Do you believe lethal force in defense of property is justified or moral?

I suppose it depends on how much you value the life of random thieves. I personally value my own property, which I have traded many hours of my short period on Earth for, far, far more than that of a dark-skinned gentleman of African origins.

If the threat is to you or a person, yes. If the threat is to money, no.

What if I own an iron smelting plant, and you've got a mine. I'm buying iron ore from you. This week's delivery is late or unavailable. Should I have the right to shoot you and take possession of this week's agreed upon amount?

This is the shittiest argument I've heard these past 3 months, and that's saying something

If he is actively trying to steal your iron and the only way to stop it effectively is to shoot him, sure. Say, he was driving a dump truck with all of your iron in it, then go ahead and shoot him.

>This is the shittiest argument I've heard these past 3 months, and that's saying something

What exactly is shitty about it? What makes defense of property different if it's due to contract non-compliance than if it's due to theft? The difference is in the intent of the other party, not you nor your relation to your property.

Again, what makes it different if he was trying to steal your stuff, or he was just behind on his production and can't meet all of his obligations, and decided to give you the shaft? Either way, you, and your property rights, have been impinged. If the use of lethal force is justified to defend your property, you should be able to shoot him and take over his mine to get yours.

Yes. Burglars should understand what they are getting into when they attempt to rob someone.

Yes, of course. What kind of sheltered fool doesn't?

what the fuck sort of world do you live in where musicians steal cash from people's houses?

>The difference is in the intent of the other party, not you nor your relation to your property.
Correct. Hence if the ore being late is not due to malicious intent; you either sue him or make him recompense you. If he's intentionally fucking you up; you fuck him up in return

> If the use of lethal force is justified to defend your property, you should be able to shoot him and take over his mine to get yours
There you go again, with your retarded arguments.

If you take over his mine you're impinging his property. If you kill the thief; you aren't impinging his property

Just add a clause regarding if you can reasonably expect your property to be recovered.

Also untimely delivery is not equal to theft. A more apt comparison would be you handing me the payment and me hopping into my coal truck and speeding away never to return.

>What makes defense of property different if it's due to contract non-compliance than if it's due to theft?

Because contractual arrangements already presuppose implicit and explicit means of legal recourse, such as guarantee collateral and petition to court. Failing that he'll merely lose repute as a businessman.

Yes

>What exactly is shitty about it?
Not that user but you're equating a breech of contract with burglary and defense of property.

The contract itself would typically stipulate the cost of breeching it and it would also likely be more beneficial to just sue the guilty party.

Your analogy is stupid.

1000 years worth of English lawyers.

By forming a contract you have acknowledged risk and voluntarily accepted it. The same way when I loan a friend money I understand he may not be able to pay it back.

In the case of burglary I am at risk simply by the fact of owning any property at all. Property ownership is a core aspect of our society and it is for all intents and purposed impossible for me to completely divest myself of property and thus risk.

What a bunch of retards.

>moral

Whether something is moral or not doesn't matter. Might makes right. If you have the might to protect yourself from theft and you kill someone in the process of doing so then the one who got killed should have come correct.

>Correct. Hence if the ore being late is not due to malicious intent; you either sue him or make him recompense you. If he's intentionally fucking you up; you fuck him up in return

Again, why? If the difference between the proper employment of lethal force versus lawsuit is in the intent of the other party, how can it really be said to be about property rights at all? If someone intends and is carrying out a plan to humiliate you at a social gathering (malicious in most definitions of the word) why shouldn't I be allowed to kill him? He's intentionally fucking me up, I can fuck him up in return.

>If you take over his mine you're impinging his property.

In order to recover your property rights. You mentioned a court system and lawsuits. How is taking over his mine to enforce your contract any different from a court instituting wage garnishment, or an order that his mine have to deliver you first if you sue and win?

> If you kill the thief; you aren't impinging his property

Which has nothing to do with YOUR property.

>Just add a clause regarding if you can reasonably expect your property to be recovered.

And why shouldn't that apply in the case of theft as well?

>Also untimely delivery is not equal to theft.

I never said it was. It is, however, a violation of your property rights.

>A more apt comparison would be you handing me the payment and me hopping into my coal truck and speeding away never to return.

why is it more apt? Merely because the crime is more visible? There's less of a collateral to draw upon?

Wut?
For much of England's history you could be executed and/or killed for burglary, robbery, and poaching and many were.

>And why shouldn't that apply in the case of theft as well?
I'm saying apply it to theft. In the majority of burglaries of private residences and similar you cannot reasonably expect recovery of property.

>Because contractual arrangements already presuppose implicit and explicit means of legal recourse, such as guarantee collateral and petition to court

And what? You don't have implicit and explicit means of legal recourse if someone stole from you? The existence of an alternative enforcement mechanism doesn't change the underlying issue: You have had a property right infringed. In one instance, it's by theft. In another, it's by contract. The differences between them exist, but they are not insofar as how your property rights are exercised. If you want to claim that there should be different means of enforcing your property rights in the instances, you're left with the inescapable conclusion that it is some other factor, not the property right itself, that is determining whether lethal force is justified or not.

