[quote]AlisaV wrote:
As I understand the legal issue depends on the state and whether it has the “castle doctrine.”
Just to give a perspective from the other side – I’m not a thief, of course, but I have accidentally trespassed on somebody’s land while I was out for a run. (There’s a lot of woods and trails and the demarcations aren’t obvious.) The owner had a guard dog; it started barking, scared the shit out of me, and I got out of there. But I’m glad that I wasn’t in a state where I could have been shot on sight for a mistake. Or “torn to pieces.”[/quote]
If that were the case it would have been pretty obvious you posed no threat to life or property.
But you probably still would have had me greet you with a loaded shotgun in hand.
You have to remember, that where I’m living, having a random person show up in the middle of the night outside my house scares the shit out of me too. Just seeing a car drive down to the end of my road and turn around makes me nervous.[/quote]
Why, out of curiosity? High crime rate? Just low traffic in general? is it common that people who drive past your house are up to no good?[/quote]
I live in the middle of a 600 acre farm on a dead end road with only a couple of houses. someone would have to accidentally drive 3 miles down my road, open a cattle gate and drive up my half mile drive way to get to my house.
I had a redneck guy in a truck pull up to my house one night and I propped up my shotgun beside the door before I opened it and yelled at him to ask what he wanted. He claimed he was looking for someone that lived on my street. It made me more than a little nervous, especially when he started being an asshole about it.[/quote]
I think my shotgun would have been talking from the moment he started being an asshole.
My brothers and I had been pistol target shooting that day my older brother went and grabbed his 357 and was standing behind me. We could have probably made him piss himself if weâ??d wanted to.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
My brothers and I had been pistol target shooting that day my older brother went and grabbed his 357 and was standing behind me. We could have probably made him piss himself if weâ??d wanted to.[/quote]
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
My brothers and I had been pistol target shooting that day my older brother went and grabbed his 357 and was standing behind me. We could have probably made him piss himself if we�?�¢??d wanted to.[/quote]
Pics or it didn’t happen.[/quote]
I know it sounds like I’m braggin but it’s true.
The Box-o-gun stuff was sitting in the kitchen and he just picked it up when I told him i had no idea who the guy was. We had been talking about self defense handguns and even trying out some of his new self defense rounds. He’d been showing off the thing all day, he wasn’t going to miss the chance.
It was actually my first time shooting a pistol larger than a .22 (I don’t own one). It’s an intimidating gun. I do have to say that after shooting it, I really want one though.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
As I understand the legal issue depends on the state and whether it has the “castle doctrine.”
Just to give a perspective from the other side – I’m not a thief, of course, but I have accidentally trespassed on somebody’s land while I was out for a run. (There’s a lot of woods and trails and the demarcations aren’t obvious.) The owner had a guard dog; it started barking, scared the shit out of me, and I got out of there. But I’m glad that I wasn’t in a state where I could have been shot on sight for a mistake. Or “torn to pieces.”[/quote]
If that were the case it would have been pretty obvious you posed no threat to life or property.
But you probably still would have had me greet you with a loaded shotgun in hand.
You have to remember, that where I’m living, having a random person show up in the middle of the night outside my house scares the shit out of me too. Just seeing a car drive down to the end of my road and turn around makes me nervous.[/quote]
Why, out of curiosity? High crime rate? Just low traffic in general? is it common that people who drive past your house are up to no good?[/quote]
I live in the middle of a 600 acre farm on a dead end road with only a couple of houses. someone would have to accidentally drive 3 miles down my road, open a cattle gate and drive up my half mile drive way to get to my house.
I had a redneck guy in a truck pull up to my house one night and I propped up my shotgun beside the door before I opened it and yelled at him to ask what he wanted. He claimed he was looking for someone that lived on my street. It made me more than a little nervous, especially when he started being an asshole about it.[/quote]
Oh, okay. Living that far away from people probably makes the situation different.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
As I understand the legal issue depends on the state and whether it has the “castle doctrine.”
