The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Sigma 40 Blaster · June 23, 2009, 07:12 AM

So it looks like there is a big camp that thinks the use of deadly force is only OK to prevent death/heinous injury to another human. There is another big camp that thinks the use of deadly force is OK to protect property as well.

I guess I ride the fence on that issue, leaning more towards the latter. If I'm a small business owner and get a call from the alarm company I'm going to get up, get dressed (which would include a gun since I CCW), and go to my company to speak to police (I would assume they could beat me there).

If by the time I get there and see no red and blue lights I might feel like I want to go into MY COMPANY to assess any theft/damage. I might not, I don't own a business but I imagine I would, I know for a fact I have received a call re: my home burglar alarm going off and did not wait for police to show up. (when police finally showed up fifteen minutes later they would not come inside to clear my home BTW)

If the burglar still happened to be present I would detain or defend myself, I have no moral or ethical obligation to let someone take my property from my home/business. Their actions from that point would dictate how the situation unfolded from there. I guess it just so happens I live in a state where the laws align with that philosophy and I'd likely be legally covered.

In this particular situation I can't say that I advocate pumping the burglar full of lead on sight but I think it is possible that he might have had something else in his hands that was mistaken for a gun. I can think of several instances in which police mistook a cell phone or some other object for a firearm and used deadly force.

But again I have a problem with someone stating that a good guy has a moral obligation to let a burglar go about their merry way. There's a difference between a judgement call that has to be made after assessing the situation and something you're bound to do. By clinging to the idea that you're morally obligated to not use deadly force in a situation such as that there is a good chance that in the heat of the moment the BG could escalate the scenario while you're still fighting with your morality to make a decision for what to do next.

BTW, I like how this thread has focused on that philosophy rather than damning the actions of actor(s) with very little access to concrete information.

June 23, 2009, 07:12 AM	#12
Sigma 40 Blaster Senior Member Join Date: July 1, 2007 Location: East Texas Posts: 997	So it looks like there is a big camp that thinks the use of deadly force is only OK to prevent death/heinous injury to another human. There is another big camp that thinks the use of deadly force is OK to protect property as well. I guess I ride the fence on that issue, leaning more towards the latter. If I'm a small business owner and get a call from the alarm company I'm going to get up, get dressed (which would include a gun since I CCW), and go to my company to speak to police (I would assume they could beat me there). If by the time I get there and see no red and blue lights I might feel like I want to go into MY COMPANY to assess any theft/damage. I might not, I don't own a business but I imagine I would, I know for a fact I have received a call re: my home burglar alarm going off and did not wait for police to show up. (when police finally showed up fifteen minutes later they would not come inside to clear my home BTW) If the burglar still happened to be present I would detain or defend myself, I have no moral or ethical obligation to let someone take my property from my home/business. Their actions from that point would dictate how the situation unfolded from there. I guess it just so happens I live in a state where the laws align with that philosophy and I'd likely be legally covered. In this particular situation I can't say that I advocate pumping the burglar full of lead on sight but I think it is possible that he might have had something else in his hands that was mistaken for a gun. I can think of several instances in which police mistook a cell phone or some other object for a firearm and used deadly force. But again I have a problem with someone stating that a good guy has a moral obligation to let a burglar go about their merry way. There's a difference between a judgement call that has to be made after assessing the situation and something you're bound to do. By clinging to the idea that you're morally obligated to not use deadly force in a situation such as that there is a good chance that in the heat of the moment the BG could escalate the scenario while you're still fighting with your morality to make a decision for what to do next. BTW, I like how this thread has focused on that philosophy rather than damning the actions of actor(s) with very little access to concrete information.