Stand Your Ground (licence to kill)?

[RandFan]

One would hope, but governments and special interest groups have a way of complicating even the bleeding obvious for their own benefits.

IMO: the bleeding obvious is to not put property above human life. You kill someone and you harm everyone that person knows. You create a terrible void. It could be someone who is going through difficult times and driven to take drastic measures. When you kill that person you take away everything they are. It's permanent and no hope for his or her redemption.

Someone stills your car or boat you can replace it. Yes, it violates you. It hurts. Perhaps it scars you for life but you live. You can be with loved ones and they can be with you.

I don't understand why life is so cheap for some people. That's just my opinion. The way I see the world. I understand that people can be evil and do evil things. But I cannot justify killing someone for property.

 

[luchog]

If you reasonably believe that a crime that is being committed is property only then you avoid the perpetrators. Quite practical and hardly complicated.

Define "reasonable".

And explain how acquiescence to criminal activity in a nation where police have no responsibility to prevent crime works to reduce crime rates? As others have noted, when criminals discover they are able to burglarize a neighborhood with impunity, they will continue to do so; and may even escalate their crimes if they believe there is a low likelihood of retaliation. My neighborhood is a prime example of that; as the rate of home-invasion burglaries has been consistently rising in the three years I've lived here. The neighborhood is mostly working-class, elderly, and liberal-leaning (anti-gun). In the time I've lived here, I've had my car broken into (which I would not likely attempt to stop if I observed it, as an armed confrontation outdoors has too much chance of injuring bystanders, and criminals here are most often armed); and my home invaded (which I was lucky enough wasn't by the gang that's been doing most of the robberies in the neighborhood). It is also frequently subject to gang violence, and next to one of the most violent regions in the city (which is still pathetically safe compared to most big cities).

 

[RandFan]

The problem comes in when you realize this means, if any two (or more) people want to kill you, by your own values, you should simply let them if you have the opportunity to save yourself by killing them. And the math works out very simply , one life lost is less than two lives lost, so morally, your decision would have to be to simply lie back and die regardless of the intent of the killers.

An absurd utilitarian argument. Two people who want to kill you have violated Utilitarian morality. They don't get to play game and neither do you. Bentham and Mills would not be impressed to say the least. Please to actually study the moral philosophy before you make such arguments.

 

[sadhatter]

If you reasonably believe that a crime that is being committed is property only then you avoid the perpetrators. Quite practical and hardly complicated.

And how do you make this decision, ask them? I mean after all criminals are the most trustworthy folks out there so i can't see a problem with that.

It is called playing it safe, If someones first experience with me is to show me they have no concern for my mental wellbeing and property , then it is reasonable to assume that the situation could turn violent, and reasonable to act in a manner that ensures my safety.

You may wish to act in a manner that ensures their safety, at the cost of your own, but not everyone would rather take that chance, it is borderline self destructive, all evidence at that point in the encounter points to the fact they could give a **** less about you, if at that point you still think they are concerned with you, well that is natural selection for you.

But you know, i can honestly say i don't worry about your safety. It is really easy to sit on the net and say " I'd just let people take things because i know what people are thinking somehow and know they don't want to hurt me.", but in the real world, you are going to be doing the same thing everyone else here is , and grabbing the most painful implement in your reach and using it in a repeated fashion the second the person chooses to put themselves within your reach.

Btw, never been the victim of a home invasion i assume?

 

[luchog]

I most certainly understand. I was in a very serious auto accident once and didn't want to get into a car. I would never belittle anyone's fears. I wonder what the relative risks are?

Well over half the houses in the neighborhood have been the target of at least one burglary or home-invasion in the last 2 years. A quarter of them have been targeted multiple times. And this is far from the largest neighborhood in the city; but for some reason, has one of the highest rates of both property and violent crimes.

 

[Xulld]

Anyone breaking into my house would be shot.
Except, that I never lock my doors. (Never did in England, and I've not seen a reason to do so here).
Second point: I don't own a firearm. But no villains would know that. (Don't tell them).
Thirdly; I have two large pitbulls. Anyone coming into my house would be thoroughly licked.

V.

Just yesterday I saw what looked like a vagrant pushing on each door as he walked down the street checking to see if it was locked. I called the non-emergency police line and reported it.

I have never seen this behavior before.

 

[sadhatter]

An absurd utilitarian argument. Two people who want to kill you have violated Utilitarian morality. They don't get to play game and neither do you. Bentham and Mills would not be impressed to say the least. Please to actually study the moral philosophy before you make such arguments.

You made the argument a human life has a specific value, if yours has value X, theirs has value 2X.

Personally i think this line of logic is laughable, and go the "Don't **** with me and i won't **** with you policy", but if you want to say value is what is important, then you have written yourself into a corner here. Which you know even as you read this. Notice how your post loses the entirety of the punch it has, when put next to my entire post, as opposed to just one half of a complete idea.

Protip: Once you have to snip a post so your reply doesn't fall flat, you should rethink your reply, it means you know that you can't reply to the full idea, so you take parts away so you can.

 

[crimresearch]

Just yesterday I saw what looked like a vagrant pushing on each door as he walked down the street checking to see if it was locked. I called the non-emergency police line and reported it.

