The Castle Doctrine
- Thread starter flcjinflorida
- Start date
- Status
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
MLeake said:
As stated before you are comparing apples and oranges. Protecting national military assets from sabotage by terrorists is not the same as your car stereo that is probably insured. You can do better than this.
Last edited:
You are avoiding the question, TG
Since you are the one who brought personal firearms into the equation. Or are you saying that firearms are the lethal equivalent of home stereos with regard to use after a theft?
On a serious note, though - yes, many of those goods are insured. However, unless you've ever been burglarized, you may not realize exactly how much you will lose after depreciation has been factored in. Most policies don't offer "replacement value." You can easily lose thousands of dollars after a fairly minor burglary.
Continuing on a serious note, in theory, we have a right to our property. If we are not allowed to defend our property, then in practice we don't have a real right to our own property.
Furthermore, the argument that "insurance" will cover losses conveniently neglects the fact that TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). Insurance pays you, minus depreciation of course, but then insurance raises rates not only on you, but also on your neighbors - since obviously there's a crime problem in the neighborhood. The net effect is that law-abiding folk in general end up losing real assets (goods, then money toward higher premiums), despite any benefits of insurance.
So, by deciding that it's immoral to use force against those who would steal property, you are effectively saying that we should all be willing to pay some money out there in order to, for all practical purposes, enable the thieves.
Before you decide that's a ridiculous statement, what would you call it when society tells would-be criminals "We will stigmatize and prosecute any homeowner who uses force against you, if you try to steal his property - just don't threaten the homeowner, and you can take what you want" ?
Because, ultimately, that's exactly what you are saying. Steal, and you run the risk of being arrested, if and whenever the cops get around to making you their priority; but you won't be shot or harmed, unless the property's actual owner wants to go to jail and give your family all his net worth.
For me, I'll obey the law of my area. But where that law allows me to use deadly force in defense of property (and in my area it does, in certain circumstances), I have no moral or ethical qualms about its use. In fact, I have more of an ethical qualm with telling thieves that I think their right to exist is more important than a homeowner's right to a feeling of security in their own home.
Since you are the one who brought personal firearms into the equation. Or are you saying that firearms are the lethal equivalent of home stereos with regard to use after a theft?
On a serious note, though - yes, many of those goods are insured. However, unless you've ever been burglarized, you may not realize exactly how much you will lose after depreciation has been factored in. Most policies don't offer "replacement value." You can easily lose thousands of dollars after a fairly minor burglary.
Continuing on a serious note, in theory, we have a right to our property. If we are not allowed to defend our property, then in practice we don't have a real right to our own property.
Furthermore, the argument that "insurance" will cover losses conveniently neglects the fact that TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). Insurance pays you, minus depreciation of course, but then insurance raises rates not only on you, but also on your neighbors - since obviously there's a crime problem in the neighborhood. The net effect is that law-abiding folk in general end up losing real assets (goods, then money toward higher premiums), despite any benefits of insurance.
So, by deciding that it's immoral to use force against those who would steal property, you are effectively saying that we should all be willing to pay some money out there in order to, for all practical purposes, enable the thieves.
Before you decide that's a ridiculous statement, what would you call it when society tells would-be criminals "We will stigmatize and prosecute any homeowner who uses force against you, if you try to steal his property - just don't threaten the homeowner, and you can take what you want" ?
Because, ultimately, that's exactly what you are saying. Steal, and you run the risk of being arrested, if and whenever the cops get around to making you their priority; but you won't be shot or harmed, unless the property's actual owner wants to go to jail and give your family all his net worth.
For me, I'll obey the law of my area. But where that law allows me to use deadly force in defense of property (and in my area it does, in certain circumstances), I have no moral or ethical qualms about its use. In fact, I have more of an ethical qualm with telling thieves that I think their right to exist is more important than a homeowner's right to a feeling of security in their own home.
TG...
... with regard to protecting national assets from terrorists...
... your premise is that military security would only use deadly force against an Al-Qaida type organization, that is trying to obtain weapons or destroy weapons in preparation for a campaign.
