|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 8, 2013, 11:05 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
I thought some of the laws were strange here. In this case I think its a joke that this guy was acquitted and would worry me that someone that quick to start shooting is in possession of firearms. PS Don't forget a young woman was paralysed and then died in this incident not a good example of American justice.
Last edited by manta49; June 8, 2013 at 11:22 AM. |
June 8, 2013, 11:27 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 876
|
Nothing is perfect. He just had a better lawyer than the prosecuter. Nothing wrong with the law. If thieves & criminals have nothing to fear what is to limit their behavior.
We used to hang horse thieves on the spot. Slowed that occupation down some. |
June 8, 2013, 11:35 AM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
Last edited by manta49; June 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM. |
|
June 8, 2013, 12:25 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
This reminds me of a San Antonio case years ago. A nice old gentleman reportedly shot some people who came to his house to do ill. He was the neighborhood Santa. Loved by the kids. He is initially seen as a hero.
Later it comes out that he had solicited two women to come to his house for a paid threesome. There was a dispute over price and Santa sent them off with lumps of coal, I presume. Their pimp returns with them and an argument ensues. Santa opens fire and it was deemed justified. His neighborhood reputation was sullied and sitting on his lap was no longer in the cards for the kiddies. As far as this -if the jury thinks it is reasonable that the action falls within the bounds of the law, that's American justice.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; June 8, 2013 at 02:20 PM. |
June 8, 2013, 01:31 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
June 8, 2013, 01:38 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
I am not thrilled with this case.
However, as far as life vs property goes, there are those here who would feel that defense of property never justifies deadly force. A while back, we had a problem in our area with some jerk (or jerks) going around with a bow and arrow, shooting horses and dogs. Suffice to say I am very happy they never came by our place, and that I never had to decide whether or not to shoot somebody over threatening my chattel. How many here, if honest with themselves, would take the "high ground" and allow the snipers to kill their pets and livestock, if they could stop them? You don't have to answer here, and it might be advisable not to do so, but it is something to think about. For those who determine that perhaps some "property" might justify armed defense, then how and where do you draw the line? |
June 8, 2013, 02:03 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
June 8, 2013, 02:07 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 876
|
I'm not advocating lynch mobs. Just saying that if thieves and criminals have some justifiable fear of armed/physical harm as a result of getting caught it tends to provide a deterrent.
I have worked hard all my life and have managed to acquire a few nice things. If I caught a thief in the act and they were getting away with my possessions I don't think I would be too hesitant to use deadly force. The only thing that would make me think twice would be the possible legal ramifications. I don't think shooting the hooker was justified. Lucky for him a jury saw it different. It is just my humble opinion but I would like to see public executions as I believe they would act as a definite deterrent. |
June 8, 2013, 02:14 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
manta49, first I don't think anybody here is particularly happy about the case in the OP.
Second, there is a difference in what the state should be allowed to do after the dust has settled, IE in sentencing after arrest, trial and conviction, and what an individual should be allowed to do in defense of self or property in the heat of the moment. I don't get all aghast at the thought of somebody getting shot in the act of burglary, for instance. This assumes no attempt to surrender, of course, but I don't agree with the majority that the law as it is in most places is correct in insisting deadly force be specifically limited only to threats against human life, or threats of grave bodily injury to humans. I will comply with the law to the best of my ability, but that does not mean I always agree with it. |
June 8, 2013, 02:28 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
One should read the book - Killing in Self-defense by Leverick. It's a great law text.
It covers in depth and historically the use of lethal force and discusses the property issue. It is reasonable for some to argue that killing in self-defense is unacceptable as taking another's life is a moral violation. That someone may do it to you, doesn't justify you doing it. That's the highest standard. How about shooting to defend property that is irreplaceable - a madman running at the Mona Lisa or an original copy of the Constitution with a firebomb? Or a beloved pet? Or using lethal force to prevent rape? Good discussion of that. Rape is not definitionally physically lethal. So to use lethal force to prevent it? One can argue that you cannot trust the attacker not to kill you. Or one can argue that the act causes such grievous psychological harm that lethal force is justified. But is psychological harm enough? Leverick said that is a tough call but came down as a yes on rape. Use of lethal force is not an easy thing to define in rational terms. We do have fast emotional evaluations. The TX standard was rationally determined to deal with property crimes in a different environment than today. However, the incident here may fit in the definitions of the law and jury acted within that or so it seems.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 8, 2013, 02:31 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
June 8, 2013, 02:35 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
manta49, what if they were in a farmer's barn, trying to steal his tractor? No threat to life, but a potential threat to livelihood, especially if the tractor were not insured.
