Stand Your Ground (licence to kill)?

[RandFan]

Yes but not for civilians. The federal government, and specifically the military, may use deadly force in the protection of government property where clearly marked AND at times for civilian property (rioting, martial law, etc).

Agreed.

 

[Newbielayman]

Yes it does. I have to assume someone breaking into my house (entering as you put it) is not there to deliver good will and presents.

You don't have to assume this, you actually choose to assume this. You could as easily assume that it was a mistake. Here's a true life example:

I was home one morning late for work; my wife left before me and left the front door unlocked. She did this because she thought I was coming out right behind her at the time but, because I was running late, I did not. At the same time, and totally unknown to me, two contractors had just arrived to do work on my neighbors kitchen. Also unknown to me, one of these contractors went into my neighbor's home before the other one got out of the work van. The second guy, young college student, got out of the van and wasn't paying attention to the house numbers (we live in a cookie-cuter townhouse and they all look the same from the oustide). Guess what happened next?

I heard the door open and my 135 lbs small-for-her-breed mastiff ran down stairs to inspect. I was upstairs putting on my shirt and immediately froze to listen. I heard the guy walk into the kitchen area on the other side of my house. My dog didn't bark at all, which did not surprise me because she's a committed coward (a quality that I like about her by the way). I peaked over the banister and watched as he walked out of the front door (visible from the top bannister). Of course, I found out later that it took a second for him to realize he was in the wrong house before he walked out confused while my completely non-guard dog just watched him with her head tucked down very low. I was really confused at first and eventually found out what happened once I followed him outside and asked him what was going on and what he was doing in my house and this neighborhood (sounds familiar right; except I was unarmed). Of course, I went right next door with him to confirm this with the neighbor and everyone went about their business happily.

I always wonder what would have happend though if he startled me in the kitchen had I been cooking breakfast with my back turned from the direction one would approach from the front door. Would I have reacted by grabbing a knife for instance? Who knows. Yet I'm fairly certain I would not have shot him immediately if I was armed or stabbed at him right away given the distance I had between us. Yet maybe if he was right behind me I would have were I armed by some luck or happend to have a knife in my hand while making breakfast for instance. Would I be wrong? Would I be privileged to use the deadly force? Where I live, probably even though it was a mistake. I would really feel terrible about it though and it would weigh heavily upon my conscience.

So if one has the chance to make a determination, he really ought to out of respect for situations like this even if you would otherwise be privileged. I think that, if you have ample time, the assumption that the person is out to get you is a choice not something you are forced into. Without ample time, it's a harder call to make.

 

[Travis]

I'm of the opinion that property crime is not a capital offense. And that is that.

Somebody executing someone to protect property is, in my opinion, a murderer.

As someone that's been robbed numerous times in his life I understand the anger. The thing is that we supposedly have advanced as a society. No longer are we supposed to act on primal impulses and act as executioner against anyone that you believe has wronged you or someone you care about.

 

[Newbielayman]

Thank you. A good question. I think we should encourage personal responsibility and prudence in thought and deed. I think it is very possible that there is a real danger of govt paternalism ala John Locke. So I don't take that lightly. I would posit that there is no single best way to deal with both the needs of society and the needs and freedoms of the individual and business. In other words, any system of governance will result in conflict (moral dilemma).

IMO, we need to prioritize our goals and values and find a way to best meet those goals. If it can be shown that simply expecting the individual to act prudently results in significant harm to society and, if social programs, regulations and policies will mitigate that harm with minimal loss of liberty then those should be considered. Before implementation, the benefits of the programs and policies must be weighed against the loss of liberty and any ill effect of not requiring the individual to bear personal responsibility.

Example: Traffic laws. We could simply ask and expect drivers to act prudently. The problem is that when they don't it causes some degree of harm to society. So, we restrict personal liberty with regulations.

Traffic laws may not be a good example because driving is an activity granted by the state through a license. I was thinking in terms of healthcare and welfare. Why find personal responsibility in something as immediate and personal as self-defense when someone would theoretically be immediately in danger of losing his life or suffering serious immediate injury but relatively no personal responsibility in the providing of free healthcare to those who cannot afford it or forcing others to buy it for instance when the harm is really not immediate necessarily or only pecuniary in nature? Is providing for the immediate life/security needs of a person of less priority or importance than providing for the mid-long term needs of people at large? The individual's life is of less importance than the desire to provide a financial/social saftey nets for the group at large?

 

[RandFan]

You don't have to assume this, you actually choose to assume this. You could as easily assume that it was a mistake.