Do you think deadly force would not be used against, say, ELF (Earth Liberation Front) if they decided to sneak onto McChord AFB and try to burn or blow up a cargo plane? After all, they wouldn't be trying to take explosives, or hijack a suicide plane. They just like to destroy eco-harmful items and gear, such as laboratories at UW...
I'm pretty sure deadly force would be used if surrender were not immediate.
So, do you see a problem with that? If so, what happened to your moral argument?
... with regard to protecting national assets from terrorists...
... your premise is that military security would only use deadly force against an Al-Qaida type organization, that is trying to obtain weapons or destroy weapons in preparation for a campaign.
Do you think deadly force would not be used against, say, ELF (Earth Liberation Front) if they decided to sneak onto McChord AFB and try to burn or blow up a cargo plane? After all, they wouldn't be trying to take explosives, or hijack a suicide plane. They just like to destroy eco-harmful items and gear, such as laboratories at UW...
I'm pretty sure deadly force would be used if surrender were not immediate.
So, do you see a problem with that? If so, what happened to your moral argument?
And there is the key phrase !
If someone breaks into my car while it's sitting in my driveway, I may yell to them, from a place of safety, that I have called 911, then I will assume a defensive posture inside my home, and wait for the LEOs to either catch them, or make a report.
However, if they cross the line by trying to enter my home forcibly, this is where the "Castle laws" take effect, and I will be secure in my own home, count on it.
Spot-on !
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
MLeake said:
Yes if the stereo contains any Ludacris CDs.
MLeake said:
I used to sell insurance so you must have a bad agent. I recommend you get another.
Sorry MLeake your arguments are Reductio ad absurdum especially the Earth Liberation Front LOL. They should be shot for being strange
BTW that enabling argument is comical. Thieves don't think they will be caught or killed or they wouldn't try to do the deed in the first place. Joe Horn did not stop burglaries in Pasadena TX I'm sure.
If you feel it morally correct to kill another human being to prevent them from stealing replaceable property and it is legal to do so in your area then blast away. I wonder if you will feel jusitified after you've done it. Does Joe Horn feel that way now?
I think your argument places a higher value on personal property than human life and there is your moral issue.
Of course, as always it is easy to say this stuff on the internet however as Joe Horn discovered not so easy to live with. But that's not my problem.
Outcast
You are confusing legal with moral.
Your argument is that, in the ELF on a military base example, the military has "the ultimate castle doctrine" in their favor.
All that means is they have the legal authority to use force in that scenario.
This doesn't speak at all to whether doing so would be morally correct.
So, what is your moral take on that scenario?
TG, the argument isn't at all reductio ad absurdum. ELF has been active in the SEA-TAC area for years. Their crimes almost always involve sabotage of tech equipment and facilities, or consumption-heavy vehicles. The odds of them trying to sabotage a federal installation are actually fairly high.
That's the outfit that burned down a UW biology lab back in 2000-2001 timeframe; the lab was involved with bioengineering trees, for more efficient forestry.
Point being, ELF specializes in large-scale property damage, but not anti-human direct violence.
You are confusing legal with moral.
Your argument is that, in the ELF on a military base example, the military has "the ultimate castle doctrine" in their favor.
All that means is they have the legal authority to use force in that scenario.
This doesn't speak at all to whether doing so would be morally correct.
So, what is your moral take on that scenario?
TG, the argument isn't at all reductio ad absurdum. ELF has been active in the SEA-TAC area for years. Their crimes almost always involve sabotage of tech equipment and facilities, or consumption-heavy vehicles. The odds of them trying to sabotage a federal installation are actually fairly high.
That's the outfit that burned down a UW biology lab back in 2000-2001 timeframe; the lab was involved with bioengineering trees, for more efficient forestry.
Point being, ELF specializes in large-scale property damage, but not anti-human direct violence.
TG...
... if my enabling argument is so comical, then why have crime rates dropped in areas that:
1) have passed shall-issue CCW legislation, and
2) have passed Castle Doctrine variants?
BTW, the tactical of writing off an opponent's argument as "comical" is ubiquitous in L/D and Team Debate, but is not typically all that successful. Being disrespectful only works if you offer a decent counter-argument, and even then it doesn't win you any points with a competent judge.
