The Moral Force Continuum? A property scenario?

[DougO83]

You can and will be replaced.

True enough, but am I going to ventilate some moron for canvas and paint? no, it is of little or no significance to me personally.

The Mona Lisa cannot, and never will be, replaced, only copied.

So what? It is a painting. Sure, I could justify shooting the guy if I could make myslef believe that the others in the building were truly in danger.

Some things ARE worth more than a human life.

Not a painting though. I've been to te Louvre, seen the Sisine Chapel (along with variousother wonders all over Europe), I've been to the Smithsonian. But none of these things are worth the pain and hassle I would have to deal with for shooting some moron who didn't like the painting. For all most of the world knows, the painting may not even be the manuscript. Hell,none of us were around when it was painted, we very well could already be looking at a copy.

Not so much because of monetary value, but because their significance to Western civilization and culture transcends the centuries, serving as inspiration to future generations, and as a testament to the accomplishments of past generations.

I am very hard pressed to find the significance of the Mona Lisa, or any other artwork, or their inspiration to those today. I am not going to say that it isn't there at all. I just don't see it.

[DougO83]

PS: A human life is still worth more than a dog, regardless of the excuse.

You advocate deadly force for a piece of canvas and paint, but not for a living, breathing being? That is sick. And sad. I could not place the value of a painting over that of an animal. Given the silly Hollywood hypothetical of only being able to save one or the other, Mona Lisa would just have to burn.

[Eghad]

Its just not the painting..In Texas its called arson which under the state law deadly force is authorized. IMO I cant see a district attorney taking that one to court. The guy was going to commit arson in a building which put lives at risk. deadly force vs. deadly force.

[Dannavy85]

Theft of property, especially lawn ornaments, is no justification for armed response unless the perp clearly has arms in his hand or pulls a piece on you. Even if they pull a knife, a bat or a pipe, you are required in some states to retreat to a lockable, defensible location and call authorities. If the idiot wants to bust through your picture window, then you have the right to put him down.

[Doug.38PR]

Even if they pull a knife, a bat or a pipe, you are required in some states to retreat to a lockable, defensible location and call authorities.

^ slag that.

Not in Texas thank God.

[springmom]

Much as I hate to disagree with Capt. Charlie, he said:

Glenn, Glenn, Glenn.... You sure do know how to stir the pot . Gourmet food for thought, though.

Non-LEO:

a) The painting is not my property.
b) The painting is not on my property.
c) This is clearly not a self defense issue.
d) Monetary value is (or should be) irrelevant in the decision to use deadly force.

Conclusion: Deadly force is not justified.

And while I certainly agree about the gourmet stew the fact is that in Texas, which is the state he is referring to, it is a defense to prosecution that the actor (the shooter) was preventing arson.

PC §9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect
land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances
as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be
justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to
protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes
attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the
tangible
movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or
property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property;
or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or
deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides
with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

If setting the Mona Lisa on fire isn't criminal mischief, I don't know what would be.

We can argue the morality of shooting someone over a painting, certainly; especially when the painting is not your own. But that it is a defense to prosecution that you can protect a third person's property, is not in doubt.

Springmom

[nbk2000]

It's easy to be generous...when other people are paying.

Let the Mona Lisa burn. It's not like I don't have a dozen more just like it at home.

Using the 'arson' defense, if the ML burns, what's to stop the rest of the museum from burning too? If it rates having the ML on loan, it's got to have many other wonders in it too.

And comparing the life of a random dog to the Mona Lisa is what's sad.

Maybe you don't see why the ML is worth killing for because your own soul is lifeless and uninspired?

But don't worry. Generations to come will 'Get It' in the future, even if you don't get it now, and that's why it's worth saving and a dog isn't.

[JohnKSa]

While there are certain CRIMES that legally justify the use of deadly force it's a mistake to draw the conclusion that the OBJECTS involved are therefore worth a human life.

Defending human life with deadly force is intuitive. You're protecting something that is worth a human life (because it IS a human life) by using deadly force. It's a mistake to take assume that the few laws that justify protecting property with deadly force are proof that property is worth a human life.

The painting is not worth a human life. There may be aspects to the crime that destroys it that legally justify the use of deadly force, there is nothing in those laws that imply that the painting is valued above or equally with a human life. In the same vein, if one were somehow able to prove that the property involved were worth more than a human life, that would not automatically provide legal justification for using deadly force to protect it.

In this case, deadly force could be justified IN TEXAS due to the specific nature of the crime used to destroy the picture (arson). The criminal could just as easily be setting a trashcan on fire as far as the law is concerned. It might also be justified as preventing criminal mischief, but again, that law makes no assessment of the relative value of the property damage compared to human life.

In other words, when deadly force is legally justified it is justified by specific criminal activity on the part of the person whom the deadly force may be used against. In some cases it's easy to see the balance (life for life) and that leads to the mistaken understanding that any deadly force law is making a relative assessment of worth or that one's personal relative assessment of worth can automatically justify deadly force.

This all goes back to an old saying: "Horse thieves are not hanged for stealing horses, but so that horses may not be stolen."

[JunyTuck]

Can't think of any possession worthy of taking a human life! However if someone was stealing my guns I might have to reconsider!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

One can easily come up with a Hollywood scenario for a piece of property worth a human life. However, it would have a tie to human life.

Let's say, someone has come up with the DNA code for a virus that would destroy the AIDS virus. A terrorist who thinks AIDS should exist is going to destroy the research (come up with the manner and why there aren't backups). Shooting him would be quite legit in my mind. But this is because the property would save lives later.

However, no one has really said why the human life of a person going to destroy a great art work is worth more than the art work which will continue to inspire folks for centuries to come.

It is tautological to say a life is worth more than the Mona Lisa because it is a life.

Why is the life of such an evil person more valuable? Certainly we take life of innocents when it is to our benefit, in some cases.

Just because isn't really a reason.

[workinwifdakids]

In considering lethal force beforehand (which is critical to the combat mindset), we have to consider that we'll be judged by a group of socialist hoplophobes, and these bigots will have the State's blessing to put us in prison.

"But that's not fair!"

You're right. It's worse than unfair; it's morally repugnant. :barf:

Am I for one SECOND proposing we retreat from our moral responsibility, and hand over our property, or our daughter's honor, or our own lives out of fear of persecution from the mental midgets running this asylum?

Of course not. Μολὼν λαβ

I'm just saying that you have to take into account ahead of time what the consequences will be for using lethal force. Are you willing to be judged by ungrateful sheep who are so cowardly that - to paraphrase - they have to rely on men better than themselves for their own protection? Are you willing to face going to prison?

If the answer is "yes," then by all means - open fire. I'm not advocating inaction out of fear of the consequences, I'm simply saying that taking those consequences into consideration beforehand has to be part of the equation.

Oh, and no - I'd let Monet burn.

[revjen45]

If there IS any piece of property worth shooting over, it's a Harley or Indian.