Or:

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]A month later neighbors were shocked to come home one day and find Robert Downey Jr. inside their house, passed out on their child's bed. [/FONT]

 

[GeeMack]

I'm of the opinion that property crime is not a capital offense. And that is that.

Somebody executing someone to protect property is, in my opinion, a murderer.

As someone that's been robbed numerous times in his life I understand the anger. The thing is that we supposedly have advanced as a society. No longer are we supposed to act on primal impulses and act as executioner against anyone that you believe has wronged you or someone you care about.

Defending one's life, family, and/or property, even if it results in killing the perpetrator, does not equal executing someone, punishing someone, considering their act a capital crime, or any of the other silly straw men people continue to put forth here. As always, if you don't want to get shot for breaking into someone's house, don't break into someone's house. Dying is a serious risk you'd take even in locales where there are restrictions against defending one's life or property.

And if you're concerned about other people suffering because they don't understand those risks, or they're willing to take them anyway, do what you can to convince them otherwise. Or maybe, if a guy would break into my house to steal my stuff, and you want him to obtain that stuff safely, you give him your stuff. There's no law against that and nobody gets hurt.

 

[Newbielayman]

I'm of the opinion that property crime is not a capital offense. And that is that.

Somebody executing someone to protect property is, in my opinion, a murderer.

As someone that's been robbed numerous times in his life I understand the anger. The thing is that we supposedly have advanced as a society. No longer are we supposed to act on primal impulses and act as executioner against anyone that you believe has wronged you or someone you care about.

And you would be correct because it is not a capital offense. A person, however, has every right to protect his property. What if the property is on you for instance; are you required to just stand there and allow people to go into your pockets or take your watch because you're supposed to control your primal impulses? Would pushing someone away from you qualify as a primal impulse in this context? Does it even qualify as a primal impulse to protect property in any event?

In fact, the primal impulse would be for someone to take whatever you have in your hand or to move you off the land you occupy. The more advanced concept is the notion that someone should own property under color or grant of law and that others are thereby excluded from it based upon that ownership; furthermore, that others in society should and ought to respect that ownership. There can be no true right to property at all if that right to property is absolutely dependent upon the response of a government institution to immediately defend against trespass or theft; the individual who owns it must be able to ward off those who would steal or harm it.

It's a very simplistic statement to claim that someone defending his property against another has committed murder or is somehow a savage. It paints with a broad brush what is a complicated matter based upon the escalation inherent in the landowner's/property owner's confrontation of the thief and whatever response the thief makes as against the land or property owner.

 

[Xulld]

. . and more examples that a reaction to someone in your home is not binary.

Checking it out should be default.

If while checking it out someone decides to make an overt threatening move . . . well, its been gone over time and again.

It's a very simplistic statement to claim that someone defending his property against another has committed murder or is somehow a savage. It paints with a broad brush what is a complicated matter based upon the escalation inherent in the landowner's/property owner's confrontation of the thief and whatever response the thief makes as against the land or property owner.

Well said and sums up many of our objections to the OP's portrayal.

 

[RandFan]

Traffic laws may not be a good example because driving is an activity granted by the state through a license.

IMO traffic laws are an excellent example. That the activity is "granted by the state" is, IMO, beside the point. You seem to be saying that there is this special circumstance that would axiomatically justify paternalism. I don't see that.

I was thinking in terms of healthcare and welfare.

Yeah, actually, I got that.

Why find personal responsibility in something as immediate and personal as self-defense when someone would theoretically be immediately in danger of losing his life or suffering serious immediate injury but relatively no personal responsibility in the providing of free healthcare to those who cannot afford it or forcing others to buy it for instance when the harm is really not immediate necessarily or only pecuniary in nature? Is providing for the immediate life/security needs of a person of less priority or importance than providing for the mid-long term needs of people at large? The individual's life is of less importance than the desire to provide a financial/social saftey nets for the group at large?...

I've read and re-read your post and honestly, if my answer did not address your complaint then I've no idea what you are getting to. If we remove the question of paternalism then your question strikes me as a non-sequitur. I don't see how personal responsibility for health care follows from personal responsibility for self-defense.

BTW: My opinion about personal responsibility would not obviate any laws or regulations concerning such issues. So, thinking more on the subject I'm beginning to wonder if the question of paternalism is even relative at all. I realize now that paternalism wasn't your point but even if it were I'm not sure that you would have a point.

I sincerely apologize.

 

[crimresearch]

I'm of the opinion that property crime is not a capital offense. And that is that.

Somebody executing someone to protect property is, in my opinion, a murderer.