... if my enabling argument is so comical, then why have crime rates dropped in areas that:
1) have passed shall-issue CCW legislation, and
2) have passed Castle Doctrine variants?
BTW, the tactical of writing off an opponent's argument as "comical" is ubiquitous in L/D and Team Debate, but is not typically all that successful. Being disrespectful only works if you offer a decent counter-argument, and even then it doesn't win you any points with a competent judge.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
MLeake said:
I would talk to Glenn Meyer about such. Very questionable that what you allege is supported by facts. If you are talking about John Lott then there are a lot of problems with his work that even progun people question.
MLeake said:
No disrespect just calling it like it is. I didn't do debate club in school so I wouldn't know about the judge stuff. Where do we go on TFL to see our debate style point score?
MLeake said:
I think they are absurd. You jump back and forth between a tree-hugger group, stereos and sabotage. Where your argument is weak is that you are just using the broad term property and them extending it absurdly from a car stereo to national military critical assets and thus equating petty theft with terroristic sabotage. That is absurd.
Back to the ELF, if they were burning/blowing up buildings that people occupied then absolutely it would be moral to fire 'em up. But that would not be to protect property.
TG
Back to ELF, they tend to hit after hours, and avoid casualties. Given an after hours strike on physical assets, such as a known, unoccupied structure or aircraft, is a deadly force response morally acceptable or not?
The argument about "critical national assets" was deliberately set up with an unarmed and unmanned cargo plane, that was being destroyed and not hijacked, IE it couldn't be used to harm others.
The point being, when it comes down to it, all that would be lost is property. Granted, that property might be worth as much as $218M if it's a new C-17, but a destroyed plane can't be used for a 9/11 scenario.
If you think killing somebody over a $218M piece of gear is moral, but killing over a $3k entertainment system isn't, then your morality is determined by dollar amounts. In which case, the question becomes what is the trigger point in terms of unit cost?
If you don't think killing over material goods is ever moral, then you should believe that deadly force should not be used against non-homicidal saboteurs; if you think that's immoral, then you should also think that laws allowing deadly force in defense of government property, barring circumstances that would create a high likelihood of casualties from the act, should in theory be revised to prevent such a possibility.
If you disagree with that, then your argument basically becomes, "If a piece of property is really, really expensive and also belongs to the public, then the use of deadly force to defend it is ok; but it's immoral for private citizens to use deadly force to defend their private property."
In which case, the question becomes why should the government have more rights than the governed, and why is public property moral to defend with lethal force when private property is not?
Back to ELF, they tend to hit after hours, and avoid casualties. Given an after hours strike on physical assets, such as a known, unoccupied structure or aircraft, is a deadly force response morally acceptable or not?
The argument about "critical national assets" was deliberately set up with an unarmed and unmanned cargo plane, that was being destroyed and not hijacked, IE it couldn't be used to harm others.
The point being, when it comes down to it, all that would be lost is property. Granted, that property might be worth as much as $218M if it's a new C-17, but a destroyed plane can't be used for a 9/11 scenario.
If you think killing somebody over a $218M piece of gear is moral, but killing over a $3k entertainment system isn't, then your morality is determined by dollar amounts. In which case, the question becomes what is the trigger point in terms of unit cost?
If you don't think killing over material goods is ever moral, then you should believe that deadly force should not be used against non-homicidal saboteurs; if you think that's immoral, then you should also think that laws allowing deadly force in defense of government property, barring circumstances that would create a high likelihood of casualties from the act, should in theory be revised to prevent such a possibility.
If you disagree with that, then your argument basically becomes, "If a piece of property is really, really expensive and also belongs to the public, then the use of deadly force to defend it is ok; but it's immoral for private citizens to use deadly force to defend their private property."
In which case, the question becomes why should the government have more rights than the governed, and why is public property moral to defend with lethal force when private property is not?
I Sir, am quite aware of the difference between the two, I am also keenly aware that they are, in some instances, joined at the hip.
That statement would be correct, but did you comprehend what I said?
