Correct.

http://www.rechtslexikon.net/d/notwehr/notwehr.htm

I fully understand that. I, like TarJak, was speaking to the moral issue. If I wake up to find someone in my home in the middle of the night, I would probably shoot without thinking. Were I to come home to find someone in the act of stealing my stuff, then I would try to hold him until the police could get there, but I doubt I would try to kill or even harm him unless he actually threatened my life. If I found someone carrying my stuff down the street I certainly would not think it was worth it.

That of course depends on how you define "the scene". The guy is sixty feet down the road and running (or driving) then to my mind he is "fleeing the scene". As I said, I recognize the legality of the act, but the question raised was whether the person deserves to lose his life over lost property.

My opinion is that you use the correct logic to reach a wrong conclusion. This is best illustrated by this part of your argument:
While that is, on the face of it, true, it leaves open the possibility of taking the argument to its logical, but ridiculous, extreme. You say that the logical result is that a person who gets away should never be incarcerated. The flip-side of that same argument is that a person who jaywalks should get life in prison, or even the death penalty. "Let the punishment fit the crime" is an old saying, but a valid one. As I asked before, would the court give the death penalty for property theft? If not, then why should you or I?

You can argue that this guy will never steal again, but stealing is not in the same class as killing. He will also never get the chance to reform.

So what if the person in your home in the middle of the night is just trying to steal your stuff? You say you would probably shoot without thinking - so your saying you would dispense the death penalty without thought. Would you be immoral for having done so?

And I can understand that. You have every right to think "That sorry so in so - I am gonna make sure the cops arrest him!" and just choose to follow the guy and help lead police to him - or you could just choose to ignore the whole thing - or anything in between.

Glad you recognize the legality - because "fleeing" is a present tense verb.

Is one right more inviolate than the others? Some people say yes, and others say no. People value things differently. For example, you view your possessions as less important than the life of someone who would violate your rights. I do not. I do believe that if you refuse to respect my rights, I have no moral obligation to respect yours. I can accept that you and others disagree with me on that.

2 reasons. First, the "let the punishment fit the crime" issue - which delves into legalistic grounds. As I said earlier, some would say that a life sentence in prison is more cruel than simple execution. Yet many states have a habitual offender or "3 strikes" law. The Supreme Court has stated that a life sentence for such is reasonable and legal. Take the case of Curtis Wilkerson, who is serving a life sentence for 2 strikes and then stealing a $2.50 pair of socks.... Did that punishment fit the crime? Does the lifelong removal of freedom and condemnation to a lifetime of prison fit the crime? Is it not more cruel than a slug to the back of the head that would end the day in and day out "justice" that was inflicted? Would death not be a mercy in such a case?

Next you asked why the victim should have more right than society in general - because it is through the authority of general society that a Court imposes punishment. Simply answered - the Court, as a representation of society, has not been the one directly harmed whereas the victim iss directly harmed. This is the second reason why a victim has a greater "right to act" - because they are acting "as the wrong is committed upon them".

Let's use your earlier example - you wake up in the middle of the night and someone is in your home. If you call the cops and the cops show up, do they have the moral right to shoot someone in your home if they do not see an imminent threat? You said you would shoot someone without thinking. Do the cops have the right to shoot someone in your home without thinking? In your home, you can morally and ethically assume that the prowler is a danger to you, whereas the police are supposed to only react with deadly force if faced with an imminent threat to themselves or others.

Take the "stuff" out of the equation. It doesn't matter whether he is trying to kill, kidnap or steal. He is violating the innate rights of the victim. The victim has no moral obligation to respect the criminal's rights when that criminal is violating the victim's rights and causing harm directly to the intended victim.

Now that is interesting. I know little baby Jesus didn't say much but big beardy Jesus said plenty about life and possessions.
Could you remind me what value he placed on possessions and what value he placed on even the lowest life?:hmmm:

Possibly. If he's in my bedroom and if I have time to react it would be safe to assume that my life is in danger. If I wake up and realize there's someone in my living room? It's been my experience that the sound of a .45 slide racking is enough to make most burglars head for the door at mach speed. Shoot him as he's running out the door? I say that if someone is not an immediate danger to anyone, shooting him in the back is murder.

But we're not talking about legalities, just moralities.


So it's okay to kill someone if you can prove he's violating your right to free speech?

To my mind, no. But then the courts make many decisions I believe are wrong.

No, because in prison there is the chance that the criminal might genuinely reform. That might earn him an early release to a productive life. Even if he's never released he might go on to a life of helping other prisoners. Taking his life denies any possibility of that happening.

Where did I ask that?

I can act if the prowler is a danger to me, but the police can only act if the prowler is a danger to me? I don't get it.

