No we are not talking about person A and person B here, we are talking about ME and MY property coming before the life of a criminal. I understand why some people feel like every life has intrinsically more value than mere things, no matter how corrupt or how much harm said life causes to society, but i simply don’t.
I respectfully disagree. Slavery had a long and storied history and long legal pedigree. I do not think using history is an argument to be used in this case. We live in different times and indeed we could still say something like slavery was morally wrong at any time in history even if it was an accepted fact of life in historical times.
Granted theft can impact some people more than others. Some may not be able to recover from it. But I maintain that a human life has more value than “stuff” in all cases. Period. At least certainly on an individual level (I would say someone trying to take over your whole country and take everyone’s stuff is worth resisting forcibly).
Are we to think of something as ok or not ok only based on its impact to a given individual? Where stealing $10 from a homeless person may be all they have as opposed to you or me who would not really miss it? Does the value of the thief’s life alter based on how much they are stealing?
Ethically speaking, it’s not an impressive fact that you happen to be Person A. Look past the abstractions and your preference amounts to little more than being willing to kill someone for a DVD player.
Can we stick to the facts of this case? It wasn’t your cash, it was your neighbour’s. The question asked, was who was going to cover the cost of stolen property; which since there was a cop there and others on the way, most likely wouldn’t have been stolen.
Even if it was stolen, that’s what insurance is for.
Now if you want to discuss what to do if the guy is in your house, then that’s a different discussion. This one is whether or not it is better to let your neighbour worry about insurance, or shooting two guys in the back and killing them; for in your case $1,000.
Is this for you just a matter of money or something else? If it’s money, would you be surprised if all this drama will cost Horn more than a $1,000? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it did.
Is all this drama in his life, worth the $2,000 he may have saved; which if his neighbour was insured, could be less than that?
Me? I don’t want anyone dead for a DVD player or a TV. That’s me. If the guy’s in my house then that’s a different matter. He may well die for a TV, but he’s in my home.
Outside with the cops on the way? I’m not shooting.
Nope. You should be able to kill shoplifters. That would learn em. Human life is worth zip apparently.
I see it as someone else being willing to die to get at my DVD player, but you are welcome to your opinion. I can definitely understand the feeling that all life has value, i just happen to not agree with it.
I think you are creating a false dilemma here. It’s not an either/or. We aren’t talking about a summary execution. We are talking about using potentially deadly force to stop a theft in progress.
The bullet could miss, but cause the perp to stop and comply. The perp could suffer a minor injury. A major injury. Or he could be killed.
And the equation just isn’t about your property. It is about feeling secure in the sphere of your home, neighborhood, and surroundings and being able to act to affirm your right of peaceful existence instead of having to acquiesce when someone evil challenges you and your right to have your things.
While the “stuff” has monetary value and isn’t easily replaced, the feeling of security lost is far worse.
Sure. Click here It’s the book gun control advocates hate to admit exists, but they still haven’t dented the facts that it documents. John Lott set out to prove the point you’re making, and to his amazement, he found out that the numbers revealed that the opposite was true.
OK. So how do we tell if this is closer to slavery (wrong at any time), flogging (wrong today but all right in early times), or self-defense (acceptable then and now)?
YOu assert you’re correct; others disagree. To the extent there’s a majority opinion, it’s probably against you (at least in Texas). So on what basis do you claim your view is the correct one?
More than “a bullet” caused the injuries detailed by the Harris County Medical Examiner’s Office:
I’m sure everybody feels more secure now…
First of all, you made the claim, so you back it up. You can’t make an assertion, then challenge everyone to prove you wrong. That kind of thing has never flown in GD and isn’t about to now.
Secondly, your “logic” is seriously flawed. People, when faced with more serious consequences, often decide not to commit a crime that they might otherwise. That is why crime rates are constantly in flux, and are different from place to place.
Your claim is extraordinary, and requires extraordinary evidence.
I believe it is wrong at any time because it would presume to apply a monetary value to human life. How can we even begin to tackle that argument? Where are the lines drawn? Is stealing a pack of gum sufficient to merit lethal force? $10? $1000? How much? Is the value of life variable depending on a sliding scale of comparative harm done?
Once dead that is it. It cannot be undone. Cannot be recovered from. It is irrevocable. Stuff can be replaced. It can be recovered from. People often lose everything in natural disasters…rich and poor. They almost always recover. Life goes on even if it is a horrible blow and effort to do.