My home is my castle, and if someone forcibly enters it, the laws in my State give me the "legal authority" to use deadly force at my discretion, if the situation warrants such.
Under that circumstance, If I use deadly force, I will feel morally justified as well.
A military installation is analogous to a "home", as the personnel there have the right to expect, and a duty to provide, security for that installation. They also have the "legal authority" to protect it with any means necessary.
If someone forcibly enters that installation, the security detail, (much like a homeowner) has no way to determine what someones motives are, and (with even more latitude, but much the same as a homeowner) may use deadly force at their discretion.
If they use such force, they would be both legally, and morally justified IMO.
Outcast...
... ok, so now move the C-17 to a civil field, but give it a USAF security detail.
They aren't on a base. It isn't their field. They are authorized guests on public property.
Now they have the legal right to use force, but they aren't on a base.
Is their defense of government property, through the possible use of deadly force, moral or is it not?
Actually, as I think of this, you've argued in the past that defense of property within the home is immoral - IE it would be immoral to use force on a thief who is fleeing with your property, or it would be immoral to stop somebody from breaking into a vehicle in the driveway. Using your latest argument, if the entire base and airfield are "home", then by extension wouldn't "home" extend in a private individual's case throughout the property lines, and not just inside the house?
... ok, so now move the C-17 to a civil field, but give it a USAF security detail.
They aren't on a base. It isn't their field. They are authorized guests on public property.
Now they have the legal right to use force, but they aren't on a base.
Is their defense of government property, through the possible use of deadly force, moral or is it not?
Actually, as I think of this, you've argued in the past that defense of property within the home is immoral - IE it would be immoral to use force on a thief who is fleeing with your property, or it would be immoral to stop somebody from breaking into a vehicle in the driveway. Using your latest argument, if the entire base and airfield are "home", then by extension wouldn't "home" extend in a private individual's case throughout the property lines, and not just inside the house?
I don't think that the intruders are likely to be shot unless they fail to cooperate with orders, remember this ? ;
You imply that they do not "shoot first and question later" But detain the subject(s) and would only fire if orders are not complied with, Tell ya what; Walk in my front door if you are not supposed to be there and see if you don't get a similar response.
OutCast...
... you keep using "the front door" now.
However, this is outdoors, and involves a vehicle or an out-structure. Previously, you'd have indicated that confrontations in defense of such were immoral, because they risked a violent escalation.
The only thing that has changed is that now it's a security detail, and the property defended is public property instead of private property.
Your "surrender" argument is disingenuous; you had previously argued not against shooting on sight, but against confronting the thief at all. After all, per your earlier arguments, verbally or physically confronting the thief could result in his choosing to escalate things to a point where deadly force came into play.
When it was suggested that such escalation would require a conscious choice by the BG, you pooh-poohed the idea and said that the property owner was morally responsible for setting the stage.
Yet in the defense of aircraft case, you think the security detail should confront, and if the BG doesn't surrender, you are ok with the use of deadly force from the resultant escalation.
Again, you are effectively arguing for what is legal, vs what is moral, because the scenarios are otherwise the same: confrontation in defense of vehicle or unoccupied outbuilding.
... you keep using "the front door" now.
However, this is outdoors, and involves a vehicle or an out-structure. Previously, you'd have indicated that confrontations in defense of such were immoral, because they risked a violent escalation.
The only thing that has changed is that now it's a security detail, and the property defended is public property instead of private property.
Your "surrender" argument is disingenuous; you had previously argued not against shooting on sight, but against confronting the thief at all. After all, per your earlier arguments, verbally or physically confronting the thief could result in his choosing to escalate things to a point where deadly force came into play.
When it was suggested that such escalation would require a conscious choice by the BG, you pooh-poohed the idea and said that the property owner was morally responsible for setting the stage.
Yet in the defense of aircraft case, you think the security detail should confront, and if the BG doesn't surrender, you are ok with the use of deadly force from the resultant escalation.
Again, you are effectively arguing for what is legal, vs what is moral, because the scenarios are otherwise the same: confrontation in defense of vehicle or unoccupied outbuilding.