Just to give a perspective from the other side – I’m not a thief, of course, but I have accidentally trespassed on somebody’s land while I was out for a run. (There’s a lot of woods and trails and the demarcations aren’t obvious.) The owner had a guard dog; it started barking, scared the shit out of me, and I got out of there. But I’m glad that I wasn’t in a state where I could have been shot on sight for a mistake. Or “torn to pieces.”[/quote]
If that were the case it would have been pretty obvious you posed no threat to life or property.
But you probably still would have had me greet you with a loaded shotgun in hand.
You have to remember, that where I’m living, having a random person show up in the middle of the night outside my house scares the shit out of me too. Just seeing a car drive down to the end of my road and turn around makes me nervous.[/quote]
Why, out of curiosity? High crime rate? Just low traffic in general? is it common that people who drive past your house are up to no good?[/quote]
I live in the middle of a 600 acre farm on a dead end road with only a couple of houses. someone would have to accidentally drive 3 miles down my road, open a cattle gate and drive up my half mile drive way to get to my house.
I had a redneck guy in a truck pull up to my house one night and I propped up my shotgun beside the door before I opened it and yelled at him to ask what he wanted. He claimed he was looking for someone that lived on my street. It made me more than a little nervous, especially when he started being an asshole about it.[/quote]
Oh, okay. Living that far away from people probably makes the situation different.[/quote]
This is exactly why I get pissed off when some politician from a condo in new york tells me I shouldn’t have a gun for personal protection.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I AM NOT SAYING THAT I WILL SHOOT SOMEONE BECAUSE I THINK THEY MIGHT COMMIT MORE CRIMES.
I am saying that I definitely consider it. The argument that you can’t because you don’t have a crystal ball is asinine. Technically you don’t know someone is stealing until they have already taken your property and then never return it. Are you suggesting that I wait to see what exactly they do with my property before I call them a thief? hell no. I find some stranger sitting in my car I’m going to assume he’s stealing it. If you want to wait to see if he hot wires it and drives off, that’s your prerogative.
If I see sceezy looking guy pointing a pistol at a couple in a dark alley, I’m going to assume he intends them harm. You may want to wait to see if he really intends harm, I’m not.
For you to think that I can’t factor in common sense probabilities of outcomes into my moral judgments IS RETARDED.
I personally am going to weigh his life vs. my property + the probability of him harming me and mine + the probability of him stealing others property + the probability of him harming other innocent people.
Why the hell can’t I factor in the likelihood of him hurting other innocent people?
Even the legal system (your exiting prisoners) makes this distinction. Repeat offenders are treated differently. Its why there are parole officers and halfway houses. The legal system factors in the unequivocal fact that a person who is willing to perpetuate one crime is generally willing to commit multiple ones. Once you’ve committed a crime you legally no longer receive the benefit of the doubt. It’s why we keep people’s criminal records. Do you think we should expunge records upon the completion of every prison term? Do you think that once people get out, they shouldn’t be monitored? Do you think we shouldn’t prevent pedophiles from moving in next to an elementary school? After all, they paid their dept and you can’t treat them like that will commit another crime because you don’t have a crystal ball. Dumb. Just plain dumb.[/quote]
It is not something to consider, fact. Fact, if someone is in your car without your permission they are an aggressor to your private property shoot til lock.[/quote]
Why are you assuming they are after your property. Maybe they got in the wrong car. maybe his family is being held hostage and he was ordered to steal a car or watch his kids die. You are making assumptions too.
So you disagree with the people who are considering whether or not the think the guy poses a physical threat to them and their loved ones?
Say that if you let him go there is a 50% chance he will end up hurting someone. Give me a good reason why a moral argument would not consider that?[/quote]
Because there is no possible way to know if he will commit another crime.
I am not assuming they are after my property, I can see they are making an aggressive movement on my private property, which only takes them using it without permission.[/quote]
So you disagree with the entire judicial system?[/quote]
That people are innocent until proven guilty. No, so if they have not even committed the crime how can they be guilty of it. And if they are not guilty of anything, you are not preventing anything. So if you are not preventing anything, you cannot justify killing someone since you are not preventing anything.