As someone that's been robbed numerous times in his life I understand the anger. The thing is that we supposedly have advanced as a society. No longer are we supposed to act on primal impulses and act as executioner against anyone that you believe has wronged you or someone you care about.

Well, you are lucky that you can tell the difference between a mere robber and a killer who robs.

Not everyone has the luxury of staying safe in that assumption.

 

[triforcharity]

You don't have to assume this, you actually choose to assume this. You could as easily assume that it was a mistake. Here's a true life example:<Snipped for length>

So if one has the chance to make a determination, he really ought to out of respect for situations like this even if you would otherwise be privileged. I think that, if you have ample time, the assumption that the person is out to get you is a choice not something you are forced into. Without ample time, it's a harder call to make.

While I understand your position, I disagree with it.

1-Had the person continued into your house, and decided to unhook your tv, it would have been clear it was not a mistake, and that his intentions were not friendly.

2-If you had been in the kitchen, and drawn a weapon, he most likely would have put up his hands and explained himself. Which would make perfect sense, and be able to be verified.

3-Mastiff's are chickens most of the time

 

[Xulld]

While I understand your position, I disagree with it.

1-Had the person continued into your house, and decided to unhook your tv, it would have been clear it was not a mistake, and that his intentions were not friendly.

2-If you had been in the kitchen, and drawn a weapon, he most likely would have put up his hands and explained himself. Which would make perfect sense, and be able to be verified.

3-Mastiff's are chickens most of the time

So if one has the chance to make a determination

I dont know . . . it seems like you guys actually agree.

 

[crimresearch]

<snip>Without ample time, it's a harder call to make.

And that is the crux of the matter... legislation that forces someone to take time errs in one direction, legislation that removes such components introduces the possibility of error in the other direction.

At one extreme you have innocent trick or treaters being shot, at the other end you have innocent people dying in their homes.

The law cannot prevent people from causing bad things to happen, it can only attempt to find a balancing point somewhere in the middle.

 

[triforcharity]

I'm of the opinion that property crime is not a capital offense. And that is that.

Somebody executing someone to protect property is, in my opinion, a murderer.

As someone that's been robbed numerous times in his life I understand the anger. The thing is that we supposedly have advanced as a society. No longer are we supposed to act on primal impulses and act as executioner against anyone that you believe has wronged you or someone you care about.

Well, I don't have to agree with it, but it is your opinion. I can respect that.

Me personally, would I shoot someone as he's heading out my back porch with my laptop? Nope. He's obviously leaving my presence, and as such, is not a threat.

If he is hiding underneath my son or daughters bed, I of course will assume he's not there to clean the dust bunnies, and act appropriately.

You and I don't always agree on things, but that's ok.

Cheers!

 

[triforcharity]

Defending one's life, family, and/or property, even if it results in killing the perpetrator, does not equal executing someone, punishing someone, considering their act a capital crime, or any of the other silly straw men people continue to put forth here. As always, if you don't want to get shot for breaking into someone's house, don't break into someone's house. Dying is a serious risk you'd take even in locales where there are restrictions against defending one's life or property.

And if you're concerned about other people suffering because they don't understand those risks, or they're willing to take them anyway, do what you can to convince them otherwise. Or maybe, if a guy would break into my house to steal my stuff, and you want him to obtain that stuff safely, you give him your stuff. There's no law against that and nobody gets hurt.

GeeMack,

I think what Travis is trying to say, is that in HIS opinion, to kill someone over ONLY property, is in HIS opinion, murder.

I highly doubt that he's saying that he wouldn't defend him or his family if someone came into their house, and was trying to kill them.

But, maybe i'm wrong.

 

[Kestrel]

Civilized societies do not allow civilian use of deadly force to protect property. However, the Texas Penal code does allow deadly force:

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

 

[Travis]

Defending one's life, family, and/or property, even if it results in killing the perpetrator, does not equal executing someone, punishing someone, considering their act a capital crime, or any of the other silly straw men people continue to put forth here. As always, if you don't want to get shot for breaking into someone's house, don't break into someone's house. Dying is a serious risk you'd take even in locales where there are restrictions against defending one's life or property.

And if you're concerned about other people suffering because they don't understand those risks, or they're willing to take them anyway, do what you can to convince them otherwise. Or maybe, if a guy would break into my house to steal my stuff, and you want him to obtain that stuff safely, you give him your stuff. There's no law against that and nobody gets hurt.

Well, first off if they have a weapon and they are going to use it to harm someone then all bets are off. You have every right to defend life. It's taking life to protect property that I have a huge issue with.