So again, if someone punches me in the face I have the right to kill him? If he punches me in the face and runs away I have the right to shoot him as he's running? He violated my rights and caused me harm.

The only point I'm trying to make, and as I understand it the point TarJak was trying to make, was whether it is worth it to take someone's life when your own is in no danger. You seem to think it's okay to shoot someone in the back just because he has wronged you. I don't.

That would be like saying the land down under is the home of oversimplification and generalization. :03:

Yes, it is a sad commentary. I prefer to accept the reality as it is, and America has a lot of incarcerated people because we have a lot of criminals. Someone said to me once, America has the most prisons in the world. I said, yeah? Well we need more, because there are too many criminals running free.

As for "fearful"; nah, most of the people I know are pissed and ready to strike back. We are not going to roll over and let other's rob us without a fight.






Ok, I'm not sure what you mean here, Tarjak. I said the shooter should not have been prosecuted, I did not say he should not be investigated. Certainly the case should have been investigated thoroughly. I suggested that if the investigation proved he was defending his property and the victim was a criminal with a record, there should not have been any prosecution.

As for Can we agree that people have different morals? You are free to handle the situation as you prefer, as for me.... don't let me catch someone stealing my car. They're betting with their life.

Of course, if they throw their hands up and say, "don't shoot! I'll go quietly" I would cut them some slack and hold them till the police arrived. I would also order a pizza, they guarantee delivery within 30 minutes, which would probably beat the cops.

But it is you should see our media.:D

Given some of the rhetoric in this thread so far I didn't think the generalisation was too far from the mark ;) Though I know it challenges some dearly held beliefs.

It sounds like Great Britain in the 18th century. Maybe you should transport your convicts to one of your overseas colonies.

Or look deeper at the societal issues that are causing the production of so many criminals.

I read your statement as the police should have patted Mr. Gerlach on the back said "good shot sir" and not done much more.

Given the police investigation must have shown that a prosecution was required, I'm confused by your statement that there should not have been a prosecution. Otherwise why would the case have been brought if the police investigation showed he had nothing to answer for?

I don't think that the fact that people have different morals is in dispute. There would be no criminals otherwise.

The fact remains that shooting someone dead is the ultimate punishment. I hope that you never deem it necessary to mete it out.

I'm no expert on societal issues, et all, but I'm willing to guess the left has exhausted every opportunity to examine them, and the problem remains. What causes a man to take another man's property? Bad upbringing? How do we fix that, people can breed at will with no real consequences, and many think the taxpayer should shoulder the burden of feeding them, housing them, providing their health care, and re-educating them after they get into trouble with the law. Where does it end? I really don't know.


Well, that's what I am saying, the police investigation probably was in error, a prosecution was not required, as the verdict confirmed. But to be safe, I suppose it's better to prosecute a man protecting his property just to serve notice to other homeowners and citizens that they should think twice before confronting a burglar. I don't feel this way, but I can go along with it.


Oh, me too. I really dread being in that situation. If the police, courts, and prisons would do their jobs, the chance would be very small that I will ever find out.

The car thief made a fatal mistake, that's sad, but I do not blame the guy who owned the car. Blame the thief, Brendon Kaluza-Graham, or his parents, or his teachers, or his siblings, or his church leaders, or rap music, or his community activists. But stealing someone's property ought to be very dangerous, not something a guy does when he's bored and he knows he can get away with it easily.

Anyway! That's my opinion. :cool: That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee!

Well if you can be convinced into visiting York in July, I'll buy you one. But I bet you that dollar it'll cost more than $1.:)

Not Noo York. The original one.

That would be Old York I assume. :haha::haha:

Magic

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Overhangs.jpg not http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Scenes3285.JPG

Or http://s3.postimg.org/3x1n3r7df/image.jpg and not http://s8.postimg.org/6su4hjzg5/image.jpg :)

That is a nice looking shack. I bet it is a bear to heat!

Much dependant on how much hot air the choir can generate :03:

Thanks, buddy. Someday, i hope.

I can think of a lot of situations where I would disagree, but we differ.

Of if he is stealing from you. You are fan of history Steve... Did not the Stamp Act (attempt to) do both? Did not the entire Revolution and the founding of this country happen - including all the death (murder?) that came with it - occur because of the violation of free speech, illegal taxation (aka theft) and the lack of the right to control (own) your own property through things like the Stamp and Quartering Acts?

Think about it this way. If you have no right to protect your property with deadly force, then you have to say that the founding of the US and the Revolutionary War were immoral acts because they did exactly that.

When you asked why a victim should be allowed to take a life when the courts can not.

Your initial statement did not indicate the prowler was a danger, merely that he was in your room. I asked if he was JUST stealing stuff, therefore presenting no danger to you.