TG and OutCast...
... take the military out of it.
Make the equipment a $40M corporate jet, on a public airport. Should security be allowed to use deadly force to defend the jet, if there's nobody aboard it, and the BG's are trying to damage the jet on the spot, as opposed to break in and start it up?
Please explain why you think it should or should not be allowed.
... take the military out of it.
Make the equipment a $40M corporate jet, on a public airport. Should security be allowed to use deadly force to defend the jet, if there's nobody aboard it, and the BG's are trying to damage the jet on the spot, as opposed to break in and start it up?
Please explain why you think it should or should not be allowed.
If he is fleeing, I have no legal authority to use deadly force to stop him so, yes, you have quoted my position correctly.
Correct.
In some jurisdictions the castle laws do extend over your entire property, but again, it all comes back to discretion, I choose to draw the line to the confines of my dwelling.
Your argument about the military contingency is again still comparing apples to oranges, Federal security forces have a duty to act, the morality of their actions depends largely on the circumstances. (Much like a homeowner)
OutCast..
... don't be disingenuous.
I'm not talking about the morality of the security team personnel following their orders, in a lawful manner.
I'm talking about the rules and laws that allow such orders to be given. If you don't think defense of unoccupied, non-domicile property is moral (assuming escalation to deadly force is a possibility), then you should be opposed to the laws and rules that allow government entities to use such force.
Do you or do you not think the security detail (or for that matter, the flight crew, if they returned to their aircraft to catch saboteurs in the attempt, and assuming the crew were armed) should have the obligation and authority to use deadly force in such a scenario?
And if you do think they should, then explain why defense of a vehicle on my property would be somehow less "moral".
... don't be disingenuous.
I'm not talking about the morality of the security team personnel following their orders, in a lawful manner.
I'm talking about the rules and laws that allow such orders to be given. If you don't think defense of unoccupied, non-domicile property is moral (assuming escalation to deadly force is a possibility), then you should be opposed to the laws and rules that allow government entities to use such force.
Do you or do you not think the security detail (or for that matter, the flight crew, if they returned to their aircraft to catch saboteurs in the attempt, and assuming the crew were armed) should have the obligation and authority to use deadly force in such a scenario?
And if you do think they should, then explain why defense of a vehicle on my property would be somehow less "moral".
Indeed? The problem is that I am trying to keep the discussion within the realm of the "Castle Laws" and you continue to interject these military, or public confrontations.
I have made myself clear on my opinions of both my moral and legal standpoints on the subject, and see no reason to keep following you down your rabbit holes.
Let me make it very plain; A firearm is Life insurance, not property insurance.
Are we clear?
OutCast...
... what you are saying is you can't think of a good reason why it's moral for government entities to use deadly force in defense of property, but not moral for private individuals to do the same, so you're taking your ball and going home.
It's not a rabbit hole, it's a pretty straightforward argument.
The government allows and in fact obligates personnel to be prepared to use deadly force in defense of property. This is not dependent on the property being a domicile, or even occupied. This is also not dependent on the property being "critical gear."
Unless you think security wouldn't be prepared to fire on saboteurs who were setting fire to primary training aircraft...
In which case, if firearms are LIFE insurance, not PROPERTY insurance, then you should be writing your congressfolk and state legislators about the possible use of deadly force by federal, military, and LEO to defend property. After all, you don't think it's moral, right?
... what you are saying is you can't think of a good reason why it's moral for government entities to use deadly force in defense of property, but not moral for private individuals to do the same, so you're taking your ball and going home.
It's not a rabbit hole, it's a pretty straightforward argument.
The government allows and in fact obligates personnel to be prepared to use deadly force in defense of property. This is not dependent on the property being a domicile, or even occupied. This is also not dependent on the property being "critical gear."
Unless you think security wouldn't be prepared to fire on saboteurs who were setting fire to primary training aircraft...
In which case, if firearms are LIFE insurance, not PROPERTY insurance, then you should be writing your congressfolk and state legislators about the possible use of deadly force by federal, military, and LEO to defend property. After all, you don't think it's moral, right?
- Status