Escalation of Force and property.

[Kanastrous]

Why, apart from your say-so?

We assign responsibility for drunk driving plus all consequences, to the person who voluntarily chose to get drunk and then chose to drive.

That's a nice rhetorical dodge, giving license to use lethal force and then calling it "consequences", as if the burglar brings it upon himself with the same physical inevitability as a drunk driver's head slamming into a tree. Is that your excuse for anything? Just call it "consequences"?

I am not arguing that being shot is the only possible consequence that an intruder implicitly accepts during a breaking-and-entering. Of course he could also fall down stairs or trip on a rug or be bitten by a dog or pick up salmonella from leftover chicken fingers he finds in the fridge. Being shot by an occupant of the home he's entered is just one possible consequence among many, all of which I believe are on the intruder's head. And it is the particular one that we were discussing.

And, I didn't suggest that there is a physical inevitability of a drunk driver's head slamming into a tree. Although I kind of wish that there were.

We assign responsibility for armed robbery plus all consequences, to the person who voluntarily decided to pick up a weapon and rob a bank. We don't assign any responsibilities for a drunk driver's collision-related injuries, to the person that he hit as a consequence of his decision. We don't assign responsibility for a bank robber's police-related injuries to the bank where he gets shot as a consequence of his decision.

See above. You are arguing about what those consequences should be, and you are treating your preferred consequences as a given.

It's not my 'preferred consequence;' it's the particular consequence we're talking about. As above, I lay any and all consequences of the voluntary decision to commit a crime, on the person who voluntarily decided to commit it. The possibility of getting shot is just one among many.

It appears consistent to me, that we assign full responsibility for bad consequences of a home burglary or robbery, to the person who voluntarily chose to commit those crimes, too.

Totally irrelevant to the argument of what those consequences should be.

Sure it's relevant. I'm arguing that liability for any and all consequences ought to fall upon the intruder. For my purposes it doesn't matter what those consequences should be; whatever they may be, let the intruder suffer them.

[Darth Wong]

Sure it's relevant. I'm arguing that liability for any and all consequences ought to fall upon the intruder. For my purposes it doesn't matter what those consequences should be; whatever they may be, let the intruder suffer them.

Except that those consequences are under your control, so you cannot just hand them off to the intruder for making you do whatever you do. The idea that you bear no responsibility for your own actions is utterly perverse and has no bearing in any discussion involving the word "ethics", and that is what you are advertising.

If the gun is in your hand, you can't just say "he bears full responsibility", because you are responsible for what you do with that gun. He is responsible for some consequences of his action, but as a matter of ethics and principle and even law, he is only liable for those consequences which a reasonable person would foresee to directly follow from his action. So you cannot evade the argument of what is a reasonable response by simply saying "he bears the consequences".

[Knife]

Sure it's relevant. I'm arguing that liability for any and all consequences ought to fall upon the intruder. For my purposes it doesn't matter what those consequences should be; whatever they may be, let the intruder suffer them.

Except that those consequences are under your control, so you cannot just hand them off to the intruder for making you do whatever you do. The idea that you bear no responsibility for your own actions is utterly perverse and has no bearing in any discussion involving the word "ethics", and that is what you are advertising.

If the gun is in your hand, you can't just say "he bears full responsibility", because you are responsible for what you do with that gun. He is responsible for some consequences of his action, but as a matter of ethics and principle and even law, he is only liable for those consequences which a reasonable person would foresee to directly follow from his action. So you cannot evade the argument of what is a reasonable response by simply saying "he bears the consequences".

Indeed. Using the drunk driving example, what the DUI guy does is his responsibility; however if the drunk wrecks and some civilian gets pissed and takes a crowbar or sledge to the drunks car in retaliation to the drunk driver, that's not the drunks decision.

His/her decision was to drive drunk, the vengence of the civilian is the civilians own and you can't say it's the drunks responsibility it happened because the civilian decided to take matters into their own hands.

[PainRack]

You're preaching to the choir here. I already stated that in this particular example given in the OP, the guy was in the wrong. He went overboard in the initial contact and made it worse by continuing to pummel him.


Agree completely.

You were saying that there shouldn't be laws protecting criminals from retribution.
Are you suggesting that such brutality could be prosecuted and criminals should be protected from acts of brutality?

[Lancer]

You're preaching to the choir here. I already stated that in this particular example given in the OP, the guy was in the wrong. He went overboard in the initial contact and made it worse by continuing to pummel him.

Agree completely.

You were saying that there shouldn't be laws protecting criminals from retribution.
Are you suggesting that such brutality could be prosecuted and criminals should be protected from acts of brutality?