My point is, if people play felonious games, then it does not seem morally unjust to me when they win horrible prizes. |
June 8, 2013, 02:46 PM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
June 8, 2013, 02:55 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 876
|
Most things are insured if you can afford it. Alot of folks can't.
Manta, seems you are just the type thieves are looking for. Easy, safe prey. But hey, it's a personel choice and I'm sure your laws are quite different from those here in Texas. |
June 8, 2013, 02:59 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
There are thefts from people that cannot be replaced. People do not have insurance if they live on the margins. Is a great art masterpiece more or less important than the life of some vandal?
IIRC, when the Mona Lisa was in the USA - a silly woman decided it was not being probably cared for and crossed over the satin ropes so she could check it. A marine guard came close to bayoneting her and did whack her a good one. What level of physical harm is acceptable to protect property? Would you put someone's eye out to protect property - or would you never use physical force to protect property? A good punch can kill someone.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 8, 2013, 03:37 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
June 8, 2013, 03:48 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
That begs the issue. Someone in your house might be seen as a threat to you.
However, if you were a museum guard and saw someone running towards a valuable piece of art - like the man who attacked the Pieta - would you use any level of force against the person? Any level of force has the risk of grave harm. Is force per se not acceptable if it is not to prevent grievous bodily harm?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 8, 2013, 04:09 PM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
June 8, 2013, 04:13 PM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The law relates to using force to protect property. Thus, the relationship is whether force is ever acceptable for property protection. The man's money was going to be lost forever.
Thus, the law of the land seems to be that the force used was acceptable as determined by jury. Thus, his action was moral if you go by the standard of the law of the land. If you disagree with the law's principle then in your view it was immoral. It's really like one of Kohlberg's exercises. The action is moral under a Stage 4 Conventional morality view. A 5 or 6th level analysis might say no.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 8, 2013, 04:21 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
manta49, just as Glenn summed up in his last post, it all goes back to whether protection of property should be a reason for use of force.
I do find it interesting that you think it might be justifiable for protection of art, or of public property, if the law allows. Such thinking immediately undermines a "moral" argument, and takes the idea of property vs life out of the realm of black and white - which is where you seemed to have taken it not too long ago. So, why do you think public property is more important than private property? Or, why do you think use of deadly force is acceptable when the law would say it is, even in cases where you would not think it reasonable? Edit: As Glenn noted, not everybody can afford to insure valuable property. I sometimes wonder if insurance company lobbyists were among those who pushed for legislation and case law antagonistic to defense of property... |
June 8, 2013, 04:28 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
As Mleake points out, one cannot really come up with easy dichotomous moral principles for the use of force.
As the book I cited mentions, the only one possible is that it is never acceptable to use potentially lethal force against another human under any circumstances. Taking life is wrong and one should sacrifice yourself or that of another innocent rather than take the life of an evil doer. This is a principle of some religions and/or philosophies. It is not the operative principle of most and thus the use of force is a set of axes or continuums on many dimensions - some of which probably aren't linear and/or orthogonal. How's that for Philosophy 101?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 8, 2013, 04:29 PM | #47 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by manta49; June 8, 2013 at 04:44 PM. |
||
June 8, 2013, 04:36 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Who said anything about being happy?
However, I think a good argument can be made that if one is not allowed to defend one's property, then in reality one has no right to property. I also think that saying, "hey, people can insure stuff," could be translated as, "law abiding people should be required to subsidize thieves, by paying insurance so they can replace stuff, and so thieves don't have to fear physical harm." Really, aren't you putting the onus and financial burden on property owners, by saying "they should insure themselves against theft"? I think the burdens should be on the thieves. |
June 8, 2013, 04:43 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Manta - you said it was a joke that the man was acquitted. How is that a joke if the circumstances fit the law of the land?
You said the use of force defend property was acceptable if it was the law of the land. If you don't like the law of the land, that's different. Again, you beg the meta issue of force to save property. Is it ever acceptable to you? If the man shot a woman who stole the money he kept for his dear old grandma's birthday present - would that be OK as compared to stealing his money for sexual services not rendered? Money is money. Gotta go - discuss among yourself and there will be a moral philosophy and law quiz tomorrow.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 8, 2013, 05:03 PM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|