Really? You dont think I should be able to use whatever force is necessary to stop someone from robbing me? Is that like just if he is taking the good silver, or no matter what material goods he is after? Am I allowed to maim him, just not kill him?

It's really the Wild West around here. No you shouldn't be able to kill someone to stop them from robbing you. Obviously it's hard to put a price on human life, but surely it has to be more than your wallet or your tv set.

Of course, if someone's robbing you with more than his fists, you should be able to defend your safety, but that's a little different.

Make post 10000 about stripper and blow milestone binge plz kthx

How's that avatar working out for you?

Interested as well

2nd/3rd Degree Murder. Life in prison x 2.

Just wait until Miles shows up, then the long national nightmare of sweater vest domination will be over.

Ask pvn and TomCollins, they'll confirm.

The thing is, if they're going to charge him with murder, they can probably make a case it was premeditated since he apparently told the dispatcher he was going to kill the guys, and spent a couple of minutes chatting it up with the dispatcher, listening to the dispatcher's spiel about not going outside of his house to shoot the guys (ie, Horn had plenty of time to reconsider, and a rational guy in his ear telling him not to do it)...and then he went out and shot the guys anyway with the stated intent of killing them. Sounds like premeditated murder to me.

I suspect it's going to be hard to charge this guy with anything serious given the circumstances and the probable outcry of public support the guy will receive, but if this scenario played out exactly the same way, except in California (instead of Sugarland Texas) and the guy shot a couple of white suburban teenagers (instead of some brown guys), I feel confident saying he'd probably be facing a couple of first degree murder charges.

I don't know all that much about law, but give the definition from wikipedia this does not seem like premeditated murder at all:

"Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension."

I don't know the specific definitions of 2nd/3rd degree murders and manslaughters, but one of them has to fit the description of what horn did better than premeditated murder. Especially given the last part of the definition.

I agree with your 2nd paragraph.

i sure did!

obviously murder, imo.

I'm asking how much of my property I'm supposed to allow him to take if my only option is to kill him. All of it, is presumably your answer right?

Does every thread have to become a fantasy island hypothetical?

Seriously you cant imagine any way that could happen? Like, say I see him robbing me and he has a gun? My life isnt in danger because I could just leave. But there is no way I'm stopping him short of shooting him.

Its not a fantasy-land situation, but it wouldnt matter if it was. Someone is saying I can never kill someone to defend my property. I'm interested in testing the bounds of this. He made the specific comment "if they are stealing your TV" or something like that, which was unnecessarily dismissive. I'm interested in situations where they are taking more than my TV, even though I dont see any real distinction. Why didnt you jump on him for reducing my entire question to somehow being about protecting my TV?

Never mind, I answered my own question. In the real world (as opposed to my fantasy island hypothetical) I would never need to kill anyone, I could shoot the gun out of his hand, shoot his belt of and after he trips on his fallen pants I'd tie him up.

Kaj, you seem to be really looking out for everyone and everything around here. In fact, I'm not sure how this forum survived your hiatus. Some may assume you to be self-righteous and antagonizing, but your noble intentions shine through. At least to me. I'm gonna name you THE PEOPLES' WARRIOR!!! You do some big things.

Vhawk, I personally thought the point of your question was quite clear and relevant. But unfortunately it wasn't good enough for The Peoples' Warrior. You'll have to work a little harder.

That's absurd. I mean actively killing someone who is just trespassing is over the line, but someone getting killed by a trap you set should be completely fine.

I can confirm that you are liable in civil and probably criminal court for setting a trap that results in death. I'm curious why Alex thinks otherwise. I would think everyone could agree is that lethal force is only justified to protect your life. An intruder killed by a trap usually doesn't qualify because the owner is usually well away.

I would use lethal force to protect the life of someone else too and possibly to protect someone who was in the process of being raped.

I would say lethal force is acceptable to stop theft depending on the value of what's being stolen. Stealing a loaf of bread = no. Stealing your grandmother's engagement ring = yes.

This isn't about that though. If someone wants to set traps in their home that's their business and if those traps happen to kill someone that's that person's fault for being somewhere they shouldn't, not the property owners.

Where do you draw this arbitrary line? If I leave a banana peel lying somewhere in my home in the hopes that an intruders slips on it, busts their skull opens and dies, is that murder? If I get a guard dog and it mauls an intruder to death, is that murder?

Is the audio edited/time compressed or not? It sounds like he just ran out and gunned them down before they even knew what was happening, but somehow I doubt that's the whole story.

Just because the line is arbitrary, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Is [censored] an 18-year-old OK? Ya, sure. 16? Eh. 12? 9? It's an arbitrary cut off but I'm sure you agree that eventually you're molesting a child.

I generally agree that when you're intruding on someone else's property you sort of surrender the benefit of the doubt, but I don't think it's so simple as to say, basically, anything goes. The trap, as I see it, is sort of like a proactive defense. You're putting it there for a purpose, and not just cause you like the way it looks from the living room.

When someone flicks my ear they're violating my property, but I don't think I necessarily have the right to then punch them in the nose. Certainly not to stab them. So I don't see why you necessarily have the right to proactively set a trap that will kill someone who might be stumbling through your property. I mean, sometimes people cut through my lawn. It's sort of accepted that while it's my property, it's safe to assume I won't mind very much, and if I do I'll ask them to stop. So it's almost like implied consent. Would it be OK to set a deadly booby trap, and if someone sets it off that's just their fault for walking through my lawn?

I'm an ACist and I don't think my perspective here is contradictory to AC or the regard for property rights.

I think there are a lot of fine lines in justice, which is why I (and you, I'm sure) feel strongly that courts need an efficient means of incentive, so that we can have the right people (rather than people reacting to the mechanism of knee jerk public approval) making these important decisions distinctions.

Also Alex, I think your way of looking at it is probably correct in truly objective terms. My way is only "fair" as long as we live in (and I guess, accept) an imperfect society. As we progress, and become more prosperous and more secure, I'd say violations that are objectively equivalent become interpreted as bigger burdens. So it becomes more reasonable to apply severe consequence and it thus approaches the point where you can apply lethal defense/retaliation at the slightest violation (as you're talking about).

So I guess what I said above only applies subjectively to how we view fairness based on what we are as a society today. I have no problem with justice being subjective, but I'm not really sure exactly why. I guess believing that it's not necessarily OK to kill someone who is violating your property is basically an acceptance of bias. Maybe that makes me weak. But it also just seems right, since I guess it isn't "fair" to gravely punish one piece of the puzzle (the person violating your property) when society itself is very flawed, and thus encourages flaws.

Lawn != in the house. Although I would say that it's fine so long as you have a fence. Everything else in your post completely ignored the points and questions made in my post. The fact that it was arbitrary had nothing to do with my point, yet you latched on to that.