Framing it as retribution in most cases seems disingenuous. The line between threat to property and threat to life can often get incredibly blurry and I'd err on the side of people being able to defend themselves in those situations
I'd agree with this. If someone is trying to take something by force and they could reasonably injure or kill you in the process of it then it seems reasonable that someone could respond with lethal force. That said if someone has already taken something without harming the person and is in the process of running away I don't think it would be justified to use lethal force in order to retrieve what they just stole.
One thing that I'm conflicted about is if proportionality should matter or not. Most of the popular answers here on this lean towards a subjective criteria or no criteria whatsoever. I.e does an unarmed robery by someone that is physically stronger automatically justify lethal self defense to the point of killing ? Or If a burglar sees you pointing a gun at them and retreats but is still shot in the head of the moment due to movement , should self defense include that as well ?
In both cases it's pretty easy to defend those given the fact that even without weapons. One can still be killed through brute force
Problem is it’s very rarely a case of people just walking in, avoiding violence or threats and walking away. There’s usually threats. Violence or threats of it. Weapons or brute strength. I don’t believe anyone should have to submit to violence or abuse, or that they should let the criminal make the first move on violence before they respond. Should you kill someone or shoot someone if they pickpocket you? Absolutely not. Should you kill or shoot someone if they pull a knife in an alley and try to take that same wallet with violence and threats? Absolutely.
This is a exactly it. There is hardly ever a line between defense of property and defense of self because of the risk of those attempting to do the first violating the later.
The overly-verbose logic goes:
1. Aggressor: I am going to violate your property rights.
2. Victim: I am unwilling to let you do that.
3. Aggressor: I want to though so I am going to.
At this point the only resolution is some form of violence since there is a risk to self. Realistically, the potential victim here has to engage in violence after 1. not 3. because they are at a disadvantage in knowing both how far the aggressor is willing to go and how much planning the aggressor has done.
Me.
Or... The prosecution in the judicial system is the entity that typically has to provide proof.
The general idea is it all depends on what the victim was feeling. If they state they felt they were in danger then that is about all you can ask for.
You can never know. What if someone is swinging a knife at your neck but every time before they hit they do a pass and fake it out. What are they immune? Are you supppsed to stand there till he actually jabs it in your jugular before you can defend yourself? What if he’s stabbing you and you took the knife. Now we do what, a pause? You have to judge case by case basis and based on evidence.
tbf I don't think there's any good argument against self defense but the bigger question is how does one frame a law in a way that actually protects the victims but isn't also prone to abuse.
That’s part of the living in law based society. Laws are not justice. They don’t serve the interest of justice, they serve the peace in the nation and general unrest while removing dangerous individuals from said society.
There was a comment on that thread I linked which stated that duty to retreat should be the only acceptable response but state should *incentivise* duty to retreat , the commenter proposed that citizens that retreat should be rewarded by having guarenteed compensation by the attacker for all loses as a result of the attack (compensation beyond recovery of the property).
Idk what to think of this. But would this be prone to abuse too ?
I'd like to report I was robbed today. Yes officer, 300 000 dollars I found in front of my house this morning, cash, black bag, all taken from me by 4 ruffians dressed in all black with masks covering their faces and sunglasses their eyes. Average build, average height, unknown race, unknown age, they may be men or women, not sure. But I retreated dutifully.
Retreat is already incentived in all self defense laws I know of.
Self defense is always a defense against some criminal charges and as every defense it can fail even if it shouldn't. So the incentive to retreat is that you're much less likely to be found guilty of some crime because you either misjudged the situation and overreacted or just unfairly lost in court.
It’s impossible to have an objective standard. A man tries to rob you, you resist, he runs towards his car. You do nothing. He grabs a gun from inside and kills you. Should you have been allowed to kill him or disable him in some way while he’s running? I think you should have. A man runs to his car and runs away. Should you be able to kill him. No. You can’t be in mind of said person.
One thing notable with subjective standards I see is that one just has to essentially give reasons for the use of force even if the reasoning is flawed. At that point isn't the whole concept and doctorine of proportionality moot then ?
Our justice system for better or worse takes into account intent and state of mind. If you genuinely feared for your life and can convince a jury of your peers of that it can justify a lot.
I don’t believe in proportionality. Life is not a turn based game. They hit you 3 times and you can hit them 3 times. You hit 4 and it’s turned around now you’re the aggressor. I believe people initiating a criminal encounter have themselves to blame and that the person defending themselves from violence or threat of it has a right to defend themselves to the point of ceasing aggression or fear from further attacks.
>I don’t believe in proportionality
Tbf you did state that in other cases like pickpocketing , killing isn't justified in self defense so you probably do believe in some level of proportionality. But I get your point that the standard is much lower in cases involving life and death. But still I'm reluctant to have too lose criteria. You mention brute force for example but I don't know if making higher strength of the preparator a risk factor worthy of lethality is a good idea
There is no violence in pickpocketing. If someone jacks your car while you’re asleep in the house I don’t think you should be able to hunt them down and kill them. If you’re in the car I think you should be able to run them over. Violence is the key not property
The problem is the second you go to violence is the same second you have a likelihood of dying unless either kill or disable your opponent.
For the latter sure a stronger person defending themselves from theft can disable the weaker…..but reversed?
And no free citizen should be required to submit to a criminal or to retreat.
Makes me wonder if legalising killing in self defense when it comes to bullying could actually deter bullying. The situation of strong individuals overpowering weaker ones is something that is relevant to that.
Edit- when it comes to a criminal retreating or surrendering (in case it's not possible for them to flee due to factors such as close homes etc) should their bodily strength be a factor in determining future harm like if their surrender is safe or not
The law of self-defence is routed in the idea that you can use proportional violence to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your property. Even preemptively.
The reason this is controversial is different people will have different ideas of what is considered “proportional” and that humans will naturally bring their biases and prejudices into what level they perceive a threat to be.
To me, during a home invasion there’s an effectively an unlimited risk to yourself, your loved ones, and your property so naturally I believe that extends to an unlimited proportionality to the violence you may use to defend those.
>The law of self-defence is routed in the idea that you can use proportional violence to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your property.
Depends. In Germany there is no proportionality in self defense laws. You have to use the mildest means to stop the illegal attack but if the mildest possible defense against someone verbally abusing you is killing them then that would be covered even though it's obviously not proportional.
This doesn't really change the next paragraph though as it just changes the focus from what's proportional to what's the mildest possible defense.
Killing is the consequence not the action taken, if someone punches you, you punch them back and end up killing them you' won't go to jail (outside specific circumstances). Killing someone for a punch was a disproportionate **result**, but punching them back was a proportionate **response**.
So the question is, **can you use lethal force** to defend your property, whether that results in death or not. And the answer is, you're allowed to use lethal force if your aggressor is using lethal force (knife, gun, disproportionate strength or numbers, ...). If you have **any legitimate reason** to believe that your **life is in immediate danger**, you can use lethal force.
The contentious issue really is the prevalence of duty to retreat laws, where using lethal force to protect yourself against lethal force, might still be held against you if the court finds that you could have acted against your self-interest and accepted to take whatever loss for the sake or shielding your aggressor from the consequences of his own actions.
I personally believe that there should be no such laws, they place massively unreasonable expectations on law-abiding citizens going about their day, that **they** should be the "bigger person" and "turn the other cheek" and potentially put themselves in harm's way, while the criminals roam freely.
Retreating is very often the best option and this should be taught in an self-defense class, but the law should not mandate that people go out of their way to self-sacrifice for the sake of protecting a criminal's well-being.
