In killing another human being, it is either self defense, defense of property, or it is murder.
It is only self defense if the person is currently attacking or threatening to attack in a credible manner.
It is only defense of property if the person is violating your property through theft, destruction, or trespassing- and you'd better be sure the violation is serious enough to be worth killing over (and that any arbitration you might face would agree).
.
I will try commenting again. I wonder how the following would be handled in a free society.
ReplyDeleteYou walk into your home and find someone stealing your TV. You pull out your gun and say, "Put that down or I will kill you." He responds, "Go fuck yourself!" You shoot and kill him.
On one hand, no TV is worth a life. On the other, what is left of the concept of private property if anyone can walk off with your stuff without repercussion?
If I were asked to arbitrate, I'd say "Too bad, The thief should have kept his grubby paws off other people's property."
DeleteMaybe I'd suggest the homeowner pay one ounce silver in restitution to the thief's survivors, and the thief's estate pay the price of the bullet, blood clean-up, any damage done when he entered the property, replacement of the dropped TV with a new one, and anything else I could think of.
I don't have much sympathy for those who demonstrate that they don't respect the life, liberty, or property of those who are minding their own business. Choices have consequences, And sometimes consequences suck.
Threats come in many forms, and are not limited to clear and present physical violence or violations of property. If it is violating your rights in any way, it is a threat, thus your right to defense applies.
ReplyDeleteI will also argue that violence in defense is not always the best answer or most efficient means of neutralizing a threat. But if you decide on violence to protect your rights, you are within your right to do so.
What other sorts of threats do you believe justify killing?
DeleteI also agree that killing/violence is not always the best response- especially in the US police state. I won't (usually) second guess someone who seems to have killed in defense.
"What other sorts of threats do you believe justify killing?"
ReplyDeleteIt isn't limited to any particular circumstance, but rather criteria as it pertains to exercising rights. You have a right to defense of yourself and property and rights. If your rights are being encroached upon and a peaceful solution is impossible, you can resort to violence without being outside of your right to defense.
A hypothetical example could be something like being blocked from free travel. If all of your neighbors were to build walls around your property (on their property), then block your road access with trucks or trees or whatever, and refuse to move. What do you do?
You move the trucks anyway, as you are within your right to freely travel. But what if they take nonthreatening measures to counter your having a vehicle towed? ...like laying spikes on the road so a tow truck can't access.
At some point, this encroaching on your right to travel can/will be a threat to your ability to function and sustain a peaceful happy life. You are basically being imprisoned on your own land. If you want to leave, you may have to fight your way out. If that means shooting someone dead so they can no longer impeded you from removing the objects blocking access to rightful free travel, so be it.
(Bad example, I know. But it works for thought exercise.)
Somewhere on this blog, I and others have talked about such a scenario. I'll keep looking.
Delete