• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hypothetical: Who has the Stronger Right to Kill?

Please Read the First Post

  • The woman in fact pattern one

    Votes: 7 28.0%
  • The store owner in fact pattern two

    Votes: 6 24.0%
  • They both have the right to kill

    Votes: 6 24.0%
  • Neither has the right to kill

    Votes: 6 24.0%

  • Total voters
    25

Cameron

Politically Correct
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
6,257
Reaction score
5,763
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Inspired by the responses by both conservatives and liberals in: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

FACT PATTERN ONE: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The fetus certainly has no evil intentions, but its unwanted presence in the woman's body is causing her moderate-to-serious emotional and psychological trauma. The fetus is two weeks old. She is seeking an abortion. The woman is known to be sexually promiscuous but has taken care to prevent pregnancy while engaging in consensual sex in the past. She has no family to take care of the child for her or help her but has sufficient money and means to raise it herself without sending herself into significant debt.

FACT PATTERN TWO: A thief climbs over a fence and into the parking lot of a car dealership, intending to steal money or property to pay for his serious drug addiction. He has no intention of hurting anyone -- he believes the property to be empty of employees for the night. As such, he is armed with only a small pocket-knife which he carries on his person at all times. Unbeknownst to him, the store owner is sitting in his office and sees the guy come over the fence. Sensing that the guy is probably a thief, the owner pulls out his shot-gun, barrels out of the building. He wants to shoot the man for trespassing. He thinks the guy might have a gun but is mostly just furious the thief would dare attempt to steal from him. The thief has been on his property for all of forty seconds. The thief has no family to miss him or to ensure that he stays in compliance with the law. The store owner has a wife and kids and enough money to cover losses due to theft without sending his company or himself into significant debt.

The poll question is: who has the stronger right to kill? Why? Also, which right should be valued more highly -- the right to control of one's property, or the right to control of one's body? How does culpability play into this question? And anything else you would like to add?
 
FACT PATTERN TWO: A thief climbs over a fence and into the parking lot of a car dealership, intending to steal money or property to pay for his serious drug addiction. He has no intention of hurting anyone -- he believes the property to be empty of employees for the night. As such, he is armed with only a small pocket-knife which he carries on his person at all times. Unbeknownst to him, the store owner is sitting in his office and sees the guy come over the fence. Sensing that the guy is probably a thief, the owner pulls out his shot-gun, barrels out of the building. He wants to shoot the man for trespassing. He thinks the guy might have a gun but is mostly just furious the thief would dare attempt to steal from him. The thief has been on his property for all of forty seconds. The thief has no family to miss him or to ensure that he stays in compliance with the law.

You have no way of knowing what someone's intentions are.


The store owner has a wife and kids and enough money to cover losses due to theft without sending his company or himself into significant debt.

You have no way of knowing this and neither does the thief. And besides that it doesn't matter if you can or can not replace your property, you have the right to defend yourself and property against thieves.
 
You have no way of knowing what someone's intentions are.




You have no way of knowing this and neither does the thief.
Don't fight the hypothetical.
 
Inspired by the responses by both conservatives and liberals in: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

FACT PATTERN ONE: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The fetus certainly has no evil intentions, but its unwanted presence in the woman's body is causing her moderate-to-serious emotional and psychological trauma. The fetus is two weeks old. She is seeking an abortion. The woman is known to be sexually promiscuous but has taken care to prevent pregnancy while engaging in consensual sex in the past. She has no family to take care of the child for her or help her but has sufficient money and means to raise it herself without sending herself into significant debt.