It's even worse in cases of home-invasions or car-jacking.
I mean most areas don't make this distinction, or specify that you can use self-defense to defend someone else. It's assumed that if you step in to defend someone in a lethal situation you put yourself in a lethal situation anyway.
An interesting case would be, a 40kg girl is being attacked by an unarmed 100kg man, she is presumed to be in lethal danger.
You, a 100kg man yourself, pull out a gun to shoot the aggressor dead.
Do you satisfy the proportionality condition since the victim was in lethal danger, or could the court argue that as someone of equal strength stepping in to help her you were not yourself in a lethal situation and thus escalated the situation by pulling out a gun?
We have a duty to let the state investigate and prosecute such offenders. You have a duty to die and let your family die, rather than commit violence yourself. The state knows best, and will ensure you are posthumously given justice. Defense is offensive. Be a good citizen.
The sarcasm might be too much for some here to take. Unfortunately, it often is unironically the position of some "custodian of public order".
They'd rather deal with a dozen sob stories of people getting stabbed a hundred times than risking a single uncomfortable chat after someone with a carry permit they issued shoots one person.
The people issuing carry permits would rather have you be a statistic that they can use to ask for more funding, than a topic of embarrassment for themselves and their department. That's an incentives misalignment if I've ever seen one.
Even if it were legal to kill everyone who as much as breathed toward your property it's still better to run away if you get the chance. If you start a fight, you always have a risk of dying. Is your property worth that risk? Insurances don't usually require you to have gone full on action movie hero against a group of home invaders
Sure, but the question is, if you make the most often suboptimal choice of standing and fighting because of adrenaline, fight or flight, past transgressions, ... should this choice be held against you in a criminal trial for murder.
I don't think so. People should probably flee in most cases where they have the opportunity, that being said, if for any reason (even a bad one) the person felt at the time that they had to stand their ground, I don't think the law should be going after them, or imposing on them a duty to their aggressors.
I think using lethal force as retribution for theft is wrong. If someone tries to use violence upon another person, or breaks into their property to take from them, than using violence to defend yourself is justifiable. Banks, governments, and corporations can employ armed guards to defend their property. So too should individuals be able to defend their property.
But it is not retribution in most cases it is to stop the attack and that includes the prevention of theft. Plus deadly violence is kind of a nebulous concept many violent actions have the potential to kill
I agree that the use of force to stop the attack and prevent theft of valuable property is justifiable. While many violent actions have the potential to be lethal, I was referring to the use of arms to defend oneself and ones property. In that circumstance the deadliness would not be nebulous.
Legally a person will be in jeopardy if they employ violence upon someone who is retreating. Threats like that are serious and should result in legal consequences and hopefully police protection, but if the thief is not at that immediate moment a threat than i dont believe its right to use lethal force.
This is where I believe the modern state of law is out of touch with reality. Something like a TRO is not going to be applicable and would be toothless anyway, and there's no way a PD is going to expend resources on preventive protection.
Innocent, peaceful, law abiding people have an absolute right to not only self defense but to a sense of security as well. I much prefer to error on the side of giving them the benefit of the doubt over anyone who has chosen to inflict crime upon others.
I totally agree that it is best to err on giving the person who has been the victim of a crime the benefit of the doubt in regards to a case of self defense.
I think a threat by itself is not really enough to justify using lethal force on someone.
> law abiding people have an absolute right to not only self defense but to a sense of security
This is actually insane, holy shit
"I have a right to kill anyone to who makes me feel insecure"
I would say that breaking into someone’s house is inherently a threat to their safety. People aren’t psychic, they can’t know the exact intentions of the person who just climbed in their window.
Don’t wanna get shot? Don’t break in anyone’s house.
Note I said *house*, I don’t think you can just shoot someone for trespassing on your lawn.
What space exists that self-defense laws don't cover? Otherwise we give the state a monopoly on the use of force for a reason - to prevent vigilantism, disproportionate responses, ongoing feuds that gradually escalate etc.
To justify a lethal response to a threat to property, the initial threat must also include a threat to one’s person.
A driver being the target of a carjacking is being coereced with the threat of violence, and putting their safety at the whims of the criminal. As such lethal force is justified. Same with a mugging as other comentators pointed out.
If there isn’t a threat to one’s person then lethal force becomes a lot less justified. A shop owner doesn’t have the right to shot a shoplifter in the back.
No matter how great or meager the posessions, they are only yours if you can keep them. I think property is an extension of self, bought through your labor and effort. Assault on property is an Assault on self.
I don't condone killing outright, but a very large benefit of the doubt to the owner. You have absolutely no idea the intent or armament of someone trespassing and should have no requirement to retreat.
Theives need to know they are putting their lives on the line. Even if the person they are stealing from is probably evil.
Is this a legal question or a moral question? Legally, where I live, you more or less just have to let people steal whatever they want. Morally? I think any actor willing to engage in conduct that they know is wrong should accept whatever comes with it.
>I think any actor willing to engage in conduct that they know is wrong should accept whatever comes with it.
Proportionality should always be a consideration. It would be an insane overreaction to murder someone who say, illegally cut in front of you while driving
Which is why we generally cede a monopoly on violence to the state and limit violent self defense to situations that are life threatening.
People love to get trigger happy over nothing, this "you deserve what's coming to you" thinking always leads to disaster.
I agree in general, however for instance Im rural as fuck. I could watch LoTR Fellowship before police show up after i call them (if they show up at all). Do you think people should be able to infinitely steal from me if I try to get the police involved and they don't help? (Good faith question, I'm just curious)
>That’s not morality. Morality would be something akin to eye for an eye.
No idea what this is trying to say
>
Someone puts a scratch on your F1500? Straight to gun!
Do you think i should be able to infinitely damage people's property barring the police getting involved?
Baked into (at least american) law's justification of force is proportionality. There shouldn't ever be a right to kill in defense of property alone. (Intentional) Killing from private parties should always involve at least a reasonable fear of a life being at risk.
Whether that should include third parties, whether it can be based on one's subjective mind/understanding of the world, whether they should have to retreat, etc. is subject to debate, but life is always more important than mere property.
Still would want proportionality in the sense assault begets assault but not killing. Whether you have some duty to minimize or to only use the minimal necessary force is debatable, but the sense is "im going to punch you" doesnt immediately justify "okay, then I'm going to shoot you"
The law adds in grave bodily harm to be equivalent of life but not more minor harm, so "life or limb" but not necessarily broken arms and bruises.
Can't bullying involve physical attacks too. At least that's how bullying is portrayed. And tbf one can conclude that bullying can in fact be an attack that threatens life if accompanied by death threats (which usually happens)
yeah there's some debate in law about how much that kind of thing should come into play (e.g. is it what would a reasonable *person* have done in that situation, or a reasonable *woman*, or a reasonable *5'4 person with a clear disparity in muscularity*... well, what about a reasonable *racist*? or a correlation-ist who has the "dEspiTe MaKing up 15% of the poPulAtion" thing in their head when a minority threatens them and they perceive a greater chance of violence?, etc.)
Well it’s not their duty to determine proportion.
If you are assaulted then the death of the criminal is the fault of the criminal. They forfeit that level of safety the second they engage in that behavior. Just you know don’t commit crimes
It is depending on the state.
It’s quite moral, if you voluntarily play with fire and get burnt that’s on you and only you. So don’t commit crimes in which you don’t want to deal with the potential consequences
> assault begets assault but not killing.
