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.

Some good points Steve, and like with Tarjak, I will have to simply agree that we see somethings differently. But that is ok, I consider you both online friends even if we disagree. :yeah:

Historically, the Revolution was in the end, about protecting personal property. As you said, the colonists protested significantly before most serious action. The Declaration of Arms is probably the most historically significant of those official attempts at redress.

However, an individual who is victimized by another individual has very little time or opportunity to "protest" compared to the colonists against their government. Even so, cries of "stop" that are not heeded are comparable to the protests of a society against a wrong perpetrated by a government. In most cases, neither the individual criminal or the government choose to desist their actions. Thus, stronger action was taken. In the case of the 13 colonies, everything from the tarring of tax collectors to the boston tea party were such actions.

So one group of someones (British government) was out to take the privately owned property of someone else. Private citizens stood in defense of private property, resulting in death. According to the premise that it was purely about "stuff" and the soldiers were not there to kill, wouldn't the outcome - especially in that it led to a war over who controlled the property of this land - immoral on its face?

The right to own a firearm, the right to be secure in your own home without invasion by a third party, even the freedom of speech were specifically the reasons in which America declared independence. For an example of the speech issue, check what General Gage (Royal Governor of Mass.) did when he declared town meetings could only occur once a year. When he heard of one in Salem, he sent soldiers to break it up. 3000 armed colonists arose in response. While no one lost their life in that incident, the founders fought, killed and died to secure the freedoms and liberty of free speech and property rights.

Why is killing on a grand scale to protect your property and rights perfectly moral, but to do so on a small scale immoral? Or do you believe that the British intent was ultimately genocide against the colonies? Only then - under threat of imminent death - should the colonies have risen up and used deadly force - yes? Anything else is immoral?

It's not. Standing up to tyrrany, or standing up to an individual, is not wrong. The example you make here, however, is. In this last instance you answer your own question. Despite all the protests they didn't use deadly force until faced with the same. What you suggest is the equivalent of the British backing down and starting to pull out, then the colonies start shooting.

Again, my point is that using violence where violence is reqired, i.e. the only option, is not morally wrong. Using violence where violence is not required is morally wrong. Shooting someone in the back as he runs away is not required to protect myself, therefore is morally wrong.

In your opinion. ;)

As long as he drops my stuff, he might get away in one piece.



Ya know, when we all talk about societal issues, and we try to decide how best to manage our criminal population... we don't always agree on the best approach, but we work together and compromise, trying to find a workable solution...

....and then I come across something like this.

And for me, the key phrase is When Richie had been released the last time from prison...

Why do we release these people at all? Our criminal code and laws need to be adjusted. After one of these type of crimes, this guy should have never seen the free world again.:shifty:

So choosing to use force to protect stuff is ok if its "required" - like the colonists did in using force to try and protect the powder supplies @ Lexington and Concord - which is generally considered the start of the Revolutionary War? So what makes violence "required"? Are you saying it is ok to use violence when no other option will put a stop to the wrongdoing as it happens? This is what occurred in Lexington and Concord, isn't it?

Of course it's my opinion. I'm only talking about myself. That was the whole point.

No, you missed it again. Using deadly force to protect "stuff" is never required.

Are you intentionally missing this? The equivalent to that in the terms of this thread would be if someone came into your house to steal your stuff and pulled a gun. You pull yours and shoot first. Otherwise your example of the revolution has no bearing on this discussion.

No. I'm saying you are only justified in killing someone when your life, or another life can be saved no other way.

No. see above.

You seem to be doing everything in your power to justify killing. Do you want to kill someone? It sure sounds like it.

I'll now go out on a limb and express a moral, and yes, moralistic, viewpoint.

It is never okay to kill. It is never right to kill. It is, however, sometimes necessary. When it is necessary, do it swiftly and do it efficiently, but don't take relish in it. If you are willing to kill when it's not necessary, then you need to think about whether you enjoy killing, because if you enjoy killing then you are a killer. That makes you no better than any other killer.

