Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
What seems to be getting lost in the heat of argument is TarJak's basic question: Is it worth it to take someone's life over a property question, especially when the theft has already taken place?
|
The law in many geographical areas - including this one - says yes. In some areas, it is no. The difference between "stand your ground" and "duty to retreat" laws are a perfect example.
If the theft already has taken place - then no, it should be a police matter. If the theft is taking place, then it can be. In the case that started this discussion, the theft had not "taken place" because criminal action is not complete until the criminal "gets away" from the scene of the crime. Because the criminal was still "at the scene" - he was still in the act of theft and had not completed his criminal actions.
Now that is all the legal wrangling behind it. But it is really a moral or ethical question as well as a legal one. So to answer I will ask (then answer) the questions behind this one...
Should I respect the rights of another who willfully and with malice aforethought chooses to violate my rights? Am I morally or ethically bound to offer them a level of rights they deny me when they are violating my own in an intentional, criminal manner?
No, I do not believe that I am morally or ethically bound to do so. I believe that when a person chooses to willfully violate the rights of another person, they are abrogating their own rights.
Now, before people start getting up in arms about this - realize that this is the basic premise behind the justice system as it is. If a criminal does not abrogate their rights by committing a crime, then what right does society have to incarcerate them when (in the US) a person's rights to "Liberty" are supposed to be guaranteed? Their right to liberty is deemed to have been cast aside because of their choice to act in a criminal manner. If you take away that - then a person who commits a crime and can escape the scene without pursuit should never be incarcerated - no matter what crime was committed.
So if you can accept that a criminal - by their own choice AND action - sets aside their rights in the violation of the rights of another, then you must ask the next set of questions....
Why should a person who is victimized by a crime be LESS authorized to act to protect his/her self or property during the commission of a crime than the judicial system is "after" a crime has been committed and the criminal caught? After all - many jurisdictions have the "three strikes and your out" law - which can result in permanent incarceration (a sentence many would consider worse than simple execution).
Why should the person who is being victimized have less authority than a governmental entity (police) responding to the call?
Because police respond AFTER a crime has started (generally speaking), they can not protect a victim undergoing a violent or serious crime at the time. Thus, does not the victim have the right to protect themselves (whether their person or their property)? If not, why are door locks legal, as they serve to bar entry and protect the homeowner and property?
Points to ponder....