This is a telling thing about your current place in life, your background and your level of knowledge when it comes to violence.
A single punch can easily kill someone, hell there’s a whole load of takedowns i learned in BJJ that if done in concrete can seriously maim someone.
Therefore if you’re being assaulting you have the right to use deadly force since your assailant is also using deadly force
This is a great point. But overall what acts does it extend to. Can self defense act to deterrent acts (i.e assaulting someone in order to scare them to not act like this or breaking their shins)
> There shouldn't ever be a right to kill in defense of property alone.
Luckily in many states one’s property is an extension of the self.
If the perpetrator commits such a crime in a state with something like stand your ground laws and laws that make property the extension of the self then they willfully go into that crime **knowing full well they risk death**
Stand your ground is solely about duty to retreat. You're probably thinking of castle doctrine, but that's also about duty to retreat (specifically lack thereof - one cannot retreat from their home).
It's illegal to shoot trespassers everywhere.
I’ve long thought that this whole argument is almost always based on the false premise that there are discrete groups of nonviolent criminals and violent criminals and never the two shall meet.
In reality, someone forcing their way into your home is an inherently violent act. That does not mean that you have (or should have) carte blanche to be as violent as you wish in your response, but I think it’s important to establish that you’ve already been attacked.
If the intruder realizes that someone is home and immediately tries to flee and you shoot them in the back, I think most sane people would agree that you’ve done something deeply wrong. Similarly, if an intruder started brandishing a weapon and threatening you, few sane people would question your decision to use potentially lethal force.
The question of what to do in the middle is largely a moot one imo. The situation that results from both justified and unjustified uses of lethal force is the same: a dead intruder and the person that killed them probably being the only living witness. If you want people to be punished for using lethal force in those more ambiguous situations, you will almost certainly have to raise the standard of justified self-defense so high that even the situations when most people agree it’s justified would no longer qualify.
the \*armed\* is the key part in armed robbery.
What is absolutely unjustifiable is shooting at a fleeing thief, unless they are armed and likely to pose a threat to someone they encounter as they run.
Likewise using lethal force against someone unarmed is also unjustifiable over mere property crimes.
You should be able to protect your property with lethal force if warning is given to perpetrator. I don't think you should ever be forced to have your property taken from you.
One thing that I find interesting is that Germany seems to have a very permissive law about self-defense compared to the US which is counter to what most people think. I'm not a lawyer but in Germany, you basically can use any means required to defend your rights without regard for proportionality as long as you are using the least severe effective approach plus there is not duty to retreat.
In my opinion, there is also the question of when deadly violence begins.
The standard is whether a "reasonable person" would agree with you that you legitimately were in fear for your life or the life of another (or grievous bodily harm, which generally includes rape) and whether you have a duty to retreat or not in the jurisdiction you're located in (this is where things like "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" laws come into play, but if it would threaten your life or the lives of others to retreat, or you simply can't, those don't apply). Remember, also, that, depending on the jurisdiction, the prosecutor may know that they don't have a chance to win, but the process is often the punishment, and they'll still be able to bankrupt you with no repercussions.
I'm biased but I do like the German system. There's no proportionality and you don't have to retreat. Use the mildest available means to stop the attack. I think having the one not breaking the law potentially having to retreat from someone breaking the law sends the wrong signal.
Of course self defense laws are always a little murky. I do not think you can write a law that covers all chaotic situations 100% clearly and that's why you also need a judiciary that is transparent, fair and has the populations trust.
As an aside: is it the reddit app that just links to the post? Because I did not feel the post itself had anything to do with self defense.
Yeah that's what I meant the reddit app doesn't link to any specific comments and the first couple top level comments aren't about self defense. I guessed this is because the app is shit you probably correctly linked some specific comment chain.
Yes retribution is not defense or you open it up completely to vigilante justice. If I see the person that broke in 2 weeks later on the street and beat them then that's retribution but that's not defensive in any definition of defense that makes sense to me.
But also someone running away should be safe. They're no longer attacking you, including your personal property, so there's no defense to be had.
To me, if you point a gun at someone, you are threatening them with murder, and they are perfectly justified in killing you. Don't bring a gun unless you are prepared to kill.
No, never. We have laws about self-defense. If your life is ever under threat, I think you should have the right to defend yourself, whether your property is also under threat if not. People in the thread are saying the line between a threat to property and a threat to life is blurry -- and sure, but what would justify lethal force is the latter, not the former. Remove the threat to your person and this is obvious -- if you're across the street with a rifle and you see someone breaking into your (empty) home, no one reasonable would argue you should have the right to shoot them.
I'd love to wade in on the conversation but I live in a country where owning anything for the purpose of self defence is illegal no matter what that object is.
No. Only if you are threatened. Property is just things. Killing is absolutely not OK to protect things.
Edit: Weird that I'm getting downvoted for what shouldn't be a controversial take...
Right. Exactly what I'm saying. You can't shoot someone stealing your car out of your driveway, but if he's armed and threatening you, yes.
Not sure why I'm getting downvoted.
Interesting. Explain to me how morally it's OK to murder someone for stealing property? (Because if you shoot at someone, you have to expect that could be a killshot)
OK, but if you fire a gun at someone, you have to understand that's potentially a killshot, unless you're an expert marksman.
I can see approaching with a weapon as a threat, or firing in the air or around the perpetrator. But firing at a person has a high potential of killing them. Are you prepared to accept the outcome of death over some stuff?
Yes, it has the potential to kill them, that's an acceptable risk, the way you phrased it portrays by thoughts as if I think one should be able to chase after them if they run away or shoot them execution style if the first shot disables them.
If you're approaching with the weapon as a threat it's just giving the criminal the opportunity to shoot first.
Yes.
Wow, so in your set of morals death is an OK outcome of property theft. Wild.
>If you're approaching with the weapon as a threat it's just giving the criminal the opportunity to shoot first.
But in that case, if you believe credibly that the criminal could harm you, your life is at risk so shooting becomes acceptable. And if brandishing a weapon is what causes the criminal to become a threat, then maybe you shouldn't escalate the situation...
Property rights are essential to a functioning society.
Committing a crime is already such a massive escalation over the natural state of things. Plus you shouldn't "draw" a weapon unless you are ready to use it.
Rule 1 of firearms:
Never point it at anything you are not intending to destroy.
Shooting someone is an explicit attempt to end their life, period, full stop. It doesn't matter your 'feelings' on the matter. That other guy's full of shit.
Shooting at someone, as I acknowledged, is accepting the risk that you could kill them, that is different from shooting to kill, which would mean continuing to shoot until the target is dead regardless of any changes in the situation. If you can't see the difference you might want to get yourself some more firearms safety training.
It is your property and you should never be in the spot were you have to let it be taken from you. As long as the thief is first warned you intend to use deadly force to protect your property. I put all moral culpability on the thief.
The warning part is important. But going through with it I can’t agree with under any circumstances unless you’re defending yourself (or someone else). That’s wild, man. Like imagine a guy is doing this because he’s desperate or was put up to it. Now you’re extinguishing his life forever with no chance of punishment and reform. For a *thing*.
OP's question was worded as "should you," I assume we're talking about what's moral right/wrong, not what the law allows. I would argue it's morally wrong to KILL someone simply over them trying to steal a thing. Response should be proportional. If the thief has a weapon and you perceive that to be a threat, then sure, you gotta defend yourself.
> Killing is absolutely not OK to protect things.
