[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I say that if someone is not an immediate danger to anyone, shooting him in the back is murder.

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

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

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.

Where did I ask that?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.