Does not matter if it is one of those scenarios, define aggression on property and that is what I am going off. They are forcefully (meaning without my permission) using my property, they can take my truck and fill it up and detail it, that is still an act of aggression on my private property.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
If you caught someone stealing your car or breaking into your garage, is it the right thing to do to shoot them, even if you just injured them? And i dont mean right as in “legal” I mean as in right or wrong.[/quote]
From a legal standpoint it depends where you live and if your state has adopted the castle doctrine.
Is it the right thing to do. The answer is no. You shouldn’t kill a man over an object he is stealing out of your car or garage. Perfectly fine to investigate with a gun and if the man tries to attack you while your running him off the situation changes.
Never use lethal force unless you intend to kill someone. Few have the skill to wound and not to kill. Too fine a line.[/quote]
I agree…however…
If you come into my house against my will, I’m not going to ask you what you’re doing. Given my military job, it isn’t out of the realm of possibility that some knuckle head would track me down and want to even some perceived score with me.
My TV isn’t worth a human life…but violating the limits of my land with unknown intentions puts your life at risk. I have no desire to ever again take a life, but I will in defense of my family without a moment of doubt.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Here is the problem. If you kick his ass, you run the risk of him coming back. If you shoot him, you run the risk of being prosecuted for using deadly force. Get a pitbull and have him chew his ass right off. [/quote]
Lol where have you been? you will get fucked up the ass just as hard…a dog is a deadly weapon. I personally would only risk killing if I felt I was going to be killed. Shoot one into the dirt and that pussy is hauling ass.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
And if they are not guilty of anything, you are not preventing anything.
[/quote]
That makes no sense at all.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Does not matter if it is one of those scenarios, define aggression on property and that is what I am going off. They are forcefully (meaning without my permission) using my property, they can take my truck and fill it up and detail it, that is still an act of aggression on my private property.[/quote]
And since when is it acceptable to use lethal force against any act of aggression against your private property?
Simply because you define a bunch of axioms and then using these axioms “deduce” that killing someone for breaching private property rights is acceptable doesn’t make it moral.
That people are innocent until proven guilty. No, so if they have not even committed the crime how can they be guilty of it. And if they are not guilty of anything, you are not preventing anything. So if you are not preventing anything, you cannot justify killing someone since you are not preventing anything.
Does not matter if it is one of those scenarios, define aggression on property and that is what I am going off. They are forcefully (meaning without my permission) using my property, they can take my truck and fill it up and detail it, that is still an act of aggression on my private property.[/quote]
Yes, if they are innocent until proven guilty, YOU are shooting an innocent person. You are shooting someone who hasn’t be legally convicted of anything yet.
BUT the judicial system removes personal freedoms from a person who has committed one crime in order to prevent future crimes. Are you contenting this is wrong?
This is like talking to a brick wall. I’m talking about using common sense reasoning in a moral decision using numerous example to show gigantic gaping holes in your logic. You say you can’t use facts in a moral judgment that you don’t know without a shadow of a doubt while doing exactly that.
What if I handed you a gun and told you to shoot a pedophile. I hold in my hands the cure for cancer. If you shoot him I’ll flip a coin and give you a 50% chance to cure all cancer in the world.
You, in your infinite wisdom wouldn’t consider curing cancer in your decision, because you don’t know for sure or not if you’ll get it?
Whatever you were to decide, you damn well better consider all possibilities in your moral questioning. This is EXACTLY what I’m doing when considering the possible prevention of future harm.
You cannot just claim, oh, you can’t use that information because you don’t know for sure and have it make sense, much less be true. The sky is blue, therefore turtles fly. Just because my condition “the sky is blue” is true, doesn’t validate the rest of my argument, unless I prove the relationship. You are not doing this. I am.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
If you caught someone stealing your car or breaking into your garage, is it the right thing to do to shoot them, even if you just injured them? And i dont mean right as in “legal” I mean as in right or wrong.[/quote]
From a legal standpoint it depends where you live and if your state has adopted the castle doctrine.
Is it the right thing to do. The answer is no. You shouldn’t kill a man over an object he is stealing out of your car or garage. Perfectly fine to investigate with a gun and if the man tries to attack you while your running him off the situation changes.