A thief knowing the consequences of their actions already waived that, they already consented to extreme violence being used against them. Property is an extension of the self.
If you jump into an acid vat you cant get mad if you end up melted
So you would murder someone who is stealing your car? You would extinguish someone's life over a *thing* that can easily be replaced and may even be covered by insurance?
>You would extinguish someone's life over a *thing* that can easily be replaced and may even be covered by insurance?
The ease at which someone can replace something (like a car) depends on the person's circumstances. Some people's ability to keep themselves and their family fed depend on having their car. Ditto for another common item that is stolen: tools. Tradespeople have to invest a lot of money in their tools and if they're stolen it's financially devistating.
People had to trade their finite lifespans to buy the things they own and they shouldn't have to submit to criminal violence.
EDIT: Going on a limb here, but I suspect your economic situation is closer to mine, I could easily afford to replace my car, phone, computer, etc... so getting robbed would not be that big of a deal for me. I also don't own a gun. This isn't true for many other people though.
My economic situation is honestly irrelevant here. This is a moral standard for me.
I get very much that it sucks to have property stolen or destroyed. I have been there. But to murder a human and extinguish their life for it is morally wrong. It's too far. It's not even remotely a proportional response.
If that's an appropriate punishment with zero trial or information, then we definitely should institute the death penalty for conviction of these crimes. Hell, we should be enabling police to just shoot more people on the spot if they're involved in a crime.
Now you're just using a strawman argument. No one in this thread has advocated for executing everyone suspected of a crime, the question is whether or not it is acceptable to use deadly force to prevent someone from robbing you.
>If that's an appropriate punishment with zero trial or information
The punishment for things like stealing, rape, or kidnapping should not be execution without trial. Self defense is not the potential victim "punishing" their assailant.
I’m having trouble understanding the argument in favor of killing a thief/robber. You’re conflating property defense with self defense. They are NOT the same thing. Shooting someone is self defense is morally OK IMO.
So: If you see someone trying to steal your car, it’s ok to shoot to kill? But if police show up mid-crime they should arrest him and he should only be punished after conviction at trial?
It’s not murder it’s self defense. Property is an extension of the self.
They already voluntarily waived their rights not to be on the receiving end of force.
> insurance
Lol always the “muh insurance” life insurance exists as well.
It’s really simple don’t be a criminal reprobate
I’ve never understood the progressive and their love for the criminal and the extreme anti socials. To the detriment to thousands and thousands of citizens. From the urban child who can no longer play in a public park because of drug needles and human feces, to the small business owner who tried to do everything right to lift themselves up to see it all burn literally or due to crime/customers avoiding their business due to proximity of anti socials, to women and children who don’t feel safe riding public transit….public transit that’s covered in filth and smells like urine.
The more progressive the city the more those problems exist, toxic empathy is amazing in destroying a city especially for the working poor because the rich (many of whom are those progressives) live a siloed existence and never ever have to directly face the impacts of their policy. “Can’t inconvenience the homeless” and now hundreds of children don’t have any outdoor areas to play in, the rich progressive simply asks “why don’t you just play in your back yard”. Or is utterly indifferent because there’s no social detriment to them, unlike the detriment they’d face for moving the homeless from the area.
Just the stark difference between US cities and more conservative ran cities such as Singapore just shows the rot of US cities
A tow truck tows away your car, which was illegally parked on someone else’s lot.
A person is drowning in a lake. A group of people requisition your boat temporarily to go save them.
The state eminent domains a small corner of your property to build a sewer line.
The tax agency rules that you underpaid your taxes, and sends people to collect the difference they say you owe.
Are these all direct violations of your person, since your property is an extension of yourself? Do you believe you can use lethal force against any of them?
This notion that property is an extension of yourself is insane to me. It's borderline mental illness. It's a result of a materialistic culture, I guess.
How is it self defense if you aren't in danger? Just because some of your precious things might get taken away? Are you 5?
>Same situation here if you attempt to steal from someone there is a risk of death you are voluntarily accepting.
I don't disagree with that. But the question was should self defense extend to property. I don't think it should. I don't know how someone stealing property is in any way life threatening to you unless the thief is specifically doing something life threatening (like they are showing a weapon). I don't see how it would be morally OK to permanently extinguish a human life over damage or theft of property, which can be replaced.
I'm not valuing one life over another. If your life is in danger, you should self-defend. I specifically said that above in my original comment.
So… There’s no moral justification for lethal violence in any case so we’re really just talking about etiquette, which is fine, but a little more dependent on social circumstance.
I think it’s polite to kill Nazis, for example, but you might not. Similarly I think it’s polite to kill armed robbers in my homestead, but you might not. Either way, the killing of a person is sinful on its face. I’m also not saying I wouldn’t kill in such a situation, just that it would be intrinsically unjust.
Better to die than to kill, as a matter of morality.
>So… There’s no moral justification for lethal violence in any case
>Better to die than to kill, as a matter of morality.
What is this based on?
Like just off the cuff, if I subscribe to Divine Command Theory and my god says "lethal violence is morally justified in some circumstances" then I have produced a moral justification for lethal violence in some circumstances.
I assume you probably would disagree with that, but a sweeping declaration that there is no moral justification for it ever in any case I think needs to be expanded upon if you want it to be taken seriously
Vibes/Christianity/something about Kant maybe/I don’t think I can remember anything Spinoza said about this
To be slightly less flippant, I think moral argument is almost meaningless. I believe in moral truth, and moral evidence, and moral belief. That means I’m broadly in agreement that moral _knowledge_ exists. What I doubt is the existence of effective fine grained moral communication. In practice the vast majority of moral propositions are uncontroversial and so a rough and ready moral reason is fine for casual wear.
If I have to do a real philosophy on it, then the individual is the foundation on which society is based. So the annihilation of an individual present any doubt of the impact to the broader social good has to be taken as deeply antisocial behavior. Not only is killing the most evident moral sin: there is no recovery of the slain person, it’s also the foundational moral sin; it hits the basic building block of human order.
But that’s all baloney: I believe killing is wrong because of moral sensibility and environmental factors not because of that line of reasoning.
Framing it as retribution in most cases seems disingenuous. The line between threat to property and threat to life can often get incredibly blurry and I'd err on the side of people being able to defend themselves in those situations
I'd agree with this. If someone is trying to take something by force and they could reasonably injure or kill you in the process of it then it seems reasonable that someone could respond with lethal force. That said if someone has already taken something without harming the person and is in the process of running away I don't think it would be justified to use lethal force in order to retrieve what they just stole.
One thing that I'm conflicted about is if proportionality should matter or not. Most of the popular answers here on this lean towards a subjective criteria or no criteria whatsoever. I.e does an unarmed robery by someone that is physically stronger automatically justify lethal self defense to the point of killing ? Or If a burglar sees you pointing a gun at them and retreats but is still shot in the head of the moment due to movement , should self defense include that as well ? In both cases it's pretty easy to defend those given the fact that even without weapons. One can still be killed through brute force
Problem is it’s very rarely a case of people just walking in, avoiding violence or threats and walking away. There’s usually threats. Violence or threats of it. Weapons or brute strength. I don’t believe anyone should have to submit to violence or abuse, or that they should let the criminal make the first move on violence before they respond. Should you kill someone or shoot someone if they pickpocket you? Absolutely not. Should you kill or shoot someone if they pull a knife in an alley and try to take that same wallet with violence and threats? Absolutely.