Do you have reason to believe that he creates a danger for the rest of society? Did he say he is going to go beat up the little old lady down the street next? So many permutations that there is no "simple" answer.

No, I agree with you and Tarjak that there needs to be a level of common sense applied. Where that line is - is where we differ. It doesn't have to be your life in danger, it could be someone else's. It does not have to be another life in danger necessarily.

I will put it this way. Use this case in relation to another one. This guy had a car that a teenager basically would come and take anytime he wanted, without permission and not return it. Never harm it, just basically take it for a joyride and leave it wherever he didn't need it again. No relationship between the two other than the one was victimizing the other by taking his car.

One day the guy comes out, his car is gone yet again. Instead of calling the cops, he tracks down the teen who was stealing his car, finds him a few miles down the road and shoots him dead. He was held accountable for murder - which was right and proper - because the crime itself was not in process. The kid was just walking down the street basically and the car was nowhere in sight. In essence, the crime had been completed and thus the action was considered vigilante in nature.

I totally agree with that outcome. Protecting your life, liberty or property is an ACTIVE thing - it must occur when the threat to those things are immediate. That means while the crime occurs.

The radio show I mentioned earlier had the prosecutor on as I said. He was asked - if I chase a thief who has my stuff 5 blocks down the road before I shoot him, is that murder? The answer was - if he has not gotten away - lost all active pursuit - then the crime is still ongoing and there would be no prosecution by his office. I agree with that too.

Ultimately, I am in agreement with Neal on this. A violation of my rights is an abrogation of yours. That doesn't absolve me of common sense, but it does make the criminal responsible for the results of his actions. In this case, the criminal chose the wrong guy.

Consider this.... If a criminal looks down a street of similar homes and knows that one house on a street has no guns in it, and the one next to it does - what house do you thing he is going to burglarize when he knows which is which? Chances are high it won't be the one with the gun in it.
The danger to the criminal is too high - and it should be. Claiming that you can't shoot someone unless they present a danger to life means he could bust in and say "nobody move, I am just here to steal stuff" and if you shot him your the one that is more liable than he is. Is that the society you want?

Moralistic high stances are great - and I approve of them. But when they lose sight of the reality of life, they are not much use.

Unless you would prefer to still be paying taxes to the British Empire.

And that's the long and short of it. And it should have been short. But you want to make it longer (which I admit I always enjoy), so here we go.

First, don't forget that I started with "I say". That's my opinion. That's my belief. That's why I would never do something like that. The original question was whether it's morally justifiable to shoot someone in the back...or even in the front if he has your property but is no immediate threat to you.

You already said that. My point was to carry your argument to the extreme, i.e. the violation of rights that do not involve loss of life, liberty or property.

No. Because:
Not at all. They protested those acts for years without going to war. Some acts of violence were perpetrated, such as tarring and feathering tax collectors, but those were also wrong and not justifiable. They didn't go to war until troops were sent to confiscate a privately owned armory. Even then armed citizens opposed the troops. No one knows who fired the first shot, but they were facing each other, both sides were armed, and the intention was fully stated and known.

But I didn't ask that question as a challenge to you or anyone, but as a statement of my own personal belief. My original statement:
And as restated:

The second time I did include "you" as a generality, but even taken specifically I'm still talking about morality, not the law. My stated belief was, and still is, that it's morally wrong to kill someone over a piece of property.

In the middle of the night, in the dark, you can't tell if the person is armed or not. You can't tell if he is JUST stealing stuff, or if he is there for a more serious purpose. Assuming he is JUST stealing stuff, or that he is unarmed, is asking for trouble. Hence, if I wake up to find someone in my house, in the middle of the night, and I can't see if he is armed or not, and he can't see if I'm armed or not, yes, I'll shoot first. If I can see that he's not armed and he can see that I am, or if when I show myself he runs, then no, I won't.

The permutations are irrelevant. He "violated my rights". By your statement I now have the right to kill him.

For me it does. If someone's safety was in danger, but possibly not their life, I would probably show the weapon and demand he stop, just as a policeman would. If that didn't work I would likely shoot at that point.

But if he stopped harming the person and ran away, I still wouldn't shoot him in the back, "little old lady down the sreet" notwithstanding.

If he never did anything about it before then he gave his tacit approval and to suddenly decide to hunt the kid down now is wrong, at least to my mind. Also, hunting somebody down after the fact is the cop's job, so I would never do that.

But that's a legal statement. I'm only talking about morality - right and wrong.

And that's still a legal question.

You keep coming up with these scenarios to prove your point, and to justify the taking of a life when yours is not threatened.

It's not a moralistic stance. It's a moral question. Do you believe it's okay to kill someone over a piece of property? I don't.

Which, though I chose to answer you on it before, mainly because you were wrong about the reasons the shooting started, has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.