FACT PATTERN TWO: A thief climbs over a fence and into the parking lot of a car dealership, intending to steal money or property to pay for his serious drug addiction. He has no intention of hurting anyone -- he believes the property to be empty of employees for the night. As such, he is armed with only a small pocket-knife which he carries on his person at all times. Unbeknownst to him, the store owner is sitting in his office and sees the guy come over the fence. Sensing that the guy is probably a thief, the owner pulls out his shot-gun, barrels out of the building. He wants to shoot the man for trespassing. He thinks the guy might have a gun but is mostly just furious the thief would dare attempt to steal from him. The thief has been on his property for all of forty seconds. The thief has no family to miss him or to ensure that he stays in compliance with the law. The store owner has a wife and kids and enough money to cover losses due to theft without sending his company or himself into significant debt.

The poll question is: who has the stronger right to kill? Why? Also, which right should be valued more highly -- the right to control of one's property, or the right to control of one's body? How does culpability play into this question? And anything else you would like to add?

In the second case, we spend a lot of money on 911 response teams precisely because we want to have a very exacting justice system; saying that the car dealer has a right to kill the thief makes it sound as though the justice system and its punishments are just a net to address anomalous situations where a would-be criminal's fate isn't decided by his would-be victim, which isn't the case (while poetically just, the victim often lacks the critical impartiality to reach a just verdict). Even in antiquity, the most widely accepted punishment for theft was cutting off a person's hand, not ending their life. I don't see why our morals should be less than those of antiquity.

You have no way of knowing this and neither does the thief. And besides that it doesn't matter if you can or can not replace your property, you have the right to defend yourself and property against thieves.

Maybe not. But I do know that the police are trained professionals better equipped to the handle the situation than me. In the world of cell phones and professional business communications, it is hardly believable that the car dealer's best option is to take action himself. The law reflects that.

FACT PATTERN ONE: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The fetus certainly has no evil intentions, but its unwanted presence in the woman's body is causing her moderate-to-serious emotional and psychological trauma. The fetus is two weeks old. She is seeking an abortion. The woman is known to be sexually promiscuous but has taken care to prevent pregnancy while engaging in consensual sex in the past. She has no family to take care of the child for her or help her but has sufficient money and means to raise it herself without sending herself into significant debt.

This example is so heavily enveloped by spiritual crisis that it is subject to the "Tao" -- the woman has to find her own way. Whatever option she chooses will be extremely difficult to reconcile herself to, so what she does is secondary to whether she can live with it.

According to this logic, the woman has more right of the two.
 
Last edited:
Inspired by the responses by both conservatives and liberals in: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

FACT PATTERN ONE: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The fetus certainly has no evil intentions, but its unwanted presence in the woman's body is causing her moderate-to-serious emotional and psychological trauma. The fetus is two weeks old. She is seeking an abortion. The woman is known to be sexually promiscuous but has taken care to prevent pregnancy while engaging in consensual sex in the past. She has no family to take care of the child for her or help her but has sufficient money and means to raise it herself without sending herself into significant debt.

FACT PATTERN TWO: A thief climbs over a fence and into the parking lot of a car dealership, intending to steal money or property to pay for his serious drug addiction. He has no intention of hurting anyone -- he believes the property to be empty of employees for the night. As such, he is armed with only a small pocket-knife which he carries on his person at all times. Unbeknownst to him, the store owner is sitting in his office and sees the guy come over the fence. Sensing that the guy is probably a thief, the owner pulls out his shot-gun, barrels out of the building. He wants to shoot the man for trespassing. He thinks the guy might have a gun but is mostly just furious the thief would dare attempt to steal from him. The thief has been on his property for all of forty seconds. The thief has no family to miss him or to ensure that he stays in compliance with the law. The store owner has a wife and kids and enough money to cover losses due to theft without sending his company or himself into significant debt.

The poll question is: who has the stronger right to kill? Why? Also, which right should be valued more highly -- the right to control of one's property, or the right to control of one's body? How does culpability play into this question? And anything else you would like to add?

Very interesting thread, though I don't think I'll answer...

I will say this however, which is an argument I've made for many years that most folks just don't get...

Both are all about property rights. That's right, both.