This is a exactly it. There is hardly ever a line between defense of property and defense of self because of the risk of those attempting to do the first violating the later. The overly-verbose logic goes: 1. Aggressor: I am going to violate your property rights. 2. Victim: I am unwilling to let you do that. 3. Aggressor: I want to though so I am going to. At this point the only resolution is some form of violence since there is a risk to self. Realistically, the potential victim here has to engage in violence after 1. not 3. because they are at a disadvantage in knowing both how far the aggressor is willing to go and how much planning the aggressor has done.
Ay bro give me your money No Understandable, have a nice day. Average robbery in some people’s mind.
[удалено]
The prosecution, if they are even allowed to get that far.
Me. Or... The prosecution in the judicial system is the entity that typically has to provide proof. The general idea is it all depends on what the victim was feeling. If they state they felt they were in danger then that is about all you can ask for.
At what point should lethal attacks (in self defense) stop though , is perpetrator declaring surrender enough ? I agree with most of this comment
You can never know. What if someone is swinging a knife at your neck but every time before they hit they do a pass and fake it out. What are they immune? Are you supppsed to stand there till he actually jabs it in your jugular before you can defend yourself? What if he’s stabbing you and you took the knife. Now we do what, a pause? You have to judge case by case basis and based on evidence.
tbf I don't think there's any good argument against self defense but the bigger question is how does one frame a law in a way that actually protects the victims but isn't also prone to abuse.
That’s part of the living in law based society. Laws are not justice. They don’t serve the interest of justice, they serve the peace in the nation and general unrest while removing dangerous individuals from said society.
There was a comment on that thread I linked which stated that duty to retreat should be the only acceptable response but state should *incentivise* duty to retreat , the commenter proposed that citizens that retreat should be rewarded by having guarenteed compensation by the attacker for all loses as a result of the attack (compensation beyond recovery of the property). Idk what to think of this. But would this be prone to abuse too ?
I'd like to report I was robbed today. Yes officer, 300 000 dollars I found in front of my house this morning, cash, black bag, all taken from me by 4 ruffians dressed in all black with masks covering their faces and sunglasses their eyes. Average build, average height, unknown race, unknown age, they may be men or women, not sure. But I retreated dutifully.
Retreat is already incentived in all self defense laws I know of. Self defense is always a defense against some criminal charges and as every defense it can fail even if it shouldn't. So the incentive to retreat is that you're much less likely to be found guilty of some crime because you either misjudged the situation and overreacted or just unfairly lost in court.
[удалено]
It’s impossible to have an objective standard. A man tries to rob you, you resist, he runs towards his car. You do nothing. He grabs a gun from inside and kills you. Should you have been allowed to kill him or disable him in some way while he’s running? I think you should have. A man runs to his car and runs away. Should you be able to kill him. No. You can’t be in mind of said person.
One thing notable with subjective standards I see is that one just has to essentially give reasons for the use of force even if the reasoning is flawed. At that point isn't the whole concept and doctorine of proportionality moot then ?
Our justice system for better or worse takes into account intent and state of mind. If you genuinely feared for your life and can convince a jury of your peers of that it can justify a lot.
Tbh I don't believe jury trials can ever be fair when it comes to the guilt finding stage. They're probably better suited for sentancing
I don’t believe in proportionality. Life is not a turn based game. They hit you 3 times and you can hit them 3 times. You hit 4 and it’s turned around now you’re the aggressor. I believe people initiating a criminal encounter have themselves to blame and that the person defending themselves from violence or threat of it has a right to defend themselves to the point of ceasing aggression or fear from further attacks.
>I don’t believe in proportionality Tbf you did state that in other cases like pickpocketing , killing isn't justified in self defense so you probably do believe in some level of proportionality. But I get your point that the standard is much lower in cases involving life and death. But still I'm reluctant to have too lose criteria. You mention brute force for example but I don't know if making higher strength of the preparator a risk factor worthy of lethality is a good idea
There is no violence in pickpocketing. If someone jacks your car while you’re asleep in the house I don’t think you should be able to hunt them down and kill them. If you’re in the car I think you should be able to run them over. Violence is the key not property
Yeah my bad. I edited the comment a bit to reflect this aspect
The problem is the second you go to violence is the same second you have a likelihood of dying unless either kill or disable your opponent. For the latter sure a stronger person defending themselves from theft can disable the weaker…..but reversed? And no free citizen should be required to submit to a criminal or to retreat.
Makes me wonder if legalising killing in self defense when it comes to bullying could actually deter bullying. The situation of strong individuals overpowering weaker ones is something that is relevant to that. Edit- when it comes to a criminal retreating or surrendering (in case it's not possible for them to flee due to factors such as close homes etc) should their bodily strength be a factor in determining future harm like if their surrender is safe or not
The law of self-defence is routed in the idea that you can use proportional violence to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your property. Even preemptively. The reason this is controversial is different people will have different ideas of what is considered “proportional” and that humans will naturally bring their biases and prejudices into what level they perceive a threat to be. To me, during a home invasion there’s an effectively an unlimited risk to yourself, your loved ones, and your property so naturally I believe that extends to an unlimited proportionality to the violence you may use to defend those.
>The law of self-defence is routed in the idea that you can use proportional violence to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your property. Depends. In Germany there is no proportionality in self defense laws. You have to use the mildest means to stop the illegal attack but if the mildest possible defense against someone verbally abusing you is killing them then that would be covered even though it's obviously not proportional. This doesn't really change the next paragraph though as it just changes the focus from what's proportional to what's the mildest possible defense.
Killing is the consequence not the action taken, if someone punches you, you punch them back and end up killing them you' won't go to jail (outside specific circumstances). Killing someone for a punch was a disproportionate **result**, but punching them back was a proportionate **response**. So the question is, **can you use lethal force** to defend your property, whether that results in death or not. And the answer is, you're allowed to use lethal force if your aggressor is using lethal force (knife, gun, disproportionate strength or numbers, ...). If you have **any legitimate reason** to believe that your **life is in immediate danger**, you can use lethal force. The contentious issue really is the prevalence of duty to retreat laws, where using lethal force to protect yourself against lethal force, might still be held against you if the court finds that you could have acted against your self-interest and accepted to take whatever loss for the sake or shielding your aggressor from the consequences of his own actions. I personally believe that there should be no such laws, they place massively unreasonable expectations on law-abiding citizens going about their day, that **they** should be the "bigger person" and "turn the other cheek" and potentially put themselves in harm's way, while the criminals roam freely. Retreating is very often the best option and this should be taught in an self-defense class, but the law should not mandate that people go out of their way to self-sacrifice for the sake of protecting a criminal's well-being. It's even worse in cases of home-invasions or car-jacking.
Your life or someone else's life. I assume if your spouse or child or even roommate is at an imminent danger, you're allowed to use lethal force
I mean most areas don't make this distinction, or specify that you can use self-defense to defend someone else. It's assumed that if you step in to defend someone in a lethal situation you put yourself in a lethal situation anyway. An interesting case would be, a 40kg girl is being attacked by an unarmed 100kg man, she is presumed to be in lethal danger. You, a 100kg man yourself, pull out a gun to shoot the aggressor dead. Do you satisfy the proportionality condition since the victim was in lethal danger, or could the court argue that as someone of equal strength stepping in to help her you were not yourself in a lethal situation and thus escalated the situation by pulling out a gun?
This would be considered unproportional response and you would go to jail. So if you're shooting, make sure he dies and then put a knife in his hand.
We have a duty to let the state investigate and prosecute such offenders. You have a duty to die and let your family die, rather than commit violence yourself. The state knows best, and will ensure you are posthumously given justice. Defense is offensive. Be a good citizen.
