice on their part. Sort of like sticking their tongue in a lightsocket. They know the risk, and do so anyway, thus they relinquish their right to life de-facto.

If the victim does not defend their rights, then they may as well not have them. The police can act retrocactively, but the right to property is already violated.

The property itself is not what is worth more than the criminal, that is what needs to be understood. It is the RIGHT to property. Not to say the right to property is worth more than the right to life. However if one cannot use lethal force to defend their rights against someone who initiates said force in the first place, the entire concept of rights may as well not exist because we cannot defend them. That is the problem. The right of a person to own property and make a living for themselves is destroyed ifn they are not permitted to defend what they own.

Is lethal force preferable? in a perfect world no. But a perfect world does not exist, and in many cases lethal force is all that can be realistically used by a person defending their rights. Government, where cooler heads and more sheer manpower prevails and is available, can place nin-lethal sanctions against those who initiate force against others more effectively, however those sanctions are after the fact, and the violation of rights has already taken place.

To use a Utilitarian argument rather than a rights based one...

A criminal who commits a home invasion causes suffering to a person and their family. This suffering is essentially that caused by having to rebuild a lifetime worth of property memories, irreplacable family hierlooms, not to mention cash and capital goods. if they go through life continuing their course of action, they will commit this crime many times before they finally get caught. They will spend a bit of time in prison, then they will get out causing more suffering to perhaps dozens of families, considering the recidivism rates of prison systems. In fact their crimes may escalate into more violant offenses, hardened by the prison system.

If the law allows for the immediate defense of home by lethal force, the government will cause several good outcomes. First the crime rate will drop as the fear of imminent death discourages home invasions in the local area in which the residents defend their homes. This will have the effect of reducing the amount of suffering on a large scale at the cost of the lives of a few criminals who do not contribute meaningfully to society and who in fact generate negative utiles. This will generate a reputation in the social circles of those of ill repute that the area is not an easy mark for burglaries seeing as the population is armed. Secondly it will allow for more resources to be spent on the retroactive punishment of criminals not deterred by the armed populace, or who exist in areas that are not armed. This will again, decrease the total amount of suffering in any given area.