What do we think about what? You are not making yourself the most clear. Great title for discussion, but poor opening post. The law varies by state in the US. In some states, you can legally use deadly force to defend property (in some situations), in other states you can not. Or rather, it would probably be more accurate to say some states have more permissively worded laws on this matter. My personal view on the matter (if I was supreme dictator) is that it should only be allowed for valuable property worth more than some certain threshold amount, and there should be some standard of reasonableness, like if there is not a more reasonable way to stop the thief in that situation. I also think the law should go into more detail, and recognise these type of situations will often need to be seen with a more graduated approach (not simply black & white). I would go into more detail, but your discussion is not worth it. I'm pretty sure in all US states you can use deadly force to stop a rape. The same is not necessarily true in many countries in Europe.
I think we all recognise that would be morally wrong. That said, there are some states that would legally permit this, based on the concept that we cannot really know what exactly went on between the homeowner and the intruder, and that the homeowner should be given the benefit of the doubt, in this situation. The majority of these states can still allow punishment of the homeowner, but the laws are worded in such a way as to put a big burden of evidence to prove that it was totally unnecessary. If I try to explain anymore, I suspect it will be too complicated for you.
A rational person would not. But then again, the person breaking into your house to steal your toaster is probably not fully rational.
I suspect you don't own anything valuable. I also know you are not so noble as you sound in that statement, since you don't seem to be so enthusiastic about protecting life when it comes to the abortion issue. I'm pretty sure a million dollars and the Hope diamond is more important than "a woman's choice". I also know you are an avowed atheist and extremely antagonistic to religion (from your postings in the Religion & Philosophy section), so I think we can set aside the Christian morality discussion here. I will say one thing about that quickly here. In a society with limited resources where there are people dying from poverty, then property has to be seen as equating to life, in some sense, and so even using the morality of holding up human life as the most important thing, it could still be justifiable to kill to protect property, in some situations.
I would agree with that. I would also state that any irrational person forcing their way into my home is a danger to myself and family and should be dealt with accordingly.
You will know. God will know. And if you're not super careful the crime scene investigators will know.
Do you believe a God exists, Ronstar? Your replies in the Religion & Philosophy section of this forum would lead one to believe otherwise... (maybe I'm wrong here, just want to make sure you're not being hypocritical and disingenuous)
