The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 24, 2009, 06:19 PM   #126
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
but we're really just sniping at each other here.
You're right. You ever seen the game where the gophers pop up and you just keep knocking them down? Gets tiring after awhile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Is there a moral or constitutional authority granted to those guarding such assets that is not available to civilians, and if so, from where is it derived?
For military installations it is derived from statute and Rules of Engagement policy by DoD.
__________________
"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.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old October 24, 2009, 06:26 PM   #127
MLeake
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old October 24, 2009, 06:32 PM   #128
Dragon55
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
Dragon55 is offline  
Old October 24, 2009, 06:40 PM   #129
Dragon55
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
Dragon55 is offline  
Old October 24, 2009, 07:11 PM   #130
CARGUY2244
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.
CARGUY2244 is offline  
Old October 24, 2009, 08:30 PM   #131
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
Quote:
Either answer that question, or admit that you don't have a good answer for it.
I will challenge you to do the same, if you can. You just stated;

Quote:
... 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
So, you must have some knowledge of the COC,ROE, what constitutes a direct order, and the oath you and many of the rest of us have taken. Since you dodged the question the first time, let me ask again;

Quote:
Let me ask you this, since I gather you are either active or former service;(Now confirmed) If your MOS puts you on one of these security details, and (Lets assume you don't feel shooting to protect property is morally justifiable)
you are required by orders, or the circumstances, to fire, will you disregard the order? Or if you are in a command position, would you give that order if security were your standing orders?
Now please answer the question, will you do your duty or not? (or again dodge or obfuscate the simple, direct question?)

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:
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.
Please MLeake dont make such a "disingenuous" request, as you know full well that the two have no bearing on each other.
__________________
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.
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old October 24, 2009, 08:44 PM   #132
MLeake
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old October 24, 2009, 08:52 PM   #133
OuTcAsT
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:
just made some snide and insipid remark about apples and oranges
Sorry but that is what it boils down to, it ain't rocket surgery.
__________________
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 -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old October 24, 2009, 09:04 PM   #134
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
So yes, I understand that airlift is critical. Then again, I asked the same question, [this time] using a primary trainer aircraft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
And I'm not jumping around all over the place.
ROFL! No you're not jumping around you just keep changing the property example each time you are refuted. If I answer the trainer question what will be next; shoplifting in the PX?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
yet they would also be defended by armed security, with fatal results to a saboteur who didn't surrender.
That is called resisting arrest not using deadly force to defend property.

Quote:
government agencies are authorized to use deadly force in defense of property
No, they are not authorized to use deadly force in defense of all government property. Were you really on active duty? Can you not understand that the government thru law can do things morally that civilians cannot? They can imprison people, you cannot, they can execute people, you cannot, they can declare war, you cannot, they can seize property, you cannot etc. There is no moral equivilence that you are asserting between lawful use of deadly force by the government and that of private citizens. Therefore the apples and oranges OuTcAsT keeps calling you on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
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?
The government doesn't use deadly force to defend unoccupied, non-defense-critical property. Period. So the question is moot. The government may only use deadly force to defend certain property and if you were really on active duty you would know that. As I stated before MPs who shoot folk for shoplifting will probably be court martialed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
Legal and moral aren't always all that closely related.
But more often than not they are.
__________________
"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
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old October 24, 2009, 09:07 PM   #135
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
Because my 36" plasma TV has no effect on national security, the encroachment of UA's on a military installation does.
It might, depending on what was watched on it

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
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 24, 2009, 09:14 PM   #136
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
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?
The gubmint. See DoD Directive 5210.56 http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynam...tml/521056.htm

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.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old October 24, 2009, 09:46 PM   #137
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
Quote:
There is no moral equivalence that you are asserting between lawful use of deadly force between government and private citizens. Therefore the apples and oranges OuTcAsT keeps calling you on.
Precisely, I could not find enough three letter words to state my point any more unambiguously.
__________________
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 -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old October 24, 2009, 10:05 PM   #138
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
Now back to some football!
New York Red Bulls won!

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
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 24, 2009, 10:24 PM   #139
Dragon55
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
Dragon55 is offline  
Old October 24, 2009, 10:33 PM   #140
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Lights out, ladies and gentlemen.
Al Norris is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.07461 seconds with 8 queries