FIRST let me say that THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION OF WHAT THE LAW OF THE STATE OF __________ SAYS IN REGARDS TO THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE. This is a discussion of right and wrong. This is a discussion of what used to be, what should be, not what necessarily is today in 2006 in the state of Ohio or Louisiana.
This is picking up on offtopic material from a thread in S&T. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=229824 It is a ethical issue of whether it is right to kill someone to protect your property. Some respond in horror at the thought of killing a piece of human garbage who would knowingly violate the fruits of your labor that you took put time in your life and hard work into gaining. "we value human life over property"
I say that property is important, it is ethical and right to shoot to protect it and keep it from being stolen. Property is a part of your life, as stated above it is a the fruit of your labor. It is not about whether your family's being able to eat or not is hanging in the balance, it is the principle that time was taken to earn gold or money to pay for your car, crops, horse, television set, computer (and othe expensive appliances around the house). If that thief steals, he is stealing a portion of your life. It is he who has no regard for life. This is why private property has been held in high regard in the Christian West for over 1500 years. It is only recent modern socialistic thinking that has made criminals out of victims and victims out of criminals (calling good evil and evil good). We tend to think property is not so important (why else would modern courts be so quick to declare eminant domain to put up a Walmart or Interstate Highway for "the good of the community or the country.")
This is a concept that 1) values the importance of property enough to kill for because it is a violation and attack on human life liberty and labor. 2) guards against excessive force which would tempt vengence on the part of the property owner against the thief. 3) points out that stealing is a serious offense that, even if the property is lost, must be made up for.
States like Texas use similar langage as this Biblical passage allowing for the protection of property. The problem is that they, like the Pharisees of old, take the language of the law out of context and twist it into something it is not for legalistic reasons. Texas allows you to protect property afterdark if there is no other way to recover it but does not allow tyou to protect it if it is during daylight hours.
The intent of the original Biblical passage was not to make it a game between thief and property owners "You can kill me to keep your gold if it is dark, but if it is after 7:00 am then you have to let me go. Otherwise it's not fair." And the property owner just has to let the thief help himself after 7:00am. That is absurd.
Back then, approaching a thief was particularly dangerous as people were more isolated back then (no telephones) and when it was dark IT WAS DARK (no electricity and couldn't see if they were armed), furthermore they came and went fast (no alarms or locks to pick) and if they got away in the dark you weren't going to catch them. So striking someone fatally was a MUST in order to prevent the theft.
During the day however, you could see if they were armed, hold them at sword point, give them a chance to surrender and even chase them down and halt them at sword point. There were no police to chase down camel or donkey thieves back then (and despite what most people think, there are no police to do these things today, most stolen cars and other items of property and currency are almost never recovered and thieves are rarely caught) Anyway, in the daytime, it wasn't necessary to approach a thief with the immediate intent to kill him in order to stop him. If you did, it was excessive force. It would be equal to approaching a guy in the process of hotwiring my car with my .38 and just shooting him in broad daylight, no warning, no chance to surrender.
The bottom line is that in the immediate situation you are the guardian of your life, liberty and property (Pursuit of happiness). You have a right and duty to do what it takes to protect it but NOT take vengence with excessive force just like any policeman. In that sense, we are all policeman. The well meaning slogan "to serve and protect" is really a lie. Police forces cannot protect you. They can solve crimes. That is their purpose. Find the criminal who has gotten away and bring him to justice. If you catch them red handed and are able to hold them for the police, all the better.
Police used to be able to shoot thieves and criminals running away and not have to chase them down on foot (Letting them get away if they were able to outrun them)
This is picking up on offtopic material from a thread in S&T. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=229824 It is a ethical issue of whether it is right to kill someone to protect your property. Some respond in horror at the thought of killing a piece of human garbage who would knowingly violate the fruits of your labor that you took put time in your life and hard work into gaining. "we value human life over property"
I say that property is important, it is ethical and right to shoot to protect it and keep it from being stolen. Property is a part of your life, as stated above it is a the fruit of your labor. It is not about whether your family's being able to eat or not is hanging in the balance, it is the principle that time was taken to earn gold or money to pay for your car, crops, horse, television set, computer (and othe expensive appliances around the house). If that thief steals, he is stealing a portion of your life. It is he who has no regard for life. This is why private property has been held in high regard in the Christian West for over 1500 years. It is only recent modern socialistic thinking that has made criminals out of victims and victims out of criminals (calling good evil and evil good). We tend to think property is not so important (why else would modern courts be so quick to declare eminant domain to put up a Walmart or Interstate Highway for "the good of the community or the country.")
This is a concept that 1) values the importance of property enough to kill for because it is a violation and attack on human life liberty and labor. 2) guards against excessive force which would tempt vengence on the part of the property owner against the thief. 3) points out that stealing is a serious offense that, even if the property is lost, must be made up for.
States like Texas use similar langage as this Biblical passage allowing for the protection of property. The problem is that they, like the Pharisees of old, take the language of the law out of context and twist it into something it is not for legalistic reasons. Texas allows you to protect property afterdark if there is no other way to recover it but does not allow tyou to protect it if it is during daylight hours.
The intent of the original Biblical passage was not to make it a game between thief and property owners "You can kill me to keep your gold if it is dark, but if it is after 7:00 am then you have to let me go. Otherwise it's not fair." And the property owner just has to let the thief help himself after 7:00am. That is absurd.
Back then, approaching a thief was particularly dangerous as people were more isolated back then (no telephones) and when it was dark IT WAS DARK (no electricity and couldn't see if they were armed), furthermore they came and went fast (no alarms or locks to pick) and if they got away in the dark you weren't going to catch them. So striking someone fatally was a MUST in order to prevent the theft.
During the day however, you could see if they were armed, hold them at sword point, give them a chance to surrender and even chase them down and halt them at sword point. There were no police to chase down camel or donkey thieves back then (and despite what most people think, there are no police to do these things today, most stolen cars and other items of property and currency are almost never recovered and thieves are rarely caught) Anyway, in the daytime, it wasn't necessary to approach a thief with the immediate intent to kill him in order to stop him. If you did, it was excessive force. It would be equal to approaching a guy in the process of hotwiring my car with my .38 and just shooting him in broad daylight, no warning, no chance to surrender.
The bottom line is that in the immediate situation you are the guardian of your life, liberty and property (Pursuit of happiness). You have a right and duty to do what it takes to protect it but NOT take vengence with excessive force just like any policeman. In that sense, we are all policeman. The well meaning slogan "to serve and protect" is really a lie. Police forces cannot protect you. They can solve crimes. That is their purpose. Find the criminal who has gotten away and bring him to justice. If you catch them red handed and are able to hold them for the police, all the better.
Police used to be able to shoot thieves and criminals running away and not have to chase them down on foot (Letting them get away if they were able to outrun them)
.
Fortunately, I believe that most all of you are merely puffing.