The only reason one should ever take a life is when your life, or someone else's life, is at stake.

Isn't that what occurred though? The colonists could have just let the british come on in and seize the gunpowder. They chose to resist and thus escalated the confrontation. They were WILLING to use force to protect "stuff" - otherwise they had no reason to bring guns.

No - it is not. It is the equivalent to an armed someone walking into your yard and you knowing they intend to steal your stuff. So you confront them on the porch with your gun. If you don't intend on using deadly force to stop them - why do you even have your gun on you?

The reason this is analogous is because the militia confronted the British BEFORE the British reached their destination. The militia grabbed their guns and met the thief on the porch LITERALLY - by facing the British at Lexington Green and again at the Concord Bridge - making it clear they would NOT allow the theft without deadly violence.

The British were coming to take property. Not kill people. The colonists KNEW this - but showed up armed on the doorstep anyway. Are you going to tell me that they were unwilling to use deadly violence to protect property? Obviously not, because they showed up with loaded weapons against a known armed opponent and proceeded to have a staredown to see if one side would blink. When neither did - a war began. How "moral" is that? Wouldn't the moral choice have been to stand aside and let the British have the powder? It would seem so given one of your later statements...

That would indicate that you personally believe in what is known as "The duty to retreat". Is that correct?

So the colonists, by confronting an armed thief (yet knowing they could retreat in peace) were immoral since they were intentionally escalating the situation knowing it could lead to deadly force?

No Steve, I have seen more than enough death in my time. Death is no friend of mine and I will be happy to never see it again until it is my time to go. However, I have seen more than my share of repression and victimization as well. I would prefer to not ever see that either. Yet like the colonists of old, I believe that we do not have the duty to be bullied and victimized, but rather that we have the right to stand up and say "enough" when it comes to our homes and livelihoods. Even if that means death must be seen again.

I accept we see things differently. I respect your view just as I do Tarjaks. I know you served as I and many others have, so while we view things differently, remember that many people gave their lives to win the history we discuss - by standing up to a thief in the night with a willingness to kill and die to protect "stuff".

Doesn't that contradict itself? If it is never ok..... I mean - it is really "never" necessary. One could always choose to die instead of kill. iI it is never moral to kill, isn't the only moral choice the one that lets the other person kill you instead?

In that you will find me in total agreement.

Our forefathers disagreed, as do I. But it is a respectable position to hold. Would that no one would ever have to take another person's life for any reason. Sadly, that is highly unlikely.

The difference is that they faced them and gave them a chance to change their minds.

You're still stretching the issue to suit your argument. If someone comes on my property with gun in hand, I don't know what his intentions are. Even if he says if I stand aside he won't hurt me, I don't know that he's telling the truth. So I have my gun ready, just in case. It's still not the same as shooting a man in the back as he runs away with your property.

You're leaving out the part where Boston was already under martial law, and the locals had come to the point of considering the British to be tyrants of the worst sort. It wasn't just about property, and it wasn't just about taxes. By that time they considered themselves to be enslaved, servants under a harsh master.

Again you're trying to come up with comparisons that don't work. There was a whole lot more going on than just property.

Again this has relevance only in your own mind. They didn't see it that way, and I'm not sure I would have either. That said, they didn't see someone coming to steal their property, they saw an army sent by a tyrant coming to take by force the only means they had of defending themselves against said tyrant. The shooting started that day. The war started long before. The met the troops with armed force because they believed this was just one more atrocity intended to keep them subservient to their foreign masters. The also were convinced that sooner or later their lives would be at stake.

So it wasn't about property, it was about a way of life, and life itself.

Not at all. I've already said that if I confronted a thief I could see was unarmed, I would try to restrain him while I called the police. If he offered resistance I would shoot him if I thought I was in danger. If he ran I'd let him.