While our rights are protected by constitutional law, it is property law that is most often exercised. When the country was founded, the only people with a right to vote were property owners. To expand the right to vote while not rewriting property law, the definition of property was revised to include yourself, your person. Simply put, you have the right to protect yourself against any intrusion or threat upon your property by law. This applies to both situations.
 
I'm confused, if a woman is raped, can she choose just any innocent bystander to kill or does it have to be a baby? Does the baby have to be related to her, or can she just pick one?

I think if someone breaks into a store, the store owner has the right to kill him because if a criminal is so depraved that he will break in to the store, he might also be a rapist. Then the store owner might have to kill an innocent baby.
 
A very interesting thread, to be sure. I'll wait and watch the responses. Tbh, I'm not even sure what option I'd choose.
 
Simply put said:
I agree that both have the right to protect themselves against any intrusion or threat upon their property (or body). But would you say that if an intruder broke into your property (and was killed justly, or arrested, or escaped), and then you found out they left their 1 year old child hiding in the closet you had the right to kill the child? I doubt it. It's not an adequate comparison.

There may be discussions worth having as to when life starts. But, property issues isn't a reasonable part of the discussion.
 
I agree that both have the right to protect themselves against any intrusion or threat upon their property (or body). But would you say that if an intruder broke into your property (and was killed justly, or arrested, or escaped), and then you found out they left their 1 year old child hiding in the closet you had the right to kill the child? I doubt it. It's not an adequate comparison.

There may be discussions worth having as to when life starts. But, property issues isn't a reasonable part of the discussion.

Well, in your hypothetical, no it isn't.

However, you are actually quite wrong..

But if that intruder left a viable fetus within the woman hiding in the closet, it's a different story.

The argument for the Pro Abortion Rights crowd has been and is, and has prevailed on the basis of property rights and property law.

A quick search of google confirms this...

Abortion as Eviction: Property Rights, the Child and the Womb – Part ...
zealfortruth.org/.../abortion-as-eviction-property-rights-the-child-an... - CachedDec 5, 2007 – Dr. Block's views on abortion follow this basic framework – holding private property rights as the ultimate judge between two individuals. ...
The Pro-Rights Abortion Position | The Next Right

thenextright.com/john-brill/the-pro-rights-abortion-position - CachedNov 24, 2008 – A woman aborting against the will of the man is as much a violation of his genetic property rights as a man perpetrating trauma to a woman's ...

Self-ownership, Abortion, and a Brave New World - Knowledge ...
knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1823 - CachedOct 22, 2009 – Tackling the abortion debate as a matter of property rights is crucial, Boyes said. Do we own our own bodies? And if we do, is a fetus also a ...

PropertyProf Blog: Rausch on Abortion and Property Rights
lawprofessors.typepad.com/property/.../rausch-on-abortion-and-pro... - CachedAug 22, 2011 – Rausch on Abortion and Property Rights. Rebecca Rausch (Seattle - Teaching Fellow) has posted Reframing Roe: Property Over Privacy ...

Libertarians for Life - The "Right" of Abortion: A Dogma in Search of ...
Libertarians for Life - The "Right" of Abortion: A Dogma in Search of a Rationale - CachedRothbard and Block simply evade the issue, therefore, when they defend abortion on the ground of "woman's property rights". If, as they concede, the unborn ...

Abortion, Property Rights, and the Welfare State
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie A Bardon - 1998 - Related articles

ABORTION, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND THE. WELFARE STATE. Adrian Bardon. Jarvis Thomson's seminal and widely reproduced paper on the morality of ...

While you may take exception to this, apparently the supreme court finds that it's not quite as dubious as you find it.
 
fact pattern one: the fetus is completely innocent
fact pattern two: the guy is a thief

If you had to choose one, which deserves to die more?
 
fact pattern one: the fetus is completely innocent
fact pattern two: the guy is a thief

If you had to choose one, which deserves to die more?

Occam's razor if I ever saw it.

I like this kind of black and white moral thinking.