Valuing human life above a television is something I can barely conceive anyone even suggesting could be argued against. Even our law sees capital punishment as reserved for only the most heinous of crimes and many suggest even that should not be done.
Valuing human life above all else is rooted in our law and philosophy and religion. Yes there are times when we are compelled to take life forcibly but we (presumably) try to be very careful in approaching such situations. Certainly something far more than an adrenaline filled moment or fit of anger when someone is walking away with your neighbor’s stereo.
While I obviously don’t agree with this and realize it was said facetiously, I have argued before that if zealous death penalty advocates really want to see crime go down then they should impose it for property crimes/drug use/etc., instead of for murder. I seriously doubt that anybody who has decided to kill another person- whether a demented Albert Fish-like cold and calculating serial killer or an act of passion, has ever not done so due to the death penalty- the “well, if I’m caught, the rest of my life in prison isn’t so bad” just really isn’t that compelling an incentive when the death penalty’s removed. However, I can almost guarantee you that people would think twice about stealing a car if they knew the death penalty awaited them upon conviction (not that I agree with that certainly).
I have no ethical qualms about the death penalty when guilt is absolutely certain [Tim McVeigh, the Manson Family, etc.] but I have major problems with it being imposed upon people who had at best lackluster public defenders, idiot judges, and or quasi-literate jurors and then were denied appeal [West Memphis Three, many of the people acquitted by DNA evidence, etc.]). I only disagree with the death penalty due to its practice- since there’s almost no way to assure that everybody convicted has guilt that’s proved to 100% certainty and or that everybody gets an actual fair trial- and think it should only be employed when the case has been reviewed and re-reviewed to ensure that there is pretty much no plausible deniability of the convicted’s guilt [i.e. not just the ‘convinced a jury of people with no legal training and often sub-par critical thinking skills/educational background of any kind that there’s no reasonable doubt’.
Legalizing drugs and making drug clinics easily available would do a lot more good than blowing holes in petty criminals.
From various gun related threads here the consensus of the responsible gun owners is if you pull a gun and pull the trigger you shoot to kill. You may miss of course but I do not think you can premise a law allowing lethal force to be supportable on the basis that people don’t always manage to kill but instead maim or maybe even miss.
I get the “feeling secure” part. I once had someone break in to my apartment in college and stole my computer and a few other things. I was a poor student but even worse than the loss of stuff was the irreplaceable work on the computer. I was furious. Make no mistake I have no love for these thieves. They are scum. But your feelings of violation will fade over time. Being dead is forever.
Neither of which are at all relevant: the officer has a firearm and a badge. If he’d intervened, perhaps those two burglars might now be in custody.
I have no problem with the use of lethal force to protect property; once they’re in custody, I’m firmly against the death penalty. Two scumbags died and future burglars will undoubtedly seek easier pickings elsewhere.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I have long been under the assumption that just about everybody in our culture believes it’s wrong for one person to set himself up as judge, jury, and executioner over another.
If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. But if I’m right, then it is pretty obvious, isn’t it?
Not to mention, the bar on cruel and unusual punishment, which is generally accepted to bar disproportionate punishment. If the government can’t impose such punishments, a private citizen sure shouldn’t be able to do so on his own.
That sure seems obvious too.
Why do you keep saying that? Criminals by their nature, don’t think things out to their logical conclusion or they wouldn’t be criminals.
They never think they are going to get caught, let alone shot by a homeowner.
This incident will just make the criminals more likely to arm themselves, how is that good for anyone?
In your world, future burglars are now terrified of shot-gun wielding retirees and will now steal candy from babies…in my world, those burglars who do carry guns, will shoot the inhabitants of the house, just in case one of them is a shotgun toting retiree.
I mean why take the chance? You know what happened to those two guys right?
How do we know that Horn wasn’t holding these guys at bay, and they decided to rush him? Then it would be self-defense.
On theother hand, there are two fewer criminals in the world today; they won’t be missed.
By listening to the 911 tape. Not enough time had elapsed for him to be ‘holding them at bay’, but one died on Horn’s property, which supports Horn’s allegation that the guy was headed towards him.
I’m not arguing with this. Honestly, I don’t think that all human life has an intrinsic value that is by default greater than any material ‘stuff’. People supporting themselves by crime have a detrimental effect on the society in which they live, and I think we as a whole are better off without them.