Never use lethal force unless you intend to kill someone. Few have the skill to wound and not to kill. Too fine a line.[/quote]
I agree…however…
If you come into my house against my will, I’m not going to ask you what you’re doing. Given my military job, it isn’t out of the realm of possibility that some knuckle head would track me down and want to even some perceived score with me.
My TV isn’t worth a human life…but violating the limits of my land with unknown intentions puts your life at risk. I have no desire to ever again take a life, but I will in defense of my family without a moment of doubt.[/quote]
No doubt the intruders life is at risk if he enters another man’s house uninvited. My only point is this. I wouldn’t shoot a man running from my house with my chainsaw, he is not a threat to me at that point and lethal force isn’t justified legally or morally according to my values. That same man running into my house, with the chainsaw, is going to get shot and I have no qualms about that.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
And if they are not guilty of anything, you are not preventing anything.
[/quote]
That makes no sense at all.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Does not matter if it is one of those scenarios, define aggression on property and that is what I am going off. They are forcefully (meaning without my permission) using my property, they can take my truck and fill it up and detail it, that is still an act of aggression on my private property.[/quote]
And since when is it acceptable to use lethal force against any act of aggression against your private property?[/quote]
Since the beginning of time. I consider my persons or body private property as well, so if you would like to tell me that self defense of my very own life through lethal force is not acceptable, sir I direct you to the Catholic Church’s writings on self-defense.
Well if your private property (which includes your person) is part your livelihood, and self defense is moral itself. And, your livelihood can be protected through self defense. Then, defending your property through lethal force is moral.
That people are innocent until proven guilty. No, so if they have not even committed the crime how can they be guilty of it. And if they are not guilty of anything, you are not preventing anything. So if you are not preventing anything, you cannot justify killing someone since you are not preventing anything.
Does not matter if it is one of those scenarios, define aggression on property and that is what I am going off. They are forcefully (meaning without my permission) using my property, they can take my truck and fill it up and detail it, that is still an act of aggression on my private property.[/quote]
Yes, if they are innocent until proven guilty, YOU are shooting an innocent person. You are shooting someone who hasn’t be legally convicted of anything yet.[/quote]
No, I can see the aggression on my private property. Unless you want to discuss the validity of my senses in determining if I am really seeing someone using my private property without permission.
This is another subject, we are talking about shooting someone for preventing future crimes as a ‘factor’ in shooting someone.
Sir, the reasons for shooting someone are marginal, and preventing future crimes that have not been committed are not one. And, even though someone may be able to shoot someone and prevent future crimes and state that as a reason, does not make it moral or legal to do so.
The only moral reason to shoot the pedophile is if he was in the act of endangering his victim (a child in this case, but non-consequential). But, since you did not state that he was in the act of endangering a child and was just a convicted pedophile, I will assume that no act of aggression was being committed.
So, no I would not shoot him, even if you gave me a hundred percent chance of receiving the cure for cancer for all the world.
I do not have infinite wisdom, I however do know a few things about morals. Like I said above, even if you would give me the cure for cancer and implemented it immediately, it would not be moral to kill someone even as disgusting as a pedophile to get the end.
I do not follow, if it is not moral to shoot the pedophile for the cure for cancer, how can you justify morally shooting someone for stealing your property NOW, for future crimes they might or might not commit.
If you cannot connect my ideas, I am sorry, I should explain better. You cannot justify homicide for something that has not happened. If you find someone in the act of aggression that is justified homicide. Now, you have to define what is included in act of aggression. Therefore, if you can logically say that private property is your livelihood, and it is moral to defend your livelihood, with lethal force, from an act of aggression, then it is moral to use lethal force to defend your private property.
On the other hand, I have not read a reasonable explanation how a possible future crime is justification for homicide.
That people are innocent until proven guilty. No, so if they have not even committed the crime how can they be guilty of it. And if they are not guilty of anything, you are not preventing anything. So if you are not preventing anything, you cannot justify killing someone since you are not preventing anything.
Does not matter if it is one of those scenarios, define aggression on property and that is what I am going off. They are forcefully (meaning without my permission) using my property, they can take my truck and fill it up and detail it, that is still an act of aggression on my private property.[/quote]
Yes, if they are innocent until proven guilty, YOU are shooting an innocent person. You are shooting someone who hasn’t be legally convicted of anything yet.[/quote]
No, I can see the aggression on my private property. Unless you want to discuss the validity of my senses in determining if I am really seeing someone using my private property without permission.