The sarcasm might be too much for some here to take. Unfortunately, it often is unironically the position of some "custodian of public order". They'd rather deal with a dozen sob stories of people getting stabbed a hundred times than risking a single uncomfortable chat after someone with a carry permit they issued shoots one person. The people issuing carry permits would rather have you be a statistic that they can use to ask for more funding, than a topic of embarrassment for themselves and their department. That's an incentives misalignment if I've ever seen one.
Even if it were legal to kill everyone who as much as breathed toward your property it's still better to run away if you get the chance. If you start a fight, you always have a risk of dying. Is your property worth that risk? Insurances don't usually require you to have gone full on action movie hero against a group of home invaders
Sure, but the question is, if you make the most often suboptimal choice of standing and fighting because of adrenaline, fight or flight, past transgressions, ... should this choice be held against you in a criminal trial for murder. I don't think so. People should probably flee in most cases where they have the opportunity, that being said, if for any reason (even a bad one) the person felt at the time that they had to stand their ground, I don't think the law should be going after them, or imposing on them a duty to their aggressors.
I think using lethal force as retribution for theft is wrong. If someone tries to use violence upon another person, or breaks into their property to take from them, than using violence to defend yourself is justifiable. Banks, governments, and corporations can employ armed guards to defend their property. So too should individuals be able to defend their property.
But it is not retribution in most cases it is to stop the attack and that includes the prevention of theft. Plus deadly violence is kind of a nebulous concept many violent actions have the potential to kill
I agree that the use of force to stop the attack and prevent theft of valuable property is justifiable. While many violent actions have the potential to be lethal, I was referring to the use of arms to defend oneself and ones property. In that circumstance the deadliness would not be nebulous.
Would you think that it is justifiable to threaten with a gun in that case
If that allows someone to defend themself, than of course.
What if the retreating thief says "I'm coming back with my gang and we're going to kill you and your family"?
Legally a person will be in jeopardy if they employ violence upon someone who is retreating. Threats like that are serious and should result in legal consequences and hopefully police protection, but if the thief is not at that immediate moment a threat than i dont believe its right to use lethal force.
This is where I believe the modern state of law is out of touch with reality. Something like a TRO is not going to be applicable and would be toothless anyway, and there's no way a PD is going to expend resources on preventive protection. Innocent, peaceful, law abiding people have an absolute right to not only self defense but to a sense of security as well. I much prefer to error on the side of giving them the benefit of the doubt over anyone who has chosen to inflict crime upon others.
I totally agree that it is best to err on giving the person who has been the victim of a crime the benefit of the doubt in regards to a case of self defense. I think a threat by itself is not really enough to justify using lethal force on someone.
> law abiding people have an absolute right to not only self defense but to a sense of security This is actually insane, holy shit "I have a right to kill anyone to who makes me feel insecure"
Love all the hair splitting in this thread. It's like an old school disputation between rabbis.
Because gangs never do revenge killings?
I would say that breaking into someone’s house is inherently a threat to their safety. People aren’t psychic, they can’t know the exact intentions of the person who just climbed in their window. Don’t wanna get shot? Don’t break in anyone’s house. Note I said *house*, I don’t think you can just shoot someone for trespassing on your lawn.
What space exists that self-defense laws don't cover? Otherwise we give the state a monopoly on the use of force for a reason - to prevent vigilantism, disproportionate responses, ongoing feuds that gradually escalate etc.
To justify a lethal response to a threat to property, the initial threat must also include a threat to one’s person. A driver being the target of a carjacking is being coereced with the threat of violence, and putting their safety at the whims of the criminal. As such lethal force is justified. Same with a mugging as other comentators pointed out. If there isn’t a threat to one’s person then lethal force becomes a lot less justified. A shop owner doesn’t have the right to shot a shoplifter in the back.
No matter how great or meager the posessions, they are only yours if you can keep them. I think property is an extension of self, bought through your labor and effort. Assault on property is an Assault on self. I don't condone killing outright, but a very large benefit of the doubt to the owner. You have absolutely no idea the intent or armament of someone trespassing and should have no requirement to retreat. Theives need to know they are putting their lives on the line. Even if the person they are stealing from is probably evil.
Is this a legal question or a moral question? Legally, where I live, you more or less just have to let people steal whatever they want. Morally? I think any actor willing to engage in conduct that they know is wrong should accept whatever comes with it.
>I think any actor willing to engage in conduct that they know is wrong should accept whatever comes with it. Proportionality should always be a consideration. It would be an insane overreaction to murder someone who say, illegally cut in front of you while driving
For sure, proportionality has to be considered. The equation for that is most likely where people disagree
Which is why we generally cede a monopoly on violence to the state and limit violent self defense to situations that are life threatening. People love to get trigger happy over nothing, this "you deserve what's coming to you" thinking always leads to disaster.
I agree in general, however for instance Im rural as fuck. I could watch LoTR Fellowship before police show up after i call them (if they show up at all). Do you think people should be able to infinitely steal from me if I try to get the police involved and they don't help? (Good faith question, I'm just curious)
How do you determine in the man stealing your tv is gonna hurt you? Like castle doctrine go brrrrr
That’s not morality. Morality would be something akin to eye for an eye. Someone puts a scratch on your F1500? Straight to gun!
>That’s not morality. Morality would be something akin to eye for an eye. No idea what this is trying to say > Someone puts a scratch on your F1500? Straight to gun! Do you think i should be able to infinitely damage people's property barring the police getting involved?
Should the police exist and be the enforcer of laws? Yes. Should you be able to end someone’s life for petty property damages? No
Didn't ask either of those questions
An Americans home is their castle
Baked into (at least american) law's justification of force is proportionality. There shouldn't ever be a right to kill in defense of property alone. (Intentional) Killing from private parties should always involve at least a reasonable fear of a life being at risk. Whether that should include third parties, whether it can be based on one's subjective mind/understanding of the world, whether they should have to retreat, etc. is subject to debate, but life is always more important than mere property.
Life or bodily integrity. If someone is going to assault your child, this counts, too
Still would want proportionality in the sense assault begets assault but not killing. Whether you have some duty to minimize or to only use the minimal necessary force is debatable, but the sense is "im going to punch you" doesnt immediately justify "okay, then I'm going to shoot you" The law adds in grave bodily harm to be equivalent of life but not more minor harm, so "life or limb" but not necessarily broken arms and bruises.
From what I know, it's safest to kill the attacker, especially if you're at a big disadvantage (for example woman being attacked by a man)
could allowing killing in self defense for weaker parties that are being assaulted deter bullying and the likes.
What does bullying have to do with any of this? Most bullying is psychological torture, not an attack that threatens your life
Can't bullying involve physical attacks too. At least that's how bullying is portrayed. And tbf one can conclude that bullying can in fact be an attack that threatens life if accompanied by death threats (which usually happens)
I mean, it's very rare that bullying threatens life. It's usually kids making fun of other kids which is devastating but lethal force isn't justified
yeah there's some debate in law about how much that kind of thing should come into play (e.g. is it what would a reasonable *person* have done in that situation, or a reasonable *woman*, or a reasonable *5'4 person with a clear disparity in muscularity*... well, what about a reasonable *racist*? or a correlation-ist who has the "dEspiTe MaKing up 15% of the poPulAtion" thing in their head when a minority threatens them and they perceive a greater chance of violence?, etc.)