Perhaps retribution is a poor choice of words. There is a difference between vigilanteeism and self defense, as Glocksman has already illustrated. Criminals are protected from the former, but should and do bear the full responsibility for any consequences sustained as a result of provoking the latter.

[Justforfun000]

You were saying that there shouldn't be laws protecting criminals from retribution.
Are you suggesting that such brutality could be prosecuted and criminals should be protected from acts of brutality?

Criminals should have pretty minimal rights as far as protection from retribution goes when someone is protecting their life or possessions. That being said, you have to have limits defined as reasonable force. I already explained where that general range should be before. If you can manage to incapacitate someone without killing them, then ethically you should stop any further force..especially something that could lead to lethality.

We can't allow people to just kill others indiscriminately. As Mike said, then it'd be simple to just say "Well he was trying to kill me, but I won." Case closed.

[Kanastrous]

Sure it's relevant. I'm arguing that liability for any and all consequences ought to fall upon the intruder. For my purposes it doesn't matter what those consequences should be; whatever they may be, let the intruder suffer them.

Except that those consequences are under your control, so you cannot just hand them off to the intruder for making you do whatever you do.

If the intruder has chosen to create a situation where I have to balance his safety against my own, and that of whoever else belongs in the house, that choice weights the balance very heavily against him.

My theoretical actions aren't taken as first steps; they're reactions to a pretty extraordinary situation that the intruder has created. Sure, to some degree the consequences that follow from his decision could be under my control. But my exercise of that control is not guided by his welfare. Any expectation that his safety is going to direct my actions is unreasonable; if he is concerned for his safety he has every freedom to refrain from entering others' homes uninvited, and not placing someone else in the position of finding it necessary to protect themselves.

The idea that you bear no responsibility for your own actions is utterly perverse and has no bearing in any discussion involving the word "ethics", and that is what you are advertising.

This isn't a broad philosophy of not-bearing-responsibility-for-anything. It's an argument that someone who sets up this specific kind of situation should be regarded as responsible for the outcome of this specific kind of situation. In fact, something like this is already a matter of law in some states: commit a robbery, and any harm or injury, to yourself, to your accomplices, to the little old lady who had a coronary an hour after you left are *all* on you. So far as I understand, it seems like the idea has passed muster well enough to make it into law.

If the gun is in your hand, you can't just say "he bears full responsibility", because you are responsible for what you do with that gun.

Yes. And if he has created a convincing appearance of posing a threat to my safety, and that of anyone else who belongs in the house, I may judge shooting him to be the responsible thing to do. If it turns out that he chose to come unarmed, it's unreasonable to expect me to know that, or to assume it. And since he can't expect me to know it, it's his responsibility that my best course of action appeared to be force.

He is responsible for some consequences of his action, but as a matter of ethics and principle and even law, he is only liable for those consequences which a reasonable person would foresee to directly follow from his action.

I think that, in any place where citizens are permitted to keep guns in the homes, it is entirely reasonable to forsee that intruding upon someone in their home could lead directly to getting shot.

So you cannot evade the argument of what is a reasonable response by simply saying "he bears the consequences".

I find that, considering a very specific activity we're talking about here (unannounced intrusion into the home with unknown intent), responses up to and including lethal force are reasonable.

[Kanastrous]

Using the drunk driving example, what the DUI guy does is his responsibility; however if the drunk wrecks and some civilian gets pissed and takes a crowbar or sledge to the drunks car in retaliation to the drunk driver, that's not the drunks decision.

His/her decision was to drive drunk, the vengence of the civilian is the civilians own and you can't say it's the drunks responsibility it happened because the civilian decided to take matters into their own hands.

You're not describing the same situation that I am. I am not talking about attacking someone for the purpose of payback after they have already done something.

I'm talking about attacking someone who has created conditions under which you are obliged in the interest of your own safety, to treat them as a threat, right now.

[Darth Wong]

Sure it's relevant. I'm arguing that liability for any and all consequences ought to fall upon the intruder. For my purposes it doesn't matter what those consequences should be; whatever they may be, let the intruder suffer them.

Except that those consequences are under your control, so you cannot just hand them off to the intruder for making you do whatever you do.

If the intruder has chosen to create a situation where I have to balance his safety against my own, and that of whoever else belongs in the house, that choice weights the balance very heavily against him.

Again, you are de-personalizing your own actions, as if they are out of your control and are being somehow magically induced out of thin air by the burglar's actions. This dishonesty runs straight through your entire post; you never let go of it, and every point you make is based on it.