Unfortunately, the question wasn't who had more of a right to live, but who had more of a right to kill?
 
Occam's razor if I ever saw it.

I like this kind of black and white moral thinking.

Unfortunately, the question wasn't who had more of a right to live, but who had more of a right to kill?

the store owner. because the thief had every intention of depriving him of his property.

however, if you replace "fetus" with "rapist" in fact pattern one, the the woman who was raped would have more right to kill.
 
Neither has a strong right to kill. In both instances it would be a barbaric inhumane killing and neither is merited.
 
Inspired by the responses by both conservatives and liberals in: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

FACT PATTERN ONE: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The fetus certainly has no evil intentions, but its unwanted presence in the woman's body is causing her moderate-to-serious emotional and psychological trauma. The fetus is two weeks old. She is seeking an abortion. The woman is known to be sexually promiscuous but has taken care to prevent pregnancy while engaging in consensual sex in the past. She has no family to take care of the child for her or help her but has sufficient money and means to raise it herself without sending herself into significant debt.

FACT PATTERN TWO: A thief climbs over a fence and into the parking lot of a car dealership, intending to steal money or property to pay for his serious drug addiction. He has no intention of hurting anyone -- he believes the property to be empty of employees for the night. As such, he is armed with only a small pocket-knife which he carries on his person at all times. Unbeknownst to him, the store owner is sitting in his office and sees the guy come over the fence. Sensing that the guy is probably a thief, the owner pulls out his shot-gun, barrels out of the building. He wants to shoot the man for trespassing. He thinks the guy might have a gun but is mostly just furious the thief would dare attempt to steal from him. The thief has been on his property for all of forty seconds. The thief has no family to miss him or to ensure that he stays in compliance with the law. The store owner has a wife and kids and enough money to cover losses due to theft without sending his company or himself into significant debt.

The poll question is: who has the stronger right to kill? Why? Also, which right should be valued more highly -- the right to control of one's property, or the right to control of one's body? How does culpability play into this question? And anything else you would like to add?


Too many problems with this attempt. For one, it is comparing an innocent party to a guilty party. For another, too many unproveable and/or unknowable assumptions.

No thanks, I'll pass.
 
Too many problems with this attempt. For one, it is comparing an innocent party to a guilty party. For another, too many unproveable and/or unknowable assumptions.

No thanks, I'll pass.

my first thought was that this is a bait thread. trying to paint pro-lifers as hypocrites for refusing to call the guys who shot the drug addict burglar "murderers"
 
Well, in your hypothetical, no it isn't.

However, you are actually quite wrong..

But if that intruder left a viable fetus within the woman hiding in the closet, it's a different story.

The argument for the Pro Abortion Rights crowd has been and is, and has prevailed on the basis of property rights and property law.

A quick search of google confirms this...

Abortion as Eviction: Property Rights, the Child and the Womb – Part ...
zealfortruth.org/.../abortion-as-eviction-property-rights-the-child-an... - CachedDec 5, 2007 – Dr. Block's views on abortion follow this basic framework – holding private property rights as the ultimate judge between two individuals. ...
The Pro-Rights Abortion Position | The Next Right

While you may take exception to this, apparently the supreme court finds that it's not quite as dubious as you find it.

Well, the links didn't come through for the sources you mentioned, but I found the first one. The interesting thing is that in that article, the author supporting abortion as "evictionism" basically uses my comparison. Except he says that it's fine to "evict" the baby human from your private property (regardless of age). He essentially says that youth are slaughtered all the time, why make a distinction? I actually think his logic is consistent even though repulsive. Regardless of what the Supreme Court might say, I think they'd have a problem from me evicting a baby human into a -20 degree night, or off a housebout into a lake, or out of a moving airplane just because they were trespassers in my personal property.

Logic only comes back into play through 2 arguments. Either 1.) the life inside a woman's body isn't life, yet; or 2.) it's ok to kill someone at any age if they're on your property and unwanted. The 2nd argument is a hard one to maintain ("Yes, I pushed him into oncoming traffic, officer, but he was standing in my yard eating my last bag of cheetos").

The Supreme Court can say what they want. I'm sure I disagree with a lot of other things they've said over the years, too. They are a political body who interpret law through the eyes of social will.
 
Well, the links didn't come through for the sources you mentioned, but I found the first one. The interesting thing is that in that article, the author supporting abortion as "evictionism" basically uses my comparison. Except he says that it's fine to "evict" the baby human from your private property (regardless of age). He essentially says that youth are slaughtered all the time, why make a distinction? I actually think his logic is consistent even though repulsive. Regardless of what the Supreme Court might say, I think they'd have a problem from me evicting a baby human into a -20 degree night, or off a housebout into a lake, or out of a moving airplane just because they were trespassers in my personal property.

Logic only comes back into play through 2 arguments. Either 1.) the life inside a woman's body isn't life, yet; or 2.) it's ok to kill someone at any age if they're on your property and unwanted. The 2nd argument is a hard one to maintain ("Yes, I pushed him into oncoming traffic, officer, but he was standing in my yard eating my last bag of cheetos").

The Supreme Court can say what they want. I'm sure I disagree with a lot of other things they've said over the years, too. They are a political body who interpret law through the eyes of social will.

Yes well, I haven't stated my personal position... just responding to someone that said it was irrelevant to this topic. From a legal standpoint, it is the topic.
 
Inspired by the responses by both conservatives and liberals in: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

FACT PATTERN ONE: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The fetus certainly has no evil intentions, but its unwanted presence in the woman's body is causing her moderate-to-serious emotional and psychological trauma. The fetus is two weeks old. She is seeking an abortion. The woman is known to be sexually promiscuous but has taken care to prevent pregnancy while engaging in consensual sex in the past. She has no family to take care of the child for her or help her but has sufficient money and means to raise it herself without sending herself into significant debt.

Here we have an innocent unborn child who has done nothing to anyone. It has not violated anyone's rights. The woman, while she did take measures to minimize her risk, knew that no birth control method is 100% reliable and knowingly accepted that risk when she engaged in sex (as did her partner, who should also be held responsible for caring for the life he helped create).

The bottom line is the right to life is the most basic and fundemental right and the child did nothing to warrant nullifying that right.

FACT PATTERN TWO: A thief climbs over a fence and into the parking lot of a car dealership, intending to steal money or property to pay for his serious drug addiction. He has no intention of hurting anyone -- he believes the property to be empty of employees for the night. As such, he is armed with only a small pocket-knife which he carries on his person at all times. Unbeknownst to him, the store owner is sitting in his office and sees the guy come over the fence. Sensing that the guy is probably a thief, the owner pulls out his shot-gun, barrels out of the building. He wants to shoot the man for trespassing. He thinks the guy might have a gun but is mostly just furious the thief would dare attempt to steal from him. The thief has been on his property for all of forty seconds. The thief has no family to miss him or to ensure that he stays in compliance with the law. The store owner has a wife and kids and enough money to cover losses due to theft without sending his company or himself into significant debt.

The poll question is: who has the stronger right to kill? Why? Also, which right should be valued more highly -- the right to control of one's property, or the right to control of one's body? How does culpability play into this question? And anything else you would like to add?

The junkie thief on the other hand has violated the property rights of someone else. Since he does not respect the rights of others, society has no obligationt to respect his rights. We do have concepts of due process and fair trials, but that is not to protect the rights of criminals, but the rights of innocents who may be accused of a crime (here there is no doubt he's guilty) and also serves an important check on the government's near monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Without those safeguards, the government could imprison or execute anyone for any reason.

The store owner here is not the government. Rather he is an individual defending his right to benefit from the fruits of his labor (i.e. property rights). He doesn't know if the thief is armed or not. He doesn't know if his intentions are to simply rob him or perhaps to do greater harm. Trying to apprehend or detain the thief could potentially put the store owner at risk for harm. The fact that the owner can easily cover the loss is not relevant. That doesn't make him a more acceptable target for crime.

