Garland Business owner's son kills suspected copper thief

[Cosmoline]

But this "What if" game is pointless.

I'm asking you to consider hypos. Life itself is a what if game, a series of choices. None of my scenarios is unusual. Many have happened to me personally. I have seen a man come into the garage to take an item he felt was his. I know of a relative who actually hired some bums off Burnside to ransack my dead great grandmother's house and take everything before the property could be divided. Not a nice thing to do, but should we start killing over it?

If you think putting your life in danger is a reasonable alternative to shooting a bad guy then you clearly win this argument.

I believe on a moral and legal basis that the only reason any of us should be taking any human life as individuals is precisely to defend our person and our lives. There is no other valid reason for an individual citizen to go that far. I also believe it is righteous to stand your ground and defend your property with your life. I do not believe a duty to retreat should be imposed. But even then the killing must be in defense of your life, not mere property. Otherwise we have placed property over human life in value and empowered the individual victim to be judge and jury on the spot. That's profoundly immoral even if the legislature approves it.

This is why I'm throwing out hypos about fleeing criminals and non-violent thieves. If you remove the danger to self, then killing a person over property becomes indefensible. The use of deadly force must always turn on the imminent peril to yourself or others, not just peril to stuff.

 

[brerrabbit]

Cosmoline

Still avoiding the core of the thread and posting scenarios to get the response you want.

 

[brerrabbit]

Hmm, ransacking a kins home after they are dead. Is it worth protecting with lethal force?

Yes.

Again you are still avoiding the core issue.

Is property worth defending with force?

 

[La Pistoletta]

Don't separate the act of theft from the thief. The thief is the act. It's not a case of two people, a criminal and, some property and "how do we solve this equation?".

 

[JWarren]

Cosomoline wrote:

I'm asking you to consider hypos.

No, you are throwing out scenerios until you get one that you get a desired response from.

I can do that too-- and I'll help you--

-- Sometimes I go to my Dad's and borrow a few of his tools.

-- Mom has come to get a thing or two that she was out of in the kitchen before.

-- A neighbor came and took our jeep to pull his truck out of mud last deer season while we were gone.


Suprisingly, none got shot.

This is silly.


-- John

 

[Cosmoline]

Is property worth defending with force?

Of course. Absolutely. But you cannot kill a person simply over property. You can kick him in the groin, set the guard dogs on him or even shoot his tires out in the right circumstances, but if there is no threat to you personally or to others physically, you should not be killing him simply because he is a thief and you want to send a message or teach a lesson.

As to the precise case here or in other cases, I do not know all the facts. These encounters are often very confusing and things happen very quickly. It's entirely possible for a home owner to still be reasonably fearful of his life and safety even if the criminal's back is turned to him. It's up to the DA, the grand jury and in some cases to a criminal jury to decide whether the line was crossed. What I'm saying is there's a DAMNED GOOD REASON for that line to be there. And we erase it at our peril.

 

[La Pistoletta]

An ongoing crime isn't a detached, calm situation where a victim can "weigh the scales" on what should happen. A thief would not be sentenced to death in a court of law, but death may result from defensive action by the victim. It has nothing to do with "reasonable punishment" or "that much power held by one man".

It is a case of a victim being wronged, and defending himself against the wrongdoing in a way that is safe for him, ie. using lethal force. Why? Because he is innocent and cannot be expected to put his own life or property into jeopardy.


You, Cosmoline and Joe Dempko, simply refuse to properly acknowledge the existence of right and wrong. Laws aren't automatically right. They can be, but most aren't. And laws that give criminals the right to demand anything from victims other than to not be tied down and tortured, when no longer a threat, are dead wrong.

I will not risk even a bruise just to give the perp a "fair fight". Why should I? Am I guilty of the crime of existing and leading a peaceful life? That proposition is yours and it is obscene.

Crime is a choice. Criminals are worth less than a stone in the woods. At least those stones can be counted on to leave us alone.

 

[Cosmoline]

I will not risk even a bruise. Why should I? Am I guilty of the crime of existing and leading a peaceful life? That proposition is yours and it is obscene.