>Not that user but you're equating a breech of contract with burglary and defense of property.

Yes, because they're both infringements of property rights, just ones that come about in different ways.

>The contract itself would typically stipulate the cost of breeching it and it would also likely be more beneficial to just sue the guilty party.

And if you can sue the burglar, do you lose your right to shoot him?

>Your analogy is stupid.

No, your non-comprehension is stupid. The difference between the two situations is not because of the property rights involved. The difference is in the intent of the offending party; if you want to say that one is justifying lethal force and the other does not, it cannot be because of your property rights.

What does any of your post have to do with property rights and the use of force to defend them? If the standard is "because I'm at risk for loss, thus I can use force", shouldn't the property owner have the right to shoot anyone who increases that risk, whether or not they're actually threatening his or her property?

>In order to recover your property rights
Noooo; for you to recover your property rights you just get that shipment of ore and then leave. If you take it over you done fucked up
>If someone intends and is carrying out a plan to humiliate you at a social gathering (malicious in most definitions of the word) why shouldn't I be allowed to kill him?
You should be; but remember that there are consequences to every action

> If the difference between the proper employment of lethal force versus lawsuit is in the intent of the other party, how can it really be said to be about property rights at all
Because one happens not because he intends to fuck me over; but of outside circumstances. The thief decides to steal on his own

>Which has nothing to do with YOUR property.
The moment he decides to steal from me his life becomes my property, and I get to choose what to do with it

Underrated.

When someone kills a thief attempting to steal from them, the only question should be "why was he stealing".

Never, "why did he kill someone that was robbing him?"

I think you're speaking to theft as a very ambiguous concept. I think OP was implying theft, so if that's the case, then intent would make the difference.

Judicially

That's legit. We'd have to come up with some kind of framework as to what counts as a "reasonable" chance of property recovery to make a practical framework out of this, but it's a good foundation principle.

So then it's not actually about property rights. You're advocating a system where anyone who expresses hostility towards you is fair game. And I suppose you are in turn fair game towards those you're expressing hostility to by your homicidal plans to either protect or avenge yourself.

I suppose it's internally consistent, but please forgive me if I don't want to live in such a world.

>Wut?
>For much of England's history you could be executed and/or killed for burglary, robbery, and poaching and many were

Yes, by a court of law, not by vigilantes. "But he stole my wallet" has never been a legal excuse for murder.

>You don't have implicit and explicit means of legal recourse if someone stole from you?

Yes you do, such as killing them.

>justified
Yes, it's legal where I live.

>moral
more than that, it's educational.

I'm speaking to property, not to theft. Theft is a sub-set of actions against property interest, of which there is a far wider set to draw upon.

If you want to say that theft opens you up to being fair game to use lethal force against, then you have to isolate what it is about theft that puts that target on your back. My examples were merely meant to illustrate how it doesn't seem to be the actual infringement against the property interest, otherwise you open up the doors to all kinds of absurd situations where property interests are infringed but it doesn't feel right that we should be allowed to kill someone over that.

This

What do you mean?

>Yes you do, such as killing them.

I can't speak to other countries, but in the U.S., you cannot use lethal force merely for the defense of property. You get to Castle Doctrine and the like by extending the notion of defense of self, but you have a lot of jurisprudence, probably most famously Katko v Briney, saying that mere property rights aren't enough to justify lethal force.

You can in limited cases in Texas.
>A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
>(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
>(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
>(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
>(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
>(3) he reasonably believes that:
>(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
>(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Maybe if they're stealing my cattle or something

Oh, interesting. Did not know.

Definitely.
>hee hee because I'm faster than you or sneakier than you, I should be able to take your stuff with no consequences!

Fuck off and die parasite.
Thieves should be shot in the back without warning.

fucking animals

I believe force is always justified. If it's lethal, even better.

However, you should always act in offense.

of course

According to this I may kill someone for stealing my 5cent bubble gum if they'd be willing to cause serious bodily injury if I attempt to retrieve it by force. There's no requirement that the theft be felonious. Absurd.

>it's absurd that I can't steal things

It's never justified.i don't care if you break in my house, rape my wife and steal my possession. I will NOT lay a finger on you

It's justified and moral. There's very good reasons even some herbivorous animals practice it. The following apply to them, as well as humans, just that some of us have rather peculiar qualms and engage in virtue signalling mental gymnastics about it. Some or all could apply, depending on the situation.

>your possessions that you worked you obtain are at risk
>when they take off, they could always come back for the rest at a later date
>becoming a victim will see you targeted again
>your wife and kids are at risk
>you're at risk
>everyone's lives are at risk

too obvious

If you break into my house and you're still around by the time I see you, chances are I'm just gonna shoot.
If you're running away by the time I see you chances are I won't shoot because I don't want my gun to be in lockup for 2 years while I pester the cops daily to give it back.

