|
|
| Should people be allowed to use lethal force to prevent theft? |
| Yes. |
|
14% |
[ 1 ] |
| No. |
|
71% |
[ 5 ] |
| Only in certain cases, such as.... |
|
14% |
[ 1 ] |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
saintmichaeldefendthem
Big Lion
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 979
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:13 pm Post subject: Texas Lethal Force Laws |
 |
|
The Texas law that allows residents to use lethal force to defend their property is now in the national spotlight because an older man shot 2 intruders in his home who were making off with his property. Many are asking the question, should someone pay for theft with their very life?
Here in Idaho, recently a man was walking with his dog. A woman was also out with her dog, and her dog attacked the man's dog with ferocity. The woman's dog was large enough that she couldn't intervene, and the man tried several times to pull the woman's dog off of his. The man finally took out his pistol and shot the dog killing it. He was not charged because in Idaho it's legal to use lethal force to defend one's property. This I believe was a good application of this law.
These laws come from a different era. If someone made off with your horse, or cattle, or burned down your house, it could severely impact your livelihood and survival. Back then, it was axiomatic that one could shoot to prevent such theft or destruction. Horse and cattle thieves were hung expeditiously. In those days, these laws made sense.
But now the time has come to re-examine them. Cars are insured, as well as homes and their contents. If someone steals your car, you'll have another in less than a week. If someone breaks in to your home and steals your television, you fill out a claim and go buy another one. The only time it still makes sense to use lethal force is if someone breaks in to a house while the occupant is home. Whether or not the resident can confirm that the burglar has a weapon they can usually make a good justification to shoot as long as the intruder is not retreating. This is the contemporary understanding of the "castle" doctrine.
What does everyone think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe that anyone who comes into my house without my permission has invaded my sovereign territory and I have, or should have the right to defend my sovereign soil the same way any nation would.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
i don't know if i could ever kill anyone...i really don't want to know....
but i do think people should have the right to shoot a person if someone breaks into their home while they are at home...even if it was just to steal...and even if they are running away and are still in the house...yes...even if shooting them in the back while they flee...if the person is in anothers home without permission...
people have the right to feel safe in their houses and to feel their family is safe...
it is a shame when laws attack citizens defending their homes to protect criminals who are invading a persons dwelling.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2673
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
At least in civilized states one needs to feel their life is threatened (grievious bodily harm) before lethal force can be used and of course this is always up for interpretation. Simply stealing property does not equate to being threatened. (except in Texas and other frontier states) Yes rape is not "losing property" and is subject to the lethal force rule.
The "Christian" thing to do is give them whatever they want its only property. Of course if your not Christian then that different.
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saintmichaeldefendthem
Big Lion
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 979
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
TSS said:
| Quote: | but i do think people should have the right to shoot a person if someone breaks into their home while they are at home...even if it was just to steal...and even if they are running away and are still in the house...yes...even if shooting them in the back while they flee...if the person is in anothers home without permission...
|
That thinking could get you in a lot of hot water in most states. Even if you shoot them because you're pissed off that they stole from you, you better make the case that you feared for your life.
| Quote: | | The "Christian" thing to do is give them whatever they want its only property. Of course if your not Christian then that different. |
Christianity calls us to sometimes abrogate our natural rights for the sake of the gospel, but we never lose our right to protect ourselves against those who aggress us criminally. Really this is about what people should have the right to do.
Quite frankly, RevJP's response surprised me.
_________________
What a stunning rhetorical riposte, sir! I say, you've cut me to the quick! The incisive thrust of your logical cutlass has struck me to the bone! Alas, I fear the wound is fatal! O, untimely death! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="saintmichaeldefendthem"][
| Quote: | | That thinking could get you in a lot of hot water in most states. Even if you shoot them because you're pissed off that they stole from you, you better make the case that you feared for your life. |
it is not a matter of what most states say...
if you were here to discuss laws fine...but i thought the purpose was to get what others thought on the point...
and it will not getme in trouble...i own no guns...nor do i want one.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plotinus
Lion King
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 1037
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| saintmichaeldefendthem wrote: | Christianity calls us to sometimes abrogate our natural rights for the sake of the gospel, but we never lose our right to protect ourselves against those who aggress us criminally. Really this is about what people should have the right to do.
|
Back in the middle ages, if you killed someone it wasn't considered a crime unless you did it secretly. It was just a private matter between you and the person you killed.  I cannot accept that we should use violent force to solve these problems. My understanding of the good news that Jesus gave us is that it does not include the right to shoot trespassers.
_________________
One would never discover the limits of soul, should one traverse every road -- so deep a measure does it possess.
Heraclitus, fragment 45, quoted in Diogenes Laertius 9.7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Quite frankly, RevJP's response surprised me. |
Why is that?
Could it be that you had made determinations of who and what I was based on my offering a balance to your posts?
It seems to me from reading many of your responses to me that you have made assumptions about me and what my political and socio-economic views are. I must add that you have made no attempt to seek contrary evidence to those assumptions either.