If you're not willing to risk a bruise, and the thief is no longer a threat to you personally, then you should call 911 and leave it to the authorities. Sorry if that seems unfair to you. I live in a state where EVERYONE is well armed. Better armed than most any Texican. Better armed than the Swedish army. Many of us have taken many higher animal lives and will not flinch from taking human life it necessary. Most of us know exactly what a bullet will do. In such a society it is even more important than usual to avoid crossing the ancient lines between self defense and murder. Because if we go down that road we have the power to do profound evil to each other, and to destroy many many lives. That's why I take this more seriously than some. It's not just hypothetical. I really do have the power to kill, as does nearly everyone else here. I have killed, and I've seen animals great and small take their last breaths because of me. It's a humbling experience, and I pray daily I never ever have to see a human in a grand mal or drowning in blood, even if I had no other choice. That power brings great responsibility with it. It is not to be used to even the scales or take vengeance on a thief. Deciding on punishments must be left to the justice system, however imperfect it is. I cannot take that choice into my own hands, nor can I allow my neighbors to do so. A thief who chooses to run away has made the right choice and should not be killed for it, even if he has taken property. He is a human man and deserves the chance to make amends. I'm sorry if that notion upsets people, but it is the only correct choice.

 

[brerrabbit]

The argument is not about killing a thief. It is about protecting property with force. Revenge does not come into this argument.

You are getting a little closer Cosmoline, congrats.

I agree that on a property crime that all available alternatives should be used first. But in the end, my moral stance is that my property will not be stolen if I can stop it.

If it costs the life of a thief to prevent it, so be it. Warnings will be given, LEO will be called, but in the end I will protect what is mine with any force I can bring to bear.

You have consistantly brought your arguments against killing over property.

I can respect that. Some people have these beliefs.

Show your belief in a logical manner.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The use of deadly force must always turn on the imminent peril to yourself or others, not just peril to stuff.

Then we're back to the fundamental belief that some property is not just "stuff", that it represents an ability to maintain life.

Food, tools, car to get to work, guns to hunt, protect yourself, etc.

There's a line where some "stuff" becomes a necessity to preserve and protect life.

To say "well, that's what insurance is for" doesn't work. Maybe a person cannot afford full coverage on their old car that they use to get to work every day to feed their kid, get to their dialysis treatment, chemo....etc.

If you steal someone's means of getting to medical care for example is that still a property crime? Sounds like a life threatening situation to me.

If that "Stuff" keeps someone alive, it's not "stuff" anymore.

 

[JWarren]

Cosomline,

You have your "ancient lines" and others exist as well.

We're back to the "Moral Superiority" arguement now.

I've addressed that.

Frankly, the last vestiges of moral superiority went out the window with playing of the dreaded Race Card. It belays a desperate attempt to try every angle you can until it resonates with someone.


-- John

 

[Elza]

Cosmoline: I believe on a moral and legal basis that the only reason any of us should be taking any human life as individuals is precisely to defend our person and our lives.

Herein lays the crux of the argument: your belief. As to the moral aspect you are certainly entitled to believe what you wish. It does not, however, make you right in spite of your claim to moral superiority. Your belief is no more or less valid than my belief. Opinions don’t make anything a fact.

As to the legal aspect you are out of luck. Texas law, both statue and case, says otherwise.

 

[TexasSkyhawk]

Deciding on punishments and weighing those scales must be left to the justice system, however imperfect it is. I cannot take that choice into my own hands, nor can I allow my neighbors to do so.

Between that "I know what's better for you than you do" mindset plus throwing out the race card, say hi to Joe and Rachen on the "Ig" list. Hopefully one of them is serving coffee.

Jeff

 

[Cosmoline]

I'm really beat up over that. Rachen and I will be watching Five Fingers of Death and thinking about you.

 

[blkbrd666]

That poor horse...

 

[Jeff White]

215 posts and I don't think you guys will settle this in another 215 or even another 2015 posts. Let's agree to disagree and let this one rest.

Jeff