[/quote]
Now you are switching back and forth between definitions by the judicial system and your own personal beliefs. We were talking judical, By the judicial definition you just used previously and was under discussion, You seeing something does not make him guilty. You canâ??t rationally switch definitions in a debate when one specific one is under discussion.
The judicial system removes rights to prevent crime. Life is a right. I canâ??t help you if you donâ??t see that parallel. You are saying that the judicial system canâ??t take the stance that it does.
Nor does you saying you canâ??t morally consider it make it so. However, added good result to an action can make it more moral.
I only stated that the person has a lust for children that he is incapable of controlling (as evident by him being a pedofile)
Ah! BUT YOU DID CONSIDER IT. Thatâ??s my point.
Iâ??m not saying that you have to reach a specific conclusion. I am saying that the circumstances are something to be considered. You can consider the cure for cancer in your decision. AND you should.
[quote]
If you cannot connect my ideas, I am sorry, I should explain better. You cannot justify homicide for something that has not happened. If you find someone in the act of aggression that is justified homicide. Now, you have to define what is included in act of aggression. Therefore, if you can logically say that private property is your livelihood, and it is moral to defend your livelihood, with lethal force, from an act of aggression, then it is moral to use lethal force to defend your private property.
On the other hand, I have not read a reasonable explanation how a possible future crime is justification for homicide. [/quote]
Maybe you havenâ??t read it, because I havenâ??t made that argument. I have yet to argue that prevention is a justification. Only that it is valid to consider and can contribute to a decision. If you add a straw to the camelâ??s back and it breaks, the one straw didnâ??t break itâ??s back, the weight of all the straw did.
So, if I had taken your entire family prisoner and told you Iâ??d kill them unless you shot the pedophile, it would be â??immoralâ?? to even consider the plight of your family? I would hope you donâ??t really believe your own BS and youâ??d pop the child rapist.
I am not switching anything. I thought we were talking about morals here, in Arizona it is not legal to shoot someone stealing your truck, or property. The only thing you are allowed to protect is your person and family. No, it does not make him guilty, but it is still morally justifiable that if you see someone making an aggressive act towards private property you are morally justified to commit homicide.
[quote]
The judicial system removes rights to prevent crime. Life is a right. I can�¢??t help you if you don�¢??t see that parallel. You are saying that the judicial system can�¢??t take the stance that it does.[/quote]
I do not believe the death penalty is moral. I guess that might help you understand where I am in moral stance of homicide. I, on the other hand, believe that self-defense is moral.
I am sorry, I did not say it was moral or immoral to consider it. The end does not justify the means, sorry any moral ‘system’ that uses logic has come to this conclusion and I’m specifically talking about Natural Law.
I would not shoot Hitler if it would cure cancer, morally the end can never justify the means.
I would not consider killing anyone for the cure for cancer, it is not moral so not considering is needed. Having knowledge does not mean considering it.
{quote]I’m not saying that you have to reach a specific conclusion. I am saying that the circumstances are something to be considered. You can consider the cure for cancer in your decision. AND you should.[/quote]
I did reach a specific conclusion, immediately. No reason to look at the circumstances beyond that I am committing homicide are never justified except in self-defense.
You said it is a factor, it is not a factor. A factor in this case is one reason in justification of homicide. No, it is not morally valid to contribute something that has not happened or if you do not have reasonable knowledge that it will happen in the immediate future, not just the distant future, like you can see his actions are leading him to the act of aggression within the time he is in your vicenity. I am not sure what you are getting at with the camel thing.
Now you put another factor into the situation that was not there in the other situation you described above. The answer is the same (his pedophilia is not justification), but the result of the scenario will be different, because you have put me in distress. In this case it still would not matter if the person is a pedophile or Beatified Mother Teresa, I would shoot them down immediately. I would not be protecting my family directly, but indirectly, only because of distress, by killing an innocent person.
If you take out the distress, and there is no direct act of aggression by the pedophile, then it is not justified to commit homicide.