Think of it this way: if we give carte blanch to shoot anyone that you think is robbing a house you are introducing what is likely unnecessary violence into the situation. I'm reminded of the night this old man, father of my neighbor, in a rather bad fit of dementia went into the wrong house in the middle of the night.

BAM! Two to the core then a double tap to the head.

Or...no wait that family wasn't sitting around with a hand cannon wishing someone looks at the house wrong so they can unleash a hail of lead. They called the cops who straightened everything out.

On the other hand he might have been a real robber. But one that only intended to rob, not harm. When you start sending bullets through walls to protect your stuff you have now put your whole family in greater danger. The robber, who never would have escalated things before, might now pull his own gun to try and save his own life. And, panicked, starts wildly sending bullets through the walls. Maybe into a child's room.

Way to go. You turned a robbery into a heartbreaking family tragedy.

And you would be correct because it is not a capital offense. A person, however, has every right to protect his property. What if the property is on you for instance; are you required to just stand there and allow people to go into your pockets or take your watch because you're supposed to control your primal impulses?

Yes, this is exactly what I have done in the past. Then you calmly call the police and let them do their job.

This was also what I did the night this crazy man barged in ranting about how we knew where his daughter was. I had a weapon that night but would only use it if he actually attacked anyone. He didn't. He ranted and raved for a few minutes then left. The police eventually got a hold of him and determined he was just high on meth.

In fact, the primal impulse would be for someone to take whatever you have in your hand or to move you off the land you occupy. The more advanced concept is the notion that someone should own property under color or grant of law and that others are thereby excluded from it based upon that ownership; furthermore, that others in society should and ought to respect that ownership.

They should. Not everyone does. That's why we invented laws and created a division of government that takes care of these things.

There can be no true right to property at all if that right to property is absolutely dependent upon the response of a government institution to immediately defend against trespass or theft; the individual who owns it must be able to ward off those who would steal or harm it.

Oh I get it. You are an anarchist. Government is useless. We should all huddle in our caves hurling stones at the imagined scary things in the dark.

It's a very simplistic statement to claim that someone defending his property against another has committed murder or is somehow a savage.

It's not just simple; it is correct.

Well, you are lucky that you can tell the difference between a mere robber and a killer who robs.

Not everyone has the luxury of staying safe in that assumption.

Actually I know I don't have that ability. Therefore I don't try to pretend I do. I leave that up to the professionals.

Well, I don't have to agree with it, but it is your opinion. I can respect that.

Me personally, would I shoot someone as he's heading out my back porch with my laptop? Nope. He's obviously leaving my presence, and as such, is not a threat.

If he is hiding underneath my son or daughters bed, I of course will assume he's not there to clean the dust bunnies, and act appropriately.

You and I don't always agree on things, but that's ok.

Cheers!

You wouldn't even try to call the police first, then tell the guy to stay where he is? Please tell me you don't just start sending bullets flying through the bed.

 

[Xulld]

You wouldn't even try to call the police first, then tell the guy to stay where he is? Please tell me you don't just start sending bullets flying through the bed.

You have clearly not read through this thread.

I did the same, had to apologize later for misrepresenting a position.

 

[crimresearch]

Civilized societies do not allow civilian use of deadly force to protect property. However, the Texas Penal code does allow deadly force:

That's been gone over many times. No state can legalize killing *merely* over property, any more than they can outlaw sodomy or interracial marriage.

Just because a state leaves sections of a law on the books long after the Supreme Court has struck them down, doesn't mean that they are still in force.

 

[crimresearch]

<snip>Yes, this is exactly what I have done in the past. Then you calmly call the police and let them do their job.

This was also what I did the night this crazy man barged in ranting about how we knew where his daughter was. I had a weapon that night but would only use it if he actually attacked anyone. He didn't. He ranted and raved for a few minutes then left. The police eventually got a hold of him and determined he was just high on meth.



They should. Not everyone does. That's why we invented laws and created a division of government that takes care of these things.



Oh I get it. You are an anarchist. Government is useless. We should all huddle in our caves hurling stones at the imagined scary things in the dark.



It's not just simple; it is correct.



Actually I know I don't have that ability. Therefore I don't try to pretend I do. I leave that up to the professionals.



You wouldn't even try to call the police first, then tell the guy to stay where he is? Please tell me you don't just start sending bullets flying through the bed.

Not telling you that your opinion is wrong for you, nor am I suggesting that people in general just start shooting... I'll just note that the police response time for a break-in where I live, can be anywhere from 15 minutes to over an hour.