Lives and possessions: personal morals or public policy?

[Glaug-Eldare]

I've heard it said quite often that using a handgun (or any weapon, for that matter) in the case of robbery is morally wrong, because "possessions aren't worth killing over." I hope everybody agrees with the quotation, but I wonder how y'all feel about codifying it. Should a self-defense plea be rejected if the defendant refused to comply with an unlawful demand (with or without threat), and was subsequently attacked? Should compliance be considered a means of escaping danger in a strict "duty to retreat" jurisdiction? It is often an effective strategy for avoiding violence, but it also necessarily means that the robbery is successful. What's a more important goal: preventing a nonviolent criminal act from escalating into a violent encounter, or protecting the people's right to refuse an unlawful demand, and subsequent defense?

[TheWraith]

1. There's a problem with that logic.

It assumes that a robber will automatically leave the person alone if they comply. How, on sight, do you tell the difference between a robber and a robber/rapist, or robber/murderer? How do you know that person isn't suffering from mental illness, or high, or worried about being identified and put away for their third strike, and thus might just try to kill you anyway even if you do what they want?

[Hoyt]

6. Lord you guys are paranoid.

[ManiacJoe]

8. No, just more knowledgeable than you.

Do you really not watch the evening news? (Or whatever news sources are available to you?)

[X_Digger]

10. Hey Hoyt, you're wanted over here..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117232198

You be sure to tell those dead people they were being paranoid, k?

[Remmah2]

17. Maybe we should pass a law that mandates victims pretend they are dead until the perp leaves.

Yup, that'd negate the need for any victim possible needing a firearm.

[SATIRical]

21. You forgot to answer the question (nt)

[hack89]

23. So you are denying the existience of violent armed criminals?

or are you saying that in a split second anyone can immediately determine the intentions of a criminal with 100% accuracy?

[Atypical Liberal]

2. I have no problem with using deadly force to defend property.

Everything I own I traded some time of my life to obtain. It is irreplaceable. Even with insurance, I'll never get that time back, nor the time I will have to work to earn the deductible.

I value my life time as priceless. If someone were to ask a dying person how much a day of their time is worth, they couldn't put a price tag on it.

So I have no problem using deadly force to defend property. And in my state, I can do so lawfully.

[Clames]

3. Actually..

because "possessions aren't worth killing over."

...it should be "Possessions aren't worth dying over." There is a vast difference between those two quotes. If a person believes it is worth the risk to their life to invade a person's space or property to take "stuff" then that person is solely responsible for the consequences. It should never be incumbent on the person acting in self-defense to retreat from where they are lawfully allowed to be.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. I do not trust a person who has elected to place a mortgage upon my life in exchange for my stuff

not to shoot me anyway if I hand over my stuff.

Someone comes at me with a gun or a knife, or any other weapon, I don't care if they intended to say 'give me your wallet or else', because they are not going to finish the sentence.

[Hoyt]

5. Only way you will get gun culture to stop killing over STUFF it to punish them harshly.

You can read the callous comments right here and see that.

I do not believe some yahoo with a gun should play judge, jury, executioner.

Now, if the person is a real threat to one's family, that is another thing. I'm talking about someone shooting a burglar fleeing with a few things in their hands. It is not that important.

[Glaug-Eldare]

11. That's sort of the question, though

We both agree that the instruction "give me your wallet" by itself isn't justification to use deadly force, because the demand isn't a threat to life. I think we also agree that deadly force (including knives and fists) should not be used unless peaceful alternatives are exhausted. The question is, has the, uh, assailee exhausted his peaceful alternatives if he refuses to part with his property in an attempt to end the threat without violence?

[Hoyt]

12. Some circumstances will have to be determined by juries.

Maybe there needs to be a special crime designation for someone who shoots when not reasonable in these cases.

