Guys,
Threads regarding Defense of Property spring up here on a routine basis.
One thing that I've learned is that you aren't going to change the mind of the most ardent defenders of on particular position or the other.
As I've said on those threads, one must operate within the limitations of the laws within their jurisidiction and within the ethical framework of their own soul.
As a base line, you do not want to break the laws and seek solutions or accept consequences of acting within those laws.
Now, if the law in your area has provisions for defense of property, it now becomes a function of your own inner moral compass. Only the individual can answer that question. And it is not a question that one needs to attempt to answer at the spur-of-the-moment.
Taking time to examine your own ethical and moral foundation when you are NOT faced with a crisis is a valuable exercise, and it is one that will benefit you in all aspects of your life.
That said....
coyotehitman wrote:
A riot where looting/burning/beatings and carnage are occurring is the equal to someone stealing copper? Are you serious? I am not defending the criminal here, but lets be realistic.
Actually it is more similar than different. I watched the footage. What I saw was hordes of people STEALING collectively. Beatings were not common, and I don't think I saw "carnage." I saw chaos.
What made the LA riots different is that it was widespread. It was a situation where outcomes WERE uncertain and people WERE scared.
But in the end, the actual action was defending property when the shop owners are concerned.
Our perceptions are significant, but they do not alter the actual action. A person can percieve themselves to be in danger and not be in actuality. A person can percieve themselves to be safe when they are not.
coyotehitman wrote:
I don't think anyone said anything about that. I think the point is that killing someone over a theft is inappropriate and that the punishment must fit the crime.
As I said earlier, this is a function of the laws of your area and your own conscience.
What you consider inappropriate only has weight with you. I could argue just as easily that NOT defending property has had a detrimental effect on our society in that it has emboldened criminals who see very little risk in taking what they want.
It is my opinion that we are examining the moral compass of the wrong group. A predator is a predator. The only question is the extreme by which they are operating at this moment.
When a person has reached a point within his ethical structure where he has no inner voice telling him the wrongness of taking what he wants from whoever he wants, he sees the world as a different place. He sees people as a different entity. At this point, stealing may be fine.
And soon, it likely comes to a point where he decides that he wants something else. Having no respect for others by definition, it isn't a hard leap to take other things that he wants. After all, the consequences are minimal. An escalation is entirely possible and is very likely more probable.
I've met too many people who are like this over my life. When a predator is born, he doesn't stop until the consequences dictate.
But no....
I am not suggesting some sort of "pre-emptive" culling of the criminal element. I am not suggesting approaching a situation based upon what a person might BECOME. What I AM saying that an environment where little potential risk exists for the person that has already chosen the path of a predator only emboldens them-- and continues as well as fosters this predatory instinct.
-- John