If we believe in property rights, we must also believe in the right to defend our property. And such measures are ultimately backed up by the use of force. If the owner tells the thief to freeze, but cannot legally use force to detain the thief, what is to stop the thief from ignoring his orders and continuing with the robbery? Do we expect the owner to watch the thief rob him blind, while he impotently stands there despite having a gun in his hands? Or do we expect the owner to give the initiative to the thief, waiting for him to make the first threatening move before the owner can use force to defend himself?

When you violate the rights of others, you become fair game for retaliation from those who would seek to stop you (in the heat of the moment, this does not excuse vigilante attempts to track down the thief after the fact). Due process and fair trial rights of the thief are not violated, because those are checks on government authority not checks on the rights of individuals to defend themselves and their property.
 
Inspired by the responses by both conservatives and liberals in: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

FACT PATTERN ONE: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The fetus certainly has no evil intentions, but its unwanted presence in the woman's body is causing her moderate-to-serious emotional and psychological trauma. The fetus is two weeks old. She is seeking an abortion. The woman is known to be sexually promiscuous but has taken care to prevent pregnancy while engaging in consensual sex in the past. She has no family to take care of the child for her or help her but has sufficient money and means to raise it herself without sending herself into significant debt.

FACT PATTERN TWO: A thief climbs over a fence and into the parking lot of a car dealership, intending to steal money or property to pay for his serious drug addiction. He has no intention of hurting anyone -- he believes the property to be empty of employees for the night. As such, he is armed with only a small pocket-knife which he carries on his person at all times. Unbeknownst to him, the store owner is sitting in his office and sees the guy come over the fence. Sensing that the guy is probably a thief, the owner pulls out his shot-gun, barrels out of the building. He wants to shoot the man for trespassing. He thinks the guy might have a gun but is mostly just furious the thief would dare attempt to steal from him. The thief has been on his property for all of forty seconds. The thief has no family to miss him or to ensure that he stays in compliance with the law. The store owner has a wife and kids and enough money to cover losses due to theft without sending his company or himself into significant debt.

The poll question is: who has the stronger right to kill? Why? Also, which right should be valued more highly -- the right to control of one's property, or the right to control of one's body? How does culpability play into this question? And anything else you would like to add?

While I think the woman has the choice to abort the child. I'd press her more to put it up for adoption. There would be extreme minimal reasoning in aborting the child considering it is presenting no harm.

The business owner has no right to kill the thief, but has a definite right to hold him at gunpoint until the police arrive.
 
While I think the woman has the choice to abort the child. I'd press her more to put it up for adoption. There would be extreme minimal reasoning in aborting the child considering it is presenting no harm.

The business owner has no right to kill the thief, but has a definite right to hold him at gunpoint until the police arrive.

And what happens if the thief ignores the owner's oders to freeze? If the owner doesn't have the right to fire the weapon, why listen to him? If you can't fire a gun, its basically a big stick. Not very scary.

Not to mention, what happens if the thief decides to attack? Or dives for cover and then pulls his own gun? The owner has the advantage with the gun presumable already drawn and aimed, but why needlessly put yourself at risk (no matter how minimal)?

If you believe in property rights, then it's only logical that we also have the right to defend our property. And that means using force (including lethal) to enforce those rights.
 
And what happens if the thief ignores the owner's oders to freeze? If the owner doesn't have the right to fire the weapon, why listen to him? If you can't fire a gun, its basically a big stick. Not very scary.

Not to mention, what happens if the thief decides to attack? Or dives for cover and then pulls his own gun? The owner has the advantage with the gun presumable already drawn and aimed, but why needlessly put yourself at risk (no matter how minimal)?

If you believe in property rights, then it's only logical that we also have the right to defend our property. And that means using force (including lethal) to enforce those rights.