What if xir hurts your wife's son?

I'm worried about the moral level of this society.
Acting so strong, but only herd inside.
Pathetic animals.

kek m8, you'd literally let nigs and spics get away with your stuff; you don't get to talk shit

>white people don't steal

They don't in the same proportion to subhuman races

>implying implications
>kek m8, you'd literally let crackers, nigs and spics get away with your stuff; you don't get to talk shit*

Happy, cucky?

They've stolen entire continents.

Might is right.

So wouldn't that mean when Jamal robs you and fuck your wife in front of you, it's justified?

If a thief is killed in the act, it is blaringly obvious that he wouldn't have been killed had he not been doing something he shouldn't be doing in the first place.

The person who killed the thief had no time to consider the outcome, the thief did. Therefore, blame for the killing rests on the premeditation of the thief.

Animals shouldn't have guns in the first place so it's not a valid comparison.

How do you know we wouldn't act in the way we speak?

No. He'll go to jail or I'll kill him myself

Who said he needed a gun cracka?
The only weapon he needs is the bbc

Yes. You never know when burglary can turn into gang-rape and to be honest - not that anybody would miss the scum you've killed.

B-b-but might makes right

Exactly. The states might fucks him or I just kill him myself

Cuck pls.
History shows that BBC is no match for a BFG.

Yes, and I have might in form of pistol chambered in 10mm auto.

Depends on the property. Depends on the collateral threat to my safety or the safety of others. Depends on what kind of mood I'm in.

So if his family retaliates by killing you is that also justified? Do we just repeat this ad nauseam or do we admit killing/raping one another isn't particularly nice and simultaneously not shoulder the sins of the previous generations?

>So if his family retaliates by killing you is that also justified?
They won't as I'll impale his body on big fucking spike in front of my house as a warning to anybody who would want to repeat his mistake.

His initial actions weren't justified to begin with. His family trying to get back at me only results in more dead wanna be gangster niggers. I'd say bring it

White man conquered the world and got away with it. Id say get over it and enjoy the fruits of his civilization

Fuck off, Courier.

As a work-slave who got all my valuable stuff stolen by a burglar while I was working - yes, yes, I do.

Not just justified but good for society as well.

It saves the government money from having to imprison them and saves honest people money from not having their stuff stolen.

>property
Too wide.
I support lethal force in case of trespass to land.

That's the silliest one though. Tresspass isn't even a criminal offence in most countries.

In terms of the structure of a legal system would you honestly support the state backed right to shoot and kill someone that accidentally walked onto your land?

>right to shoot and kill someone that accidentally walked onto your land?
Not that same guy, but how does one accidentally jump over a fence?

Not only is that a very specific scenario but I'm not sure I support the right to shoot a child for climbing over a fence.

Or the right to shoot an elderly person with dementia for accidentally walking on someone's land that doesn't have a fence.

Yes, I would. But still, I'd put an obligation to fence one's land for self defense to apply. I think jumping a fence is still trespass tho, not b&e, which is why I wrote trespass to land.

You're supporting the right to shoot an invader.
Don't try to appeal to emotions, if a demented elderly or a kid break something, they're still expected (or their guardians anyway) to pay for it, their incapacity doesn't excuse them.
Besides, it's a right, not a duty. Just because you can shoot the trespassing kid or old fucker, doesn't mean you have to. You could just as well kindly lead the geezer out (or better call the police) and kick the kid flying over the fence.

It's not a specific scenario. A property should have a fence, otherwise it can't be considered that someone entered into it, because he can't know he's doing it.

Justified yes, human life has no intrinsic value.

Moral no because morality does not exist.

>oh thank god, there's a house
>MISTER THE CLOWNS HAVE BEEN CHASING US FOR MILES THANK GOD YOU ARRI
>get shot

It seems like you should at least try to identify your target.

>It's not a specific scenario. A property should have a fence,

There's nothing about tresspass laws that suggest every property should have a fence. If you own an unfenced field or garden and I get lost and accidentally walk onto it then I am legally a tresspasser.

You want a state enforced fencing law? Are you going to put people in prison for not putting adequate fences up or just fine them? I don't want to pay tax money to the Fence Enforcement Bureau you want to set up.

>Are you going to
..deny them the right to defend that land. That's it. If they don't care, why should the state?

What if I'm lost? What if they're just coming to knock on door?

>It seems like you should at least try to identify your target.
My point is I have the right to shoot them, doesn't mean I would blindly start gunning anyone down. Any normal person would try to see who's trespassing before actually shooting.

>Are you going to deny them the right to defend that land.

Sure. Since 99% of tresspassers aren't people looking to take land away from people.

A lost rambler is a tresspasser, which is why tresspass isn't even a criminal offence.

What if everything is my property?

Human life > material possessions

Especially when you consider insurance. What a stupid fucking question. Only some of my fellow Ameridumbs could possibly spin lethal force in defense of property justified.

Why would you give a right that would only be used by abnormal people?