But by their lights they couldn't retreat in peace. They were already at war.

Homilies and preaching sound good, and I'm sure you mean it, but that's not what the original question was about. The question was, is it morally right to shoot a man in the back? Okay, he has your property in his hands, or he's driving away in your car. Does that justify killing someone? Is it okay to shoot an unarmed man as he's running away? That's the only question on the table. You claim that it is. I say it's not. I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just stating my belief.

And that's where the difference becomes extreme. People never go to war to protect "stuff". The do so because they are convince their way of life, and indeed their very lives, and the lives of those they love, are threatened. Was 1812 about "stuff"? Was Pearl Harbor about "stuff"? Not in the least. We may go to war for the wrong reasons sometimes, but the people who have to do the fighting do so they are convinced the survival of their country depends on it. It's not about "stuff".

When I was a Christian I believed that very thing, though I found myself more than willing to threaten violence to a guy who offended my wife.

I've since come to believe that violence is only justified in the face of violence. Violence to protect another life is always necessary, and it reaches the point of killing when the perpetrator leaves only the choice between his life and the victim's. At that point the victim's life is always the prefered option. If the violence can be stopped with the threat of ultimate force, so much the better, but if there's a reasonable chance the victim's life is at stake, then killing the perpetrator is still morally justified. Better that than even risking the victims life.

I think not. They spent years exhausting every other possibility, over and over again. When it became obvious there would be no redress or change, they finally went to war, but even then it took an armed force attempting not to "steal their stuff", but to take away their means of defending themselves agains that same enemy.

But you, and some others here, are more than willing to take another person's life because they dared to take what amounts to dross, and to shoot them in the back to do it. Your computer, or your car, might be worth somebody's life. Mine isn't.

Since it's Easter, what would Jesus do?:hmmm:
It's strange but not surprising that a "christian " is taking a rather unChristian view and an ex-Christian is taking a rather Christian one.
As I mentioned earlier life and "stuff" were applied values by that carpenter fellow from Nazareth. Since it has become a disagreement on morals rather than legality then surely the new testament would be seen by some as their guide to morals.
Someone seems to be reversing those values entirely in his statements.

Yes. Again, look at Concord. The British, having burned what powder they found left at Concord, were in full retreat back to Boston. Many actually threw down their gear - including musket, powder and shot. Yet they were harassed with fire and death during the retreat.

So they considered themselves deeply wronged and were mad as heck about it. We can agree on that point. Pretty much how I would feel catching a thief in my home or car too!

The moment someone tries to take my stuff, they are declaring a very personal war against me. Shooting would hopefully never take place, but morally if it does, I have the high ground. Even if I shoot a fleeing thief.

Well, here we have a heck of a dilemma. See - you say they were convinced that "sooner or later" their lives would be at stake. Well, without imminent (immediate) threat to their lives, grabbing a gun to shoot a fellow British citizen was immoral, wasn't it? It was not really about life itself - no one in the colonies thought the British intention was ultimately genocide. You are more correct when you say it was about a WAY of life - and that way of life was FOUNDED on the rights of personal property. The right not to have it stolen via taxation. The right to not have it violated by forced quartering of soldiers. The right to not have it violated by "general" search.

So the entire conflict was in fact about the right to control PROPERTY.

James Madison, in Address at the Virginia Convention, stated property rights were in fact equal to and intertwined with personal rights:

To Madison, one right was not lesser than any other. The taking of property was no less abhorrent a violation of rights than the taking of life.

The alternative to private ownership is to confiscate property through force of arms, taxes, or legislation. It doesn’t matter if the property is confiscated by bullies, warlords, or government. It’s all the same -individual liberty is destroyed at the cost of personal rights.

Read: Property; 29 March 1792 (Papers 14:266--68 ) by Madison sometime.....

And that is your choice. As I said - a respectable one. However, my choice to protect my property is no less moral than your choice to let him steal it.