I have never seen this behavior before.

Crimes of opportunity... 'you can't win if you don't play'.

 

[RandFan]

Define "reasonable".

The belief of a reasonable person.

Reasonable person standard

...a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.

And explain how acquiescence to criminal activity in a nation where police have no responsibility to prevent crime works to reduce crime rates? As others have noted, when criminals discover they are able to burglarize a neighborhood with impunity, they will continue to do so; and may even escalate their crimes if they believe there is a low likelihood of retaliation. My neighborhood is a prime example of that; as the rate of home-invasion burglaries has been consistently rising in the three years I've lived here. The neighborhood is mostly working-class, elderly, and liberal-leaning (anti-gun). In the time I've lived here, I've had my car broken into (which I would not likely attempt to stop if I observed it, as an armed confrontation outdoors has too much chance of injuring bystanders, and criminals here are most often armed); and my home invaded (which I was lucky enough wasn't by the gang that's been doing most of the robberies in the neighborhood). It is also frequently subject to gang violence, and next to one of the most violent regions in the city (which is still pathetically safe compared to most big cities).

I will take the null hypothesis to your claim that having guns and shooting thief's lowers crime rates. I honestly don't know. I'm skeptical that your plan will A.) lower crime rates. B.) is worth the risk.

If you have any evidence for your claim I will consider it.

 

[Xulld]

IMO: the bleeding obvious is to not put property above human life. You kill someone and you harm everyone that person knows. You create a terrible void. It could be someone who is going through difficult times and driven to take drastic measures. When you kill that person you take away everything they are. It's permanent and no hope for his or her redemption.

Someone stills your car or boat you can replace it. Yes, it violates you. It hurts. Perhaps it scars you for life but you live. You can be with loved ones and they can be with you.

I don't understand why life is so cheap for some people. That's just my opinion. The way I see the world. I understand that people can be evil and do evil things. But I cannot justify killing someone for property.

Its really not about property, its about someone being somewhere they have no business being, being challenged and then doing something stupid . . . like charging you, or reaching for a weapon is what gets them killed.

We are arguing we have the right, NAY the responsibility to challenge this behavior where we feel we can do so, and you are saying stay inside and let the police handle it. NP

Show me cases where we can prove with positive evidence that someone shot another person with no threat of force and ill be the first to agree with you.

It seems to me however if your problem is really with the stand your ground laws, and that you seem to have a different agenda altogether.

Can you explain exactly what you think is wrong with the actual laws, and what you would change about the actual laws?

We have had lots of hyperbole, and plenty of snark, and some good heart to heart on what we might do in various situations, we even have a good dose of speculation on how the incidence of crime is effected by various response to it, however still nothing to do the heart of this topic.

How does stand your ground give you the license to kill, and how could the law be changed?

 

[RandFan]

And how do you make this decision, ask them? I mean after all criminals are the most trustworthy folks out there so i can't see a problem with that.

I don't understand. I see someone breaking into my neighbors home and I must assume the best course of action is to go out and confront them?

It is called playing it safe, If someones first experience with me is to show me they have no concern for my mental wellbeing and property , then it is reasonable to assume that the situation could turn violent, and reasonable to act in a manner that ensures my safety.

You may wish to act in a manner that ensures their safety, at the cost of your own, but not everyone would rather take that chance, it is borderline self destructive, all evidence at that point in the encounter points to the fact they could give a **** less about you, if at that point you still think they are concerned with you, well that is natural selection for you.

But you know, i can honestly say i don't worry about your safety. It is really easy to sit on the net and say " I'd just let people take things because i know what people are thinking somehow and know they don't want to hurt me.", but in the real world, you are going to be doing the same thing everyone else here is , and grabbing the most painful implement in your reach and using it in a repeated fashion the second the person chooses to put themselves within your reach.

Btw, never been the victim of a home invasion i assume?

I've been a car accident and that informed me about the relative risks of cars....

Wait, what?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Its really not about property, its about someone being somewhere they have no business, being challenged and then doing something stupid . . . like charging you, or reaching for a weapon.

Show me cases where we can prove with positive evidence that someone shot another person with no threat and ill be the first to agree with you.

It seems to me however if your problem is really with the stand your ground laws, that you have a different agenda altogether.

Can you explain exactly what you think is wrong with the laws, and what you would change?

We have had lots of hyperbole, and plenty of snark, and some good heart to heart on what we might do in various situations, but still nothing to do the heart of this topic.

How does stand your ground give you the license to kill, and how could the law be changed?

In reference to the high-lighted point above, just what exactly is it about a kid walking down a public street that is them "being somewhere where they have no business"? What law was being violated by Martin walking down a public street?

As to the rest of your post: no comment.

 

[RandFan]

Well over half the houses in the neighborhood have been the target of at least one burglary or home-invasion in the last 2 years. A quarter of them have been targeted multiple times. And this is far from the largest neighborhood in the city; but for some reason, has one of the highest rates of both property and violent crimes.

If that is true then I would be a bit more understanding. I lived in a gang infested area of LA county for two years. We had problems but nothing, nothing even close to that. I would guess you live in the worst area in America.