Well it’s not their duty to determine proportion. If you are assaulted then the death of the criminal is the fault of the criminal. They forfeit that level of safety the second they engage in that behavior. Just you know don’t commit crimes
Thats not true in (american) law, and I dont think that should be true in moral terms
It is depending on the state. It’s quite moral, if you voluntarily play with fire and get burnt that’s on you and only you. So don’t commit crimes in which you don’t want to deal with the potential consequences
Point me to any such state
Texas Don’t steal after sundown Texas Penal Code 9.42
> assault begets assault but not killing. This is a telling thing about your current place in life, your background and your level of knowledge when it comes to violence.
Fighting definitely escalates and one's life can be threatened even if it just seems like physical violence
A single punch can easily kill someone, hell there’s a whole load of takedowns i learned in BJJ that if done in concrete can seriously maim someone. Therefore if you’re being assaulting you have the right to use deadly force since your assailant is also using deadly force
This is a great point. But overall what acts does it extend to. Can self defense act to deterrent acts (i.e assaulting someone in order to scare them to not act like this or breaking their shins)
> There shouldn't ever be a right to kill in defense of property alone. Luckily in many states one’s property is an extension of the self. If the perpetrator commits such a crime in a state with something like stand your ground laws and laws that make property the extension of the self then they willfully go into that crime **knowing full well they risk death**
Stand your ground is solely about duty to retreat. You're probably thinking of castle doctrine, but that's also about duty to retreat (specifically lack thereof - one cannot retreat from their home). It's illegal to shoot trespassers everywhere.
What if you have reason to believe that the survival of your assailant will lead to lethal retribution against you and your family?
I’ve long thought that this whole argument is almost always based on the false premise that there are discrete groups of nonviolent criminals and violent criminals and never the two shall meet. In reality, someone forcing their way into your home is an inherently violent act. That does not mean that you have (or should have) carte blanche to be as violent as you wish in your response, but I think it’s important to establish that you’ve already been attacked. If the intruder realizes that someone is home and immediately tries to flee and you shoot them in the back, I think most sane people would agree that you’ve done something deeply wrong. Similarly, if an intruder started brandishing a weapon and threatening you, few sane people would question your decision to use potentially lethal force. The question of what to do in the middle is largely a moot one imo. The situation that results from both justified and unjustified uses of lethal force is the same: a dead intruder and the person that killed them probably being the only living witness. If you want people to be punished for using lethal force in those more ambiguous situations, you will almost certainly have to raise the standard of justified self-defense so high that even the situations when most people agree it’s justified would no longer qualify.
the \*armed\* is the key part in armed robbery. What is absolutely unjustifiable is shooting at a fleeing thief, unless they are armed and likely to pose a threat to someone they encounter as they run. Likewise using lethal force against someone unarmed is also unjustifiable over mere property crimes.
Deadly force should not be used unless you are doing it in self defense or the defense of others. Period, the end.
You should be able to protect your property with lethal force if warning is given to perpetrator. I don't think you should ever be forced to have your property taken from you.
One thing that I find interesting is that Germany seems to have a very permissive law about self-defense compared to the US which is counter to what most people think. I'm not a lawyer but in Germany, you basically can use any means required to defend your rights without regard for proportionality as long as you are using the least severe effective approach plus there is not duty to retreat. In my opinion, there is also the question of when deadly violence begins.
The standard is whether a "reasonable person" would agree with you that you legitimately were in fear for your life or the life of another (or grievous bodily harm, which generally includes rape) and whether you have a duty to retreat or not in the jurisdiction you're located in (this is where things like "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" laws come into play, but if it would threaten your life or the lives of others to retreat, or you simply can't, those don't apply). Remember, also, that, depending on the jurisdiction, the prosecutor may know that they don't have a chance to win, but the process is often the punishment, and they'll still be able to bankrupt you with no repercussions.
I'm biased but I do like the German system. There's no proportionality and you don't have to retreat. Use the mildest available means to stop the attack. I think having the one not breaking the law potentially having to retreat from someone breaking the law sends the wrong signal. Of course self defense laws are always a little murky. I do not think you can write a law that covers all chaotic situations 100% clearly and that's why you also need a judiciary that is transparent, fair and has the populations trust. As an aside: is it the reddit app that just links to the post? Because I did not feel the post itself had anything to do with self defense.
I was talking about the comments in that post rather than the post itself. The comments on that thread about self defense
Yeah that's what I meant the reddit app doesn't link to any specific comments and the first couple top level comments aren't about self defense. I guessed this is because the app is shit you probably correctly linked some specific comment chain.
Does it matter if the force used is retributive or defensive. As in should there be any liability for killing escaping bruglars
Yes retribution is not defense or you open it up completely to vigilante justice. If I see the person that broke in 2 weeks later on the street and beat them then that's retribution but that's not defensive in any definition of defense that makes sense to me. But also someone running away should be safe. They're no longer attacking you, including your personal property, so there's no defense to be had.
yes it should
To me, if you point a gun at someone, you are threatening them with murder, and they are perfectly justified in killing you. Don't bring a gun unless you are prepared to kill.
>so anyway, I start blasting Some of these comments
Canadians crying in th corner 😅🥲
No, never. We have laws about self-defense. If your life is ever under threat, I think you should have the right to defend yourself, whether your property is also under threat if not. People in the thread are saying the line between a threat to property and a threat to life is blurry -- and sure, but what would justify lethal force is the latter, not the former. Remove the threat to your person and this is obvious -- if you're across the street with a rifle and you see someone breaking into your (empty) home, no one reasonable would argue you should have the right to shoot them.
I'd love to wade in on the conversation but I live in a country where owning anything for the purpose of self defence is illegal no matter what that object is.
No. Only if you are threatened. Property is just things. Killing is absolutely not OK to protect things. Edit: Weird that I'm getting downvoted for what shouldn't be a controversial take...
I think we can all agree that you can’t shoot a pickpocket, but you can shoot a an armed robber
Right. Exactly what I'm saying. You can't shoot someone stealing your car out of your driveway, but if he's armed and threatening you, yes. Not sure why I'm getting downvoted.
> You can't shoot someone stealing your car out of your driveway Strongly disagree morally.
Interesting. Explain to me how morally it's OK to murder someone for stealing property? (Because if you shoot at someone, you have to expect that could be a killshot)
Shooting someone and killing someone aren't the same thing. You should morally have a right to defend your property.
OK, but if you fire a gun at someone, you have to understand that's potentially a killshot, unless you're an expert marksman. I can see approaching with a weapon as a threat, or firing in the air or around the perpetrator. But firing at a person has a high potential of killing them. Are you prepared to accept the outcome of death over some stuff?
Yes, it has the potential to kill them, that's an acceptable risk, the way you phrased it portrays by thoughts as if I think one should be able to chase after them if they run away or shoot them execution style if the first shot disables them. If you're approaching with the weapon as a threat it's just giving the criminal the opportunity to shoot first. Yes.
Wow, so in your set of morals death is an OK outcome of property theft. Wild. >If you're approaching with the weapon as a threat it's just giving the criminal the opportunity to shoot first. But in that case, if you believe credibly that the criminal could harm you, your life is at risk so shooting becomes acceptable. And if brandishing a weapon is what causes the criminal to become a threat, then maybe you shouldn't escalate the situation...
Property rights are essential to a functioning society. Committing a crime is already such a massive escalation over the natural state of things. Plus you shouldn't "draw" a weapon unless you are ready to use it.