And by mine, a person choosing to violate me in such a way has declared a very personal war on me. Thus I retain the moral right to act as such. Doesn't mean I will, but I sure as heck have the right to do so!

And I am stating mine - with historical references that predate my existence that show my view is not as "extreme" as you make it out to be.

On the contrary Steve - every war is about "stuff". Either "religious" stuff (for example - who will control Jerusalem?), or other stuff. The war of 1812? It was fought over trade restrictions - meaning money (stuff), as well as British support of the Indians (land = stuff) and the possibility of America expanding. The war of 1812 led to Florida ultimately being part of America today. Pearl Harbor? Really? The Japanese attacked us in an attempt to control the Pacific - or if you take the more learned view, to keep us from getting involved in their expansionism by threatening their access to oil and metals. Again - it all boils down to "stuff".

What your religious views past and present have to do with this - I have no clue.....

Very eye for an eye kind of viewpoint.

I would concur with most of this. The thing is, like Madison, I do not limit this to the life of the victim. But with that said - as in the case that started this - the "risk" to the victim's life is enough in your view. So Gerlach - thinking he saw a gun, was morally justified in your mind?

The ability to defend themselves rested on their "stuff" - so it all boils down to the same thing. Property is more than just "stuff" - it is what CREATES the "way of life" that you so valiantly claim is what they colonists were justified in protecting. My car, my tv, my computer, my whatever else - are what creates the way of life I lead. So they were morally justified in using deadly force to protect it, but people in today's world are not?

And so a loyalist in 1794 might have said: "But you, and some others here - are more than willing to take many mens lives because they dare to enforce a taking to what amounts to mere money through taxation and guns and powder, and to shoot them in the back as they retreat. Your money and guns and home may be worth someone else's life to you, but it is not to me."

I am not slamming you - just using historical perspective. I respect your very moral choice. I find it unfortunate that you find mine morally insufficient, but we are allowed to differ.

I don't find your moral choice insuffecient. I'm entertained by the lengths you'll go to to try to convince me it's the right one, offering justifications right and left. Is it me you're trying to convince? I don't need convincing. The question is "Would you shoot a man in the back over a piece of dross - computer, TV, car, whatever?" I have no quarrel with those who would, it's a moral question. I don't judge other people's morals, I only ever spoke for myself. I consider Neal a close friend. That he disagrees with me is nothing, a question to disagree on. I said my piece and was willing to let it go, but you keep trying to win an argument that doesn't really exist. I've answered you points because I enjoy doing so.

Way back when I was a Christian I firmly believed in the "earthly treasures vs treasures in heaven" parts. Now that I no longer believe I find myself still affected by that statement. Everything I own, no matter how much it may mean to me, in the end it's just junk. I recently spent several years "owning" my property, yet unable to use it, as it was in storage and I was homeless. I discovered that as much as I missed playing Silent Hunter and building models, in the end it really meant nothing. I stayed online thanks to the local library's computer system, but that was only an hour per day, and the rest of the time I found I really didn't need it at all. Miss it? Sure, but it wasn't really all that important. A home invasion is not only a violation of my natural rights, but a potential threat to my life. A thief in my home should be stopped, or chased away. With deadly force? If possible, no. If forced, then yes.

So, the only question is this: Would I shoot a man in my home as he was stealing my stuff? Alone, in the dark where I couldn't tell if his intent was theft or murder, I would most definitely shoot without warning. In the daylight, where I could see if he was armed or not? If not, I'd give him the chance to surrender. If he chose to attack, I would shoot him whether he was armed or not. If he chose to run? Never. My morals, my beliefs, my actions. I'm not trying to convince you I'm right. Your beliefs and your conscience are your own, and I wouldn't dream of saying you're wrong. Yet you keep trying to convince me and anyone who feels as I do that you're right. Why? I don't need justifications for my moral stance. Why do you feel you do?