[AH1Apache]

13. If they have a weapon and say give me your wallet

then you are absolutly in the right to use deadly force. That being said, if I feel that all they want is my wallet, then I'm going to give it up, but if the thief's actions lead me to believe that he is going to harm me physically, then I will use deadly force to protect myself and anyone else with me.

[Lizzie Poppet]

14. I'm 5'3" tall and weigh 109lbs.

Statistically, it is overwhelmingly likely that anyone making such a demand of me will be someone far larger and stronger (the vast majority of folks committing strongarm or armed robbery are young males, a group of which an even more vast majority are a lot bigger than a shrimp like me). Even if they are not displaying a weapon and are in fact unarmed, they are making an obvious implied threat of physical violence. Any physical conflict with someone with such an enormous advantage in size and weight has a significant probability of resulting in death or serious physical injury to me. It is not necessary for their threat of violence to be explicit under swuch circumstances. The implicit threat is not just plausible, it's the most reasonable interpretation of their intent.

I am under no moral obligation to assume that they will eschew violence against me, even if they state that this is the case. Their credibility is non-existent (they're committing a felony crime, ferchrissakes...). Scenarios such at this end in serious injury or death to the victims - even non-resisting ones - with sufficient frequency that it is by no means "paranoid" (as Hoyt rather vacuously described it) to be concerned about such an outcome.

Sorry, the implicit threat of violence contained in the act of attempting an armed or strongarm robbery is sufficient moral grounds for violent resistance. I will never even consider obeying any law that attempts to dictate otherwise.

[PavePusher]

15. Didn't you get the memo?

You're supposed to use your "natural fighting skills". This apparently allows even the smallest female to overpower any opponent with a deftness envied by any movie ninja.

[hack89]

22. So I have to gamble my life that they would be satsified with my wallet?

they are the criminals - why not let them assume that particular risk?

The robber puts a price on his life when he tries to rob me - if he thinks risking his life is worth my wallet who am I to argue with him?

[Remmah2]

18. Maybe we could mandate burglars turn themselves in once a year.

Maybe burglars could file taxes too.

Yup.

The only thing a burglar should leave your house with is an ass full of German Shepherd.

[Lurks Often]

19. Fixed it for you

I do not believe some criminal with a weapon should play judge, jury, executioner.

[PavePusher]

7. This has been debated a few times here.

There seem to be two issues in the "O.K. to defend property" camp.

1. Do I have any right to attempt to stop a criminal from stealing my belongings? If so, how far may I go to make her/him stop? I say, yes, you have every right to make them stop their act of theft. There is no moral or legal principal that requires me to let others steal from me. If there were, this would be a pretty shitty world, and we'd all still be living in caves or trees. If one can accomplish this with non-lethal resistance, fine, but I do not believe that the victim of the theft has any obligation to undertake any risk to themselves that they do not choose freely. The criminal, by engaging in the theft, has consented to risk her/his life in exchange for "stuff".

2. If the property involved is, or can be reasonably judged to be, critical to the survival and well-being of the theft victim, any force required to stop the theft is fair game. If I am poor and someone tries to steal my food, shelter or other survival items, they don't get any consideration unless they stop. If someone tries to steal the tools essential to my livelyhood, that enable me to pay for those survival items, anything goes.

The problem becomes one of where to draw the line. What is essential to survival, and how much force can you use to stop theft of non-essentials. The simplest way to deal with this moral question is, of course, DON'T FUCKING STEAL.

[ileus]

9. You wouldn't want a thief to make off with several of my firearms would you?

I'm house sitting for my neighbor right now....she sent a text telling me her daughter had made bail and to keep a sharp eye out that she wasn't to be anywhere near their home. She also said if I see anything odd don't hesitate to call the cops. And I won't their stuff isn't worth risking my life....however.com my Jeep........don't get near it or I'll hurt ya.

[Remmah2]

16. Touche! nt

nt

[Glaug-Eldare]

20. So I take it the consensus is "personal morals"

Sounds like there's a clear winner in this one XD