Didn't say he didn't have the right to shoot him and if he attacks the owner then by all means he has the right to kill him.
 
Inspired by the responses by both conservatives and liberals in: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

FACT PATTERN ONE: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The fetus certainly has no evil intentions, but its unwanted presence in the woman's body is causing her moderate-to-serious emotional and psychological trauma. The fetus is two weeks old. She is seeking an abortion. The woman is known to be sexually promiscuous but has taken care to prevent pregnancy while engaging in consensual sex in the past. She has no family to take care of the child for her or help her but has sufficient money and means to raise it herself without sending herself into significant debt.

FACT PATTERN TWO: A thief climbs over a fence and into the parking lot of a car dealership, intending to steal money or property to pay for his serious drug addiction. He has no intention of hurting anyone -- he believes the property to be empty of employees for the night. As such, he is armed with only a small pocket-knife which he carries on his person at all times. Unbeknownst to him, the store owner is sitting in his office and sees the guy come over the fence. Sensing that the guy is probably a thief, the owner pulls out his shot-gun, barrels out of the building. He wants to shoot the man for trespassing. He thinks the guy might have a gun but is mostly just furious the thief would dare attempt to steal from him. The thief has been on his property for all of forty seconds. The thief has no family to miss him or to ensure that he stays in compliance with the law. The store owner has a wife and kids and enough money to cover losses due to theft without sending his company or himself into significant debt.

The poll question is: who has the stronger right to kill? Why? Also, which right should be valued more highly -- the right to control of one's property, or the right to control of one's body? How does culpability play into this question? And anything else you would like to add?

uhm anybody that actually read the other thread about the burglars couldnt possible take this seriously LOL

its a joke Ill pass on.
 
Didn't say he didn't have the right to shoot him and if he attacks the owner then by all means he has the right to kill him.

You said the owner had no right to kill him. A gunshot, even when aimed at "non vital" areas carries a distinct possibility of inflicting death.

If you believe in property rights, than the owner has the right to use lethal force the minute the thief stepped onto his property and demonstrated criminal intent. Detaining them, scaring them off, or all these other things are only effective if there is a real threat of lethal force behind them.

Some people have suggested that you have no right to kill someone over property. Let's imagine this was the law of the land. You can never use lethal force to defend your property. A thief breaks into your house. You confront him with a gun and demand that he stop. If you cannot actually use the gun in defense of your property, it's useless. If the thief knows that you cannot shoot him for "mere" theft or you will be accused of murder, why should he obey your command? He could just simply turn his back to you and continue robbing you. If you shoot him, you're going down for murder. So you're forced to just stand there and watch this guy rob you blind while you hold what has become a useless hunk of metal since you cannot use it defend your property.

Now I know this scenario isn't very realistic. Most thieves wouldn't chance it, but according to some folks if I ordered a thief to stop and he didn't and just continued robbing me, I'd still be wrong to shoot him because it was "only" about property. They make silly claims that no piece of property is worth taking a life over. I disagree 100%. My property is easily more valuable to me than the life of some scumbag thief.

As for defending yourself against attack, I ask again, why do I have to expose myself to risk and wait for him to make his intentions to cause me bodily harm known? He's already shown a complete disregard for the law and the rights of others. That alone is enough to label him a potential threat and thus be dealt with under the banner of self defense. Giving him a chance to react by saying "Freeze" or whatever, just puts me at risk.
 
The former clearly has the greater right to kill, being subject to violation of her body, but I'd argue that they are both entirely within their rights to kill. In the latter case, the dealership owner has no way of knowing the intruder's intentions, mental state, or whether or not he is armed. When dealing with unknown persons, one should always assume that they are armed and make no assumptions about their intentions.
 
The former clearly has the greater right to kill, being subject to violation of her body,

ah...but WHO does she have the greater right to kill? her rapist, who violated her or the innocent fetus who is as much a victim as is she?
 
Back
Top Bottom