So yeah, if it's utter anarchy where you live then I wouldn't berate you for patrolling at night with guns. If it were me I'd move to the gang infested neighborhoods of Los Angeles. They are much better.

 

[Resume]

In reference to the high-lighted point above, just what exactly is it about a kid walking down a public street that is them "being somewhere where they have no business"? What law was being violated by Martin walking down a public street?

Different thread.

 

[crimresearch]

:
Reasonable person standard
...a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.

That's the tort liability definition

And anyone can imagine themselves to be that person, and suppose all their notions and opinions to be 'reasonable'...

Which is of course, why that is *not* the standard used in criminal law to determine reasonableness. In that case, a reasonable person is one who having the same experiences and knowledge, would come to the same conclusions.

 

[Xulld]

In reference to the high-lighted point above, just what exactly is it about a kid walking down a public street that is them "being somewhere where they have no business"? What law was being violated by Martin walking down a public street?

As to the rest of your post: no comment.

I am not at all interested in that case (becuase actual facts are scarce and not able to be sourced properly), nor do I believe that SYG has anything to do with that case . . insofar as the unreliable facts are so far presented.

I've been a car accident

Last I checked burglaries are not accidents . . .

 

[RandFan]

You made the argument a human life has a specific value, if yours has value X, theirs has value 2X.

No. I'm sorry but no. If you want to make utilitarian arguments then at least learn what utilitarian ethics constitute. Lot's of people much smarter than you have hashed out the particulars.

Protip: Once you have to snip a post so your reply doesn't fall flat, you should rethink your reply, it means you know that you can't reply to the full idea, so you take parts away so you can.

Protip: Redundancy and irrelevancy doesn't help your argument.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I am not at all interested in that case (becuase actual facts are scarce and not able to be sourced properly), nor do I believe that SYG has anything to do with that case.

Then why make the claim to "someone being somewhere where they don't belong" in the first place, as if it is factually true? It was part of your argument I referenced, and I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that this was in reference to the Martin situation.

 

[luchog]

IMO: the bleeding obvious is to not put property above human life. You kill someone and you harm everyone that person knows. You create a terrible void. It could be someone who is going through difficult times and driven to take drastic measures. When you kill that person you take away everything they are. It's permanent and no hope for his or her redemption.

Someone stills your car or boat you can replace it. Yes, it violates you. It hurts. Perhaps it scars you for life but you live. You can be with loved ones and they can be with you.

I don't understand why life is so cheap for some people. That's just my opinion. The way I see the world. I understand that people can be evil and do evil things. But I cannot justify killing someone for property.

And this "killing someone for property" is still emotionalist rhetoric and a red herring. Human life is valuable, yes; but that value is not an absolute. Unless you're a pure pacifist, you've already accepted that human life does not have an absolute value.

Someone who commits a crime has already announced to all and sundry that they have no intention of respecting human rights, that they do not have any interest in the social contract, and therefore they forfeit the right to be protected by any social contract. If you threaten others, you should expect others to react accordingly.

And you still have not explained how you can reliably and consistently determine whether a crime is strictly a property crime, and that the perpetrator does not have any sort of violent intent. Magic? Psychic power? Particularly when burglary and home-invasion robberies are very often precursor crimes; and a path of escalation to violent crimes such as rape and assault.

A person who violates another's home typically isn't going to become all apologetic and leave politely if he discovers someone at home. At best, he'll run away if he believes the person is capable of causing him harm in self-defense. I'm lucky that's what happened to me. I had the drop on him, he couldn't see me clearly, so he no way to know that I wasn't armed at the time, and he fled. Had I been clearly unarmed, I do not know if I would have been so lucky. Some of my neighbors have not been.

If someone is breaking into my home, or my neighbor's home, I have no choice but to assume violent intent; because I am not psychic and have no way to know for sure that they're not intending to do me or my family harm. If I see someone breaking into a neighbor's house, I have no way to know for sure that no one else is there, so I will act accordingly.

Even if, as you constantly parrot, it's "just a property crime" and they have no violent intent, then I shouldn't be under any risk if I attempt to apprehend them. If I do attempt to apprehend a burglar at my neighbor's house, and he submits without resistance, then there's no need to use force. I'll simply wait until the police arrive to pick up the perpetrator. If, on the other hand, the burglar does resist with the threat of harm, I'm then justified in using force to defend my self.

I currently live in a neighborhood where most people think like you do; and would not lift a finger to help their neighbors. Consequently, there is a lot of crime, violent and otherwise. I wish I could afford to move.

 

[Xulld]

Then why make the claim to "someone being somewhere where they don't belong" in the first place, as if it is factually true? It was part of your argument I referenced, and I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that this was in reference to the Martin situation.

Because this thread is dealing with a different case entirely, and until you just posted not a single person was referencing that case.

If you saw your neighbors house being broken into you have good reason to believe someone is where they do not belong.

Edit: just noticed that Trayvon Martin is in the tags for this thread, but to my knowledge we are talking about the Joe Horn case. Again, I am not interested in analyzing that case because I believe the data available is not reliable.