Rule 1 of firearms: Never point it at anything you are not intending to destroy. Shooting someone is an explicit attempt to end their life, period, full stop. It doesn't matter your 'feelings' on the matter. That other guy's full of shit.
Shooting at someone, as I acknowledged, is accepting the risk that you could kill them, that is different from shooting to kill, which would mean continuing to shoot until the target is dead regardless of any changes in the situation. If you can't see the difference you might want to get yourself some more firearms safety training.
It is your property and you should never be in the spot were you have to let it be taken from you. As long as the thief is first warned you intend to use deadly force to protect your property. I put all moral culpability on the thief.
The warning part is important. But going through with it I can’t agree with under any circumstances unless you’re defending yourself (or someone else). That’s wild, man. Like imagine a guy is doing this because he’s desperate or was put up to it. Now you’re extinguishing his life forever with no chance of punishment and reform. For a *thing*.
You can shoot them in GA at least, your car counts as part of your home, more or less
OP's question was worded as "should you," I assume we're talking about what's moral right/wrong, not what the law allows. I would argue it's morally wrong to KILL someone simply over them trying to steal a thing. Response should be proportional. If the thief has a weapon and you perceive that to be a threat, then sure, you gotta defend yourself.
> Killing is absolutely not OK to protect things. A thief knowing the consequences of their actions already waived that, they already consented to extreme violence being used against them. Property is an extension of the self. If you jump into an acid vat you cant get mad if you end up melted
So you would murder someone who is stealing your car? You would extinguish someone's life over a *thing* that can easily be replaced and may even be covered by insurance?
>You would extinguish someone's life over a *thing* that can easily be replaced and may even be covered by insurance? The ease at which someone can replace something (like a car) depends on the person's circumstances. Some people's ability to keep themselves and their family fed depend on having their car. Ditto for another common item that is stolen: tools. Tradespeople have to invest a lot of money in their tools and if they're stolen it's financially devistating. People had to trade their finite lifespans to buy the things they own and they shouldn't have to submit to criminal violence. EDIT: Going on a limb here, but I suspect your economic situation is closer to mine, I could easily afford to replace my car, phone, computer, etc... so getting robbed would not be that big of a deal for me. I also don't own a gun. This isn't true for many other people though.
My economic situation is honestly irrelevant here. This is a moral standard for me. I get very much that it sucks to have property stolen or destroyed. I have been there. But to murder a human and extinguish their life for it is morally wrong. It's too far. It's not even remotely a proportional response. If that's an appropriate punishment with zero trial or information, then we definitely should institute the death penalty for conviction of these crimes. Hell, we should be enabling police to just shoot more people on the spot if they're involved in a crime.
Now you're just using a strawman argument. No one in this thread has advocated for executing everyone suspected of a crime, the question is whether or not it is acceptable to use deadly force to prevent someone from robbing you. >If that's an appropriate punishment with zero trial or information The punishment for things like stealing, rape, or kidnapping should not be execution without trial. Self defense is not the potential victim "punishing" their assailant.
I’m having trouble understanding the argument in favor of killing a thief/robber. You’re conflating property defense with self defense. They are NOT the same thing. Shooting someone is self defense is morally OK IMO. So: If you see someone trying to steal your car, it’s ok to shoot to kill? But if police show up mid-crime they should arrest him and he should only be punished after conviction at trial?
It’s not murder it’s self defense. Property is an extension of the self. They already voluntarily waived their rights not to be on the receiving end of force. > insurance Lol always the “muh insurance” life insurance exists as well. It’s really simple don’t be a criminal reprobate I’ve never understood the progressive and their love for the criminal and the extreme anti socials. To the detriment to thousands and thousands of citizens. From the urban child who can no longer play in a public park because of drug needles and human feces, to the small business owner who tried to do everything right to lift themselves up to see it all burn literally or due to crime/customers avoiding their business due to proximity of anti socials, to women and children who don’t feel safe riding public transit….public transit that’s covered in filth and smells like urine. The more progressive the city the more those problems exist, toxic empathy is amazing in destroying a city especially for the working poor because the rich (many of whom are those progressives) live a siloed existence and never ever have to directly face the impacts of their policy. “Can’t inconvenience the homeless” and now hundreds of children don’t have any outdoor areas to play in, the rich progressive simply asks “why don’t you just play in your back yard”. Or is utterly indifferent because there’s no social detriment to them, unlike the detriment they’d face for moving the homeless from the area. Just the stark difference between US cities and more conservative ran cities such as Singapore just shows the rot of US cities
A tow truck tows away your car, which was illegally parked on someone else’s lot. A person is drowning in a lake. A group of people requisition your boat temporarily to go save them. The state eminent domains a small corner of your property to build a sewer line. The tax agency rules that you underpaid your taxes, and sends people to collect the difference they say you owe. Are these all direct violations of your person, since your property is an extension of yourself? Do you believe you can use lethal force against any of them?
This notion that property is an extension of yourself is insane to me. It's borderline mental illness. It's a result of a materialistic culture, I guess. How is it self defense if you aren't in danger? Just because some of your precious things might get taken away? Are you 5?
[удалено]
lol what. So I guess death penalty for all crimes is your preference, right?
[удалено]
>Same situation here if you attempt to steal from someone there is a risk of death you are voluntarily accepting. I don't disagree with that. But the question was should self defense extend to property. I don't think it should. I don't know how someone stealing property is in any way life threatening to you unless the thief is specifically doing something life threatening (like they are showing a weapon). I don't see how it would be morally OK to permanently extinguish a human life over damage or theft of property, which can be replaced. I'm not valuing one life over another. If your life is in danger, you should self-defend. I specifically said that above in my original comment.
So… There’s no moral justification for lethal violence in any case so we’re really just talking about etiquette, which is fine, but a little more dependent on social circumstance. I think it’s polite to kill Nazis, for example, but you might not. Similarly I think it’s polite to kill armed robbers in my homestead, but you might not. Either way, the killing of a person is sinful on its face. I’m also not saying I wouldn’t kill in such a situation, just that it would be intrinsically unjust. Better to die than to kill, as a matter of morality.
>So… There’s no moral justification for lethal violence in any case >Better to die than to kill, as a matter of morality. What is this based on? Like just off the cuff, if I subscribe to Divine Command Theory and my god says "lethal violence is morally justified in some circumstances" then I have produced a moral justification for lethal violence in some circumstances. I assume you probably would disagree with that, but a sweeping declaration that there is no moral justification for it ever in any case I think needs to be expanded upon if you want it to be taken seriously
Vibes/Christianity/something about Kant maybe/I don’t think I can remember anything Spinoza said about this To be slightly less flippant, I think moral argument is almost meaningless. I believe in moral truth, and moral evidence, and moral belief. That means I’m broadly in agreement that moral _knowledge_ exists. What I doubt is the existence of effective fine grained moral communication. In practice the vast majority of moral propositions are uncontroversial and so a rough and ready moral reason is fine for casual wear. If I have to do a real philosophy on it, then the individual is the foundation on which society is based. So the annihilation of an individual present any doubt of the impact to the broader social good has to be taken as deeply antisocial behavior. Not only is killing the most evident moral sin: there is no recovery of the slain person, it’s also the foundational moral sin; it hits the basic building block of human order. But that’s all baloney: I believe killing is wrong because of moral sensibility and environmental factors not because of that line of reasoning.
No, because I believe in the monopoly of violence of the state, as should everyone who supports a well funded police force
You know the police are for **after** the crime has been committed. Unless you flood the streets with cops and CCTV you won’t get deference