QOTD: Weer’d Thoughts on Lethal Force

I will not kill somebody over my property, but somebody willing to threaten me FOR my property is willing to kill me no matter what I do. I WILL kill over that. —Weerd Beard

I like his thinking, but I differ on one thing, and it’s a philosophical argument which winds up in the same place.

When someone steals my stuff, they’re stealing a piece of my life. The piece that I spent working so that I could earn the money to buy that thing and the piece I’ll have to spend to replace it.

So yeah, I’ll shoot someone over my property.

Because it’s MY life.

This entry was posted in Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to QOTD: Weer’d Thoughts on Lethal Force

  1. Weer'd Beard says:

    Yeah it is just speculation, and its just that because I’ve never been in a situation where I’ve had opportunity to shoot a thief without fear for my life. I don’t know what I’d do or how I’d feel, because I haven’t been there.

    I do know if there is threat of violence, the threat is the alpha and Omega of the issue, not the contingencies stated.

  2. Robert says:

    If there was no violent intent involved, it would not be a robbery in the first place. It would be an unsolicited request for a gift. The word or makes it an act of violence. Give me money is a request for a gift. Give me money or I’ll… is a robbery.

  3. BFCaffrey says:

    I never want to kill a human being. I’m squeamish. However, a thief is a criminal and if he’s willing to use violence to commit his crime, he is a violent criminal. I will use lethal force to defend self and family against a violent criminal.

    It’s not the value of an item that matters, it’s the utility. My computer may only be worth $199 (and thus is a “misdemeanor theft” by law) but it represents several hundred bucks more to replace it and possibly several thousand in lost income until I can replace it. When camping, someone stealing my Katidyn water filter (<$40) could well be condeming me to die by thirst. Why should he not be subject to lethal force if he is so callous about my life?

  4. BenC says:

    Well dang it Alan… I have been trying to format my thoughts to reply to JayG’s post and you go and do it better than I could ever have done. So yeah what he said. 🙂

  5. Geodkyt says:

    I think Robert sums it up best.

    Much as the first clause of the 2nd Amendment is semantically only stating a “why”, while the second phrae states the “what”, the critical phrase (even if unstated and only implied by conduct or setting) in a robbery is the, “. . . I will hurt or kill you,” portion. Anything without the threat is merely a clumsy begging attempt — anything with the threat is primarily the threat.

    In which case, “Interdicere aquae et ignis, caput gerat lupinum!

    (“Forbidden water or fire, he wears a wolf’s head!” — i.e., legally dead as a vermin, and as soon as someone gets around to it, actually dead as well.)

    Now, I’m a modern and somewhat civilized man who abhors unnecessary violence, so if he unilaterally surrenders or flees harmlessly before becoming actually dead, I’ll call it a win and let him live, content to let the cops and courts handle it. But if he resists and gets dead, it isn’t over the stuff, but due to his self-proclamation that he is an imminent danger to the innocent. (You wanna live under Mad Max collander face rules, where the strong brutalize the weak? OK, Burger King, you CAN have it your way.)

  6. Pingback: Leopards Don't Change Their Spots • Where Angels Fear To Tread

  7. Cormac says:

    Have you read marko’s post on this? http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/killing-over-stuff/
    He said pretty much the same thing…with a bit more wrangly detail.

  8. styrgwillidar says:

    Exactly. The thief stealing my computer is taking the ~50 hours I spent working to get the money to exchange for it. My life/labor in exchange for my computer. The thief is doing it because he isn’t willing to spend the ~50 hours of his own life working. He is attempting to take the short cut by stealing my ~50 hrs for his use.

    Philosophically- if a society encourages defense of property it establishes a standard that theft is intolerable. It clearly defines right from wrong for that society so that it is understood by all. The willingness of some to defend their property than benefits everyone by discouraging theft.

    In my state the use of deadly force in defense of property gets you jail time. So, it removes a disincentive for thieves and increases the tolerance for property crime. Realistically I’m not going to risk years of my life in jail just to defend that ~50 hrs of labor. A powerful incentive to tolerate burglary, vandalism etc.

Comments are closed.