But be that as it may, there are many things about me that would surprise you.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saintmichaeldefendthem
Big Lion
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 979
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Back in the middle ages, if you killed someone it wasn't considered a crime unless you did it secretly. It was just a private matter between you and the person you killed. I cannot accept that we should use violent force to solve these problems. My understanding of the good news that Jesus gave us is that it does not include the right to shoot trespassers.
|
You still don't get it. That's fine if you want to live by that stricture, nobody will force you to defend yourself. But it does not suit a society to rob people of the right to defend themselves. It's a natural right. In your narrow, eclectic view of what Jesus taught, did it ever occur to you to wonder why he commanded his followers to obtain swords?
_________________
What a stunning rhetorical riposte, sir! I say, you've cut me to the quick! The incisive thrust of your logical cutlass has struck me to the bone! Alas, I fear the wound is fatal! O, untimely death! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2673
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sure, there were wild animals around in those times and not just the human types.
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plotinus
Lion King
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 1037
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| saintmichaeldefendthem wrote: | | You still don't get it. That's fine if you want to live by that stricture, nobody will force you to defend yourself. But it does not suit a society to rob people of the right to defend themselves. It's a natural right. In your narrow, eclectic view of what Jesus taught, did it ever occur to you to wonder why he commanded his followers to obtain swords? |
Narrow and electic at the same time? That's an accomplishment!! Well maybe you are right. Perhaps I am eclectic 
As far as swords are concerned, just ask the question. How many swords to you think the disciples of Jesus would have needed to seriously defend themselves against soldiers?
"See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.
One hundred swords is a serious defence. Two swords is a metaphor. Happy American Thanksgiving to all.
_________________
One would never discover the limits of soul, should one traverse every road -- so deep a measure does it possess.
Heraclitus, fragment 45, quoted in Diogenes Laertius 9.7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saintmichaeldefendthem
Big Lion
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 979
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | As far as swords are concerned, just ask the question. How many swords to you think the disciples of Jesus would have needed to seriously defend themselves against soldiers?
|
Yes, the number of swords was important. If every Apostle had a sword, it would be seen as an insurrection. Being as it was only 2, it was for basic defense against criminals. And a sword won't seem metaphorical when you're being impaled by one.
RevJP, of course I'm surprised. After repeatedly stating your position opposing people taking the law into their own hands, you propose it's ok to shoot someone who's stealing your property. Yes, your juxtaposition puzzled me.
_________________
What a stunning rhetorical riposte, sir! I say, you've cut me to the quick! The incisive thrust of your logical cutlass has struck me to the bone! Alas, I fear the wound is fatal! O, untimely death! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plotinus
Lion King
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 1037
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I do not accept this interpretation, SMDT. The gospel moves with the force of high drama towards its dramatic climax, the crucifixion and resurrection. The role of swords is like a key piece of evidence in an Agatha Christie novel, where the full import of the evidence is only understood in the conclusion. We have a wondrous parallel between two moments:
"See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.
and
"Lord shall we strike with our swords?" ... But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.
I believe that Jesus wished his followers to have a few swords so that his healing power could be evident to those who would do him harm. He returned hatred and violence with love.
_________________
One would never discover the limits of soul, should one traverse every road -- so deep a measure does it possess.
Heraclitus, fragment 45, quoted in Diogenes Laertius 9.7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saintmichaeldefendthem
Big Lion
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 979
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I believe that Jesus wished his followers to have a few swords so that his healing power could be evident to those who would do him harm. He returned hatred and violence with love.
|
I think we are passionately agreeing with each other on this point. The primary mission of the Apostles was one of peace. But the fact that Jesus called for and permitted the carrying of 2 swords is a real stick in the eye to your theory that we are never to defend ourselves. Peter wasn't called on his "packing heat" he was called on his timing and judgement in the deployment of his weapon.
_________________
What a stunning rhetorical riposte, sir! I say, you've cut me to the quick! The incisive thrust of your logical cutlass has struck me to the bone! Alas, I fear the wound is fatal! O, untimely death! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plotinus
Lion King
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 1037
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| saintmichaeldefendthem wrote: | | Peter wasn't called on his "packing heat" he was called on his timing and judgement in the deployment of his weapon. |
Well my interpretation is also backed up with other quotes. I'm sure yours can be too. But if packing heat was standard operating procedure for disciples then I doubt Jesus would have said:
"Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
You can argue in response that if Jesus did not approve of swords then he would not have permitted his disciples to have swords. But the argument is circular, because the quote from Luke shows that his disciples did not routinely have swords.
"Lord behold here are two swords."
The word behold would not be there if Jesus saw his followers wear swords routinely. "Lord behold I am wearing a tunic" doesn't cut it.
Luke makes it quite clear that the possession of a sword at the time of Jesus' arrest was to fulfill prophecy:
"he that has no sword, let him ... buy one. For I say unto you that this is written must yet be accomplished in me: "And he was reckoned among the transgressors"
_________________
One would never discover the limits of soul, should one traverse every road -- so deep a measure does it possess.
Heraclitus, fragment 45, quoted in Diogenes Laertius 9.7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