And if he has created a convincing appearance of posing a threat to my safety

Which you state below to be the mere act of swiping something from a drawer in your foyer ...

I find that, considering a very specific activity we're talking about here (unannounced intrusion into the home with unknown intent), responses up to and including lethal force are reasonable.

If you wanted to boil down your argument to "because I say so", you should have the honesty to say that up front.

[Kanastrous]

Except that those consequences are under your control, so you cannot just hand them off to the intruder for making you do whatever you do.

If the intruder has chosen to create a situation where I have to balance his safety against my own, and that of whoever else belongs in the house, that choice weights the balance very heavily against him.

Again, you are de-personalizing your own actions, as if they are out of your control and are being somehow magically induced out of thin air by the burglar's actions. This dishonesty runs straight through your entire post; you never let go of it, and every point you make is based on it.

Okay.

Subtract the burglar's initial actions from the situation.

What do we have left, to discuss?

Every possible consequence of the burglar's actions are contained in his choice to start the ball rolling with the B&E.

Sure, my actions are under my control; I've said so explicitly, before. But the range of possible or appropriate actions from which I can choose are dictated by the conditions the intruder set up, when he decided to intrude.

Does the intruder's choice to create the basis for the situation in the first place, assign him any special responsibility in your eyes?

And if he has created a convincing appearance of posing a threat to my safety

Which you state below to be the mere act of swiping something from a drawer in your foyer ...

Where did I write anything about drawers and foyers...?

I find that, considering a very specific activity we're talking about here (unannounced intrusion into the home with unknown intent), responses up to and including lethal force are reasonable.

If you wanted to boil down your argument to "because I say so", you should have the honesty to say that up front.

How is my "say so" regarding reasonable force any less or more weighty than your "say so" on the subject?

The fact that you and I apparently see the demarcation of "reasonable force" drawn in different places does not make me dishonest.

[Knife]

You're not describing the same situation that I am. I am not talking about attacking someone for the purpose of payback after they have already done something.

I'm talking about attacking someone who has created conditions under which you are obliged in the interest of your own safety, to treat them as a threat, right now.

Sure I am. However, what you want is for all responsibility to be transfered to the antagonist regardless of the action on the agonist. That's what this whole threads been about, so you fail.

If you are in your house and some guys is calling you out on the lawn, you are not in danger and thus you beating him up is a responsibility you can't transfer to the dumb shit in your front yard, it is your responsibility because you made the decision to go beat him up.

If the same fellow sneaks into your house and you wake up with him in the doorway holding a baseball bat, you have little choice but to defend yourself and thus the responsibility is all his.

The two senario's are totally different. Him taking away all your choices for you makes it his responsibility but you deciding to take action when you don't have to makes it yours.

[Darth Wong]

Okay.

Subtract the burglar's initial actions from the situation.

What do we have left, to discuss?

Nothing. But that doesn't validate your argument. You are still in control of your own actions. Frankly, your whole argument boils down to "but he started it!" It's like debating with a precocious child.

Every possible consequence of the burglar's actions are contained in his choice to start the ball rolling with the B&E.

Sure, my actions are under my control; I've said so explicitly, before. But the range of possible or appropriate actions from which I can choose are dictated by the conditions the intruder set up, when he decided to intrude.

Does the intruder's choice to create the basis for the situation in the first place, assign him any special responsibility in your eyes?

In other words, "but he started it!"

And if he has created a convincing appearance of posing a threat to my safety

Which you state below to be the mere act of swiping something from a drawer in your foyer ...

Where did I write anything about drawers and foyers...?

You said that if some guy breaks into the house, you can automatically assume he's a threat to your life and kill him. I simply used the act of stealing out of a drawer in your foyer as an example, fucktard.

I find that, considering a very specific activity we're talking about here (unannounced intrusion into the home with unknown intent), responses up to and including lethal force are reasonable.

If you wanted to boil down your argument to "because I say so", you should have the honesty to say that up front.

How is my "say so" regarding reasonable force any less or more weighty than your "say so" on the subject?

Do you honestly think that "kill" vs "don't kill" bear equal burdens of justification? You are saying it's OK to pull the trigger; you obviously bear the burden of justifying your position! Do you honestly not see this?

The fact that you and I apparently see the demarcation of "reasonable force" drawn in different places does not make me dishonest.

As I read your posts on the subject, I become increasingly convinced that you are not dishonest; you are sociopathic. The idea that you respond to a demand for justifying the taking of a human life by basically saying "you didn't justify not taking it" is highly disturbing.