Debate - Deadly force in home defense

[jack]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075411.stm

Normally I'm disturbingly traditionally left, in terms of economics, crime, personal lives, etc, but for once I'm on the other side, which is probably rare enough to be telling-people-about worthy.

Killing someone breaking into your home? Yeah, sounds fair, they deserved it. First I'll define some limiting terms I think most people can agree with to, and that everyone here probably would; if someone's dropped everything and running away, or unconscious, or otherwise safe, no killing; if someone's attacking you, or someone else, anything is fair game.

But breaking into someone's house seems enough of a threat to justify deadly force.

Other things I agree with: *simplifying* the rules sounds good (if they're as simple as some people say, why couldn't they be summed up in a sidebar? :) ); Tony Martin isn't necessarily the best precedent because it was a whole mess.

However, to revert to form, I'll tear some holes in the rest of what the man says. STEP ONE, MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT KILLING SOMEONE IN YOUR HOME BY MISTAKE. While I may admit the moral in abstract, this sort of kills the law in the real world. Step two, it's still a tragedy if someone's killed, even if they are a toe-rag. It's not something to be proud of, even though they were asking for it.

Comments

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Well, not *given*, but likely enough that you could be justified in assuming it.

Of course, there are burglars who wouldn't hurt a fly. But while I think "you're inviting trouble doing that so take the consequences" is a lousy argument when you're doing something you *should* be able to do, it's quite good when you're doing something you *shouldn't*.

[mobbsy.livejournal.com]

"He was a bad-un, he got what's coming to him" is a terribly dangerous argument, and one people are hypocritical about. It's the stereotype of the Daily Mail reader who believes that all burglars should be locked up for life, but it's unfair for them to have got a speeding ticket. Society decides on the penalties it imposes for transgressions of laws, people don't lose all rights as humans the instant they transgress a law.

Oh, and if it helps, property isn't special, whereas human life is. This is a major fallacy of US Libertarians; property isn't a right, it's a privilege granted by the State (the State obviously ideally being the consensus representation of the Nation's constituent individuals). In an anarchy, your property is only what you can defend with force, in a functioning state you've given over many (but not all) rights to employ force to the state in return for security. I don't believe that a temporary failure in the state's duty to provide security justifies a lapse in these rules if the only thing at stake is property.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, they do lose *some* rights. I'd say (apart from possibly some extremly convoluted and grave saving-the-wrold circumstance) "not being tortured" is a right *everyone* should have. "Not being locked up" is one you forfeit with enough cause. Where does "not being killed" fall?

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what point you're making about property not being a right. In an anarchy, your life last only as long as you can protect it, doesn't it? I might be persuaded that life is an automatic right, and property is something granted, but in the sense of "If I was organising things, what I'd give people" right, I'd give both.

[mobbsy.livejournal.com]

Damn, and it sounded so good when I wrote it.

I think there's still some substance there, I'll try and write something more clear at some point.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Well, everything else you wrote was clearer than what I managed, so you're still ahead, even if that wasn't convincing quite yet :)