Not to my judgement, no. You still don’t get it, do you?
No I get it I just think it’s funny that you probably don’t even consult the law because you think you have some overriding jurisdiction. The question of justifiable force in this case is a legal one, therefore determining the legitimacy of the act requires the utilization of a current legal standard.
Or we can argue over what was right or wrong in a moral sense all day. Is that what you wanted to do?
… Of course it is. That’s why I said you still don’t get it. I couldn’t care less what the state of Colorado says. As far as I’m concerned, I do have an overriding moral jurisdiction. That is, I consider myself to be a moral authority quite independent from the state of Colorado. And the question of justifiable force in this case, and in every other case, is a moral one IMHO.
Alright…think I’m done here.
I don’t understand why you can’t handle this.
Because moral conversations are uninteresting to me. I do not study morality or ethics, I study the law. I have nothing meaningful to say about the morality of home defense because I have no concrete moral standard to consult when making such determinations.
Legal standards give me a concrete framework for considering these sorts of issues. In the state of Colorado homeowners are given great latitude in determining the appropriate level of physical force to use when defending their homes from intruders. I feel confident when making this statement because I believe it’s consistent with the letter of the law. I’ve provided what I believe to be the relevant statute. I’m using my understanding of that statute when analyzing the facts of this case.
Based on what I think the law says and also based on the facts of the case I’ve been privy to (which may or may not be all the relevant facts) I feel fairly confident that Timothy Justice will be found to have operated within his legal rights when he shot Zoey Ripple in his home. This is all based on the information I’ve been presented thus far, my determination could change if/when new information becomes available. I do not claim to have all the facts of the case.
That, to me, is a big problem.
“I don’t consider refusing to leave someone’s home to prima facie constitute a threat against the homeowner’s life and thus justify lethal force”
So, you think people should just be allowed to break into other people’s homes and stay there, and property owners just have to live with that?
Nothing is black or white in a scenario of someone breaking into your house. In that situation, there’s no ability to tell if someone is there to do you harm, to simply steal, if they’re simply drunk or anything. That doesn’t mean you don’t act.
Let me ask you this: when is it appropriate for someone to defend his or her property with weaponry, aiming to kill?
No, and you’ve just argued a false dilemma. Just because I don’t think something justifies lethal force doesn’t mean I don’t think it justifies any force.
I know you didn’t intend this question for me, but I hope you don’t mind if I answer it anyway. I think that using weaponry with the aim to kill is appropriate only when it’s in defense of one’s own life and/or others’ lives. So, for example, if I were to intentionally kill someone who’s “simply” trying to steal my car (and let’s assume I’m not in the car when he does this), then I think I’d be guilty of murder.
I’d say that’s fair in most circumstances. I think a lot of it depends on whether one’s family is involved. We hear these stories of an old lady turning on the light to find a young man who is regretful. She feeds him a meal, he goes away apologetic or turns himself in, bla bla bla. People who break in have trespassed, and that’s infringing someone’s private property. If they do so without announcing what their intentions, it’s their fault. Most cases I’ve read about where there are people breaking in to others’ homes are not intoxicated and they usually have an ulterior motive in mind: namely either theft, rape or murder.
In this case, I don’t know all the details. I thought it’d be interesting to post to see reactions. All I know is people should never feel vulnerable in their own homes. Not insenuating all people on here think this way, but I see that many on here would rather avoid violence than act justly in defending his or her property.
I suppose the fine line lies between justly defending one’s property and the need to do so. Would that girl have been a legitimate threat? No, probably not. But how would they know? Hell, I just read a report about two naked men scrambling with one eating the other’s face. No joke. I suppose anything can happen lol, so my point is that I’d always take the safest course of action.
Maybe this will make college kids think twice before getting drunk off their ass.
If you want to live with your ****ing choices…
you also should be prepared to die with them.
That’s what I’m surprised with, Mr. Killington. Most people on this thread seem to pity the poor vandal that continued to infringe a couple’s property rights despite their request that she stop. Now they’re more concerned with the intentions of the vandal than upholding justice and defending one’s property when oftentimes there is no chance to even know. There is theft, and then there is theft.
Well, maybe she’ll learn from this and realize that drinking games jus’ ain’t hip.
Sorry, that’s just awful…
I have a problem with the concept, moral or legal, of people who leave doors unlocked shooting people who enter.
If property is alienable there can only be property privileges and property responsibilities which is a balanced equation. Property rights implies an absolute or unbalanced equation which, in my opinion, doesn’t reflect anything observable.
Doesn’t it depend on the definition used for “justice”?
I invite you to read Punishment and Proportionality by Murray Rothbard. I can only hope that Rothbard will bring you to reason.
LOL Mr. Killington, you are hilarious, my friend. You make these forums very entertaining.
I agree with proportional punishment as a maximum, but Walter Block seems to disagree: