October 24, 2009, 06:19 PM | #126 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
||
October 24, 2009, 06:26 PM | #127 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
TG...
... guess you're right, I must not know much about the military.
Other than just finishing up my 20, and now being a deploying contractor, I've had no exposure whatever. So yes, I understand that airlift is critical. Then again, I asked the same question, using a primary trainer aircraft. Think T-34, T-6, or T-37. Those aren't "critical assets" by any stretch, yet they would also be defended by armed security, with fatal results to a saboteur who didn't surrender. And I'm not jumping around all over the place. The theme has remained the same - government agencies are authorized to use deadly force in defense of property. What makes that inherently morally acceptable, if it is unacceptable to use deadly force to protect private property? You have flung insults, and behaved in a snarky manner, and made fun of my scenarios. What you have not done is answered my basic question, which has remained the same throughout the different examples I've offered. Why is it morally acceptable for the government to use deadly force to defend unoccupied, non-defense-critical property, if it is morally unacceptable for a private individual to do the same thing? Either answer that question, or admit that you don't have a good answer for it. And TG, just like I told OutCast, when you talk about the authority to do things granted by law and ROE, you are talking about legal vs moral authority. The argument you've used vs individuals is a moral argument. Please stick to the moral argument. Legal and moral aren't always all that closely related. Last edited by MLeake; October 24, 2009 at 07:01 PM. |
October 24, 2009, 06:32 PM | #128 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2009
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 811
|
I would like to have an answer to this as well....
[FONT=]Why is it morally acceptable for the government to use deadly force to defend unoccupied, non-defense-critical property, if it is morally unacceptable for a private individual to do the same thing?[/FONT]
I've read the last 2 pages of this snipe fest and would enjoy the next volley.
__________________
sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W |
October 24, 2009, 06:40 PM | #129 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2009
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 811
|
Sorry for the double post but...
This reminds me of that old joke about the scruffy looking guy offering a lady $20 for ____________ and she acts very indignant until he sets a suitcase with a $1,000,000 in it on the bar and makes the same offer.... which she then delightfully accepts.
So he sez .. of course... "Young lady so it's not a matter of what you are but merely what your price is." So... what is the price of a thief or saboteur or arsonists' life??
__________________
sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W |
October 24, 2009, 07:11 PM | #130 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 4, 2008
Posts: 119
|
castle/govt property
Ever seen posted property? "Tresspassers will be shot". Crystal clear. I always liked clarity.
|
October 24, 2009, 08:30 PM | #131 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you have the credentials you claim, and I'm sure you do, then regardless of your personal feelings, you will follow standing orders. Why? because you too know the difference between the Apple and the Orange. Quote:
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - Last edited by OuTcAsT; October 24, 2009 at 08:45 PM. |
||||
October 24, 2009, 08:44 PM | #132 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
OutCast...
You are the one dodging the question.
I've stated, repeatedly, that we are talking about YOUR interpretation of whether the POLICY is moral, not about the morality of a soldier, sailor, or airman following the policy. BTW, since I'm the one defending the idea of confronting persons over crimes against one's own property, it should be obvious to anybody that I won't have a moral issue with the aforementioned soldiers, sailors, and airmen following their lawful orders. And no, I would not have refused such orders. So, once again - and you still haven't answered the question, just made some snide and insipid remark about apples and oranges - we aren't talking about legality. Even if you want to discuss law, legality does not create morality, although the reverse can sometimes be true - our morality usually biases the sorts of laws we pass. But, what is legal is not always moral. So, if you believe that the potential use of deadly force as a result of confrontations over property crimes is IMMORAL, when the confrontation is made by a private citizen protecting his property, then how can you think the POLICY of using deadly force to confront perpetrators of property crimes is MORAL when the confrontation is made by government personnel? To reiterate, this is NOT about the morality of the security personnel. It's about the morality of the POLICY that allows the engagement, over non-national-security critical assets. Please answer, for once. |
October 24, 2009, 08:52 PM | #133 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
I have, numerous times. While I do not feel that shooting someone over my personal property is justifiable morally (by ME) I have no problem with assets of the DoD being protected by lethal force, nor would I refuse a direct order to do so. Why? Because my 36" plasma TV has no effect on national security, the encroachment of UA's on a military installation does. Should I use smaller words ? or type more slowly?
Quote:
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
|
October 24, 2009, 09:04 PM | #134 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; October 24, 2009 at 10:06 PM. Reason: clarity |
||||||
October 24, 2009, 09:07 PM | #135 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
To rephrase the question: if a piece of property is deemed as having an effect on national security, then it's OK to kill over it? How do we decide what qualifies and what doesn't? Who has the ultimate moral authority to make such distinctions? I won't pretend to have answers; they're rhetorical questions. They're good food for thought, but I think they merit a separate thread of their own. To sum up: Castle Doctrine good. Joe Horn maybe not so good. Apples and oranges, both tasty. Defending the honor of a 36" Plasma TV to the gravest extreme (no matter how amazing Halo looks on it), questionable. Getting all hot and bothered, and not in a good way, on a Saturday night? Meh.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
October 24, 2009, 09:14 PM | #136 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Now back to some football!
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
October 24, 2009, 09:46 PM | #137 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
|
October 24, 2009, 10:05 PM | #138 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Giving up hope that this will go back on the rails. I tried.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
October 24, 2009, 10:24 PM | #139 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2009
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 811
|
Going way way back to the OP....
Tennessee has a very similar Castle Law. However......
I couldn't take a life just for trying to steal my truck from my garage (even though I spent 8 hours today removing dead paint and waxing). I could take a life if someone showed up in my house uninvited at 3:00 AM. I'm not sure until it happened what I would do if someone was trying to blow up my stable with lots of horses in it.
__________________
sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W |
October 24, 2009, 10:33 PM | #140 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Lights out, ladies and gentlemen.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|