So I asked this of Elwood before, but I'll open it up to others (@The Ghost of Crazy Horse, @Paladin, and @Ten Lubak): what is the minimum degree of threatened property damage that justifies killing and/or the use of lethal force?
May I cut to the chase? Thank you. Conservatives value property over life, except when the life is an unbaptised mass of cells in someone else's body. I don't understand this, but I begin to understand why they're so afraid of violence against property. By the way, if human life begins at conception, why don't you market a combined pregnancy test and baptismal certificate? Church co-branded of course. cackle.
I don't know if it's always the value of the property that matters so much as the affront of someone trying to take it from you. I think everyone could probably agree in principle that a car is not worth the cost of a human life, but how many here would shoot someone trying to steal theirs?
Why jump immediately to the threat or use of lethal force? That's what I'm not understanding. I understand the concept of defending your own property, but unless someone is actually threatening someone's life, using deadly force to defend property does not seem justified.
Somewhere between zero and none. It's just the idea. This assuages their fears of losing control. Realization of the fact is totally different. This is why there are so few of them defending the country against Trump.
How about I stand between you and my threatened property, and my next move is determined by your next move?
So again, what property are you talking about? A banana? A rare baseball card? A car? A home? What is the minimum level of property damage that justifies taking a life?
I would argue it’s not the level of property damage, but the threat level itself. You’re in law school are you not, why don’t you tell us what the law says in your state?
I imagine it depends on what state you're in. I agree with the, "property (especially if it's insured), is not worth taking a life" philosophy...but if someone's inside my house that's about to get firebombed, it might change my calculus...might.
Just trying to understand how reality changes from situation to situation for you. I agree a car is not worth a human life. So one should never risk their life stealing a car.
There's another part of that calculus. Where does the chaos end if it is not resisted? Would you let your whole neighborhood burn? Even if you're not directly threatened, wouldn't you have any concern that outright lawlessness could lead to a toll in lives?
*Minute long sigh* Well, raise your hands if you didn't see a slippery slope argument coming. .... *Nods gloomily*
So any threat against property is sufficient to take a human life? Or just certain types of threats? And if so, what level of threat is sufficient? Trespass? Nuisance? Pollution? Larceny? Theft? Vandalism? Piracy/IP infringement? Armed robbery? Arson? Burglary? Or is lethal force justified in all of those situations? I'm not asking what the law is, I'm asking those of you making the claim that lethal force is justified against threats to property when/why it's justified. So far, I've been met with nothing but dick waving and avoiding the question.* *edit: other than @Man Afraid of his Shoes, who actually tried to answer the question (but who also wasn't making the claim).
The man you voted for and whom you've been cheerleading for four years is the one who's actively encouraging this kind of lawlessness: Still overjoyed?
No no. In that scenario, it is the rioter deciding the worth of his/her life. I am only standing in between them and their target.
True, and the protesters are risking theirs for something they believe in, not some cherished pair of shoes.
Randroid-ism only values dollar signs and widgets. You're gonna have an uphill battle explaining the concept of believing in something to some here. Especially to those who've had their liberties handed to them in a holographic mylar wrapped present on a silver plate.
Mighty fine young man. WATCH: Kenosha gunman Kyle Rittenhouse punches young woman weeks before protest killings
Depends on if they're stealing my banana or assaulting me in the process. Grab and run, not much to be done. Trying to attack me so that I don't hold on to the banana too tightly, well . . . sucks to be them. If I was armed, which 99.999999% of the time I am not. History amply demonstrates that aggression unresisted leads to bad things happening. It's only a "slippery slope argument" if it's false. The whole reason civilization has laws and law enforcement is based on the idea that when bad guys are free to be bad guys, they turn into worse guys.
