The Moral Force Continuum? A property scenario?

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
If you get a CHL in TX, you spend some time learning about when to use force. It is the core of the Hot Dog debate.

However, to take it a different way, in TX - shooting to protect property is legit with certain conditions.

Some would shoot someone to save a DVD player but others think it isn't worth a life. One might argue that the motivation to shoot the burglar with your DVD comes more from protecting your territory (home) on a reflexive level rather than figuring out the pluses and minuses of such actions.

So how about this one (if you don't like scenarios or think they are stupid - have a rant and then don't play - :D ).

It is based on something that really happened.
--------
You go to art museum. They have an exhibit of some famous masterpiece - Whistler's Mother, Mona Lisa, the Scream, Woman playing a mandoline - whatever. There is a overweight and unarmed security guard in the next gallery through a connecting door.

Our favorite nut case opens his jacket, whips out a container of gasoline and drenches the picture. Stepping back a bit - he yells to the crowd -
So ends the atrocity of art in the purifying flames of God!!

He takes out a lighter - and - you are up to bat - you have the gear.

What do you do?

Now - in the past, the Mona Lisa came to the USA. It was separated from the public by a velvet rope barrier and had two marine guards. Some artsy - farsty woman decided to step over the rope to check to see in the painting was being displayed properly. IIRC - the Marine buttstroked and almost bayoneted her.

My point - is - are their levels of property which if destroyed won't really hurt anyone (plenty of copies) around but are worth taking a life to protect.

If you don't like art - say - it's an original of the Bill of Rights on tour.
 
Arson can be used, same as your other game, 'cept now it looks like you want to make the object’s value more of the discussion.

Glenn said:
My point - is - are their levels of property which if destroyed won't really hurt anyone (plenty of copies) around but are worth taking a life to protect.
Click to expand...

Of course there are "levels of property" as this refers to the property's worth or value. Worth is determined by a number of factors; monetarily, historically, or sentimentally for example.

I think that in this debate the underlying factor will be that value/worth is largely subjective to the parties involved. Put me in that museum… and I could let Mona sizzle like a juicy steak. To an art aficionado… he’ll just as soon nuke the city to save Mona.

In most cases of this type, the “level of property” will be high enough to the shooter, but the shooter will take a chance that a judge or jury of his peers will find the property to be on the same level or of the same value/worth.

The Hot Dog thread was about worth as well. Worth of the pup; worth of the land.

Some would shoot for the dog. Others shoot for the crime of arson strictly – screw the pooch. A few shoot for the crime of arson, but could really care less as they’re really using arson as an excuse to save the dog. Still, others shoot because the guy is a sick bastard and shooting has nothing to do with the dog or arson, but rather shooting is a preemptive maneuver (dog-burner is sure to turn into the Anti-Christ if we don’t stop him now while he’s toasting man’s best friend). That’s been a funny thread.
 
Is the Mona Lisa or a similar work of art worth more than the life of a nutcase? I'd think so.

Do I have any faith whatsoever that a prosecutor or jury will feel the same? Nope.

Will I risk my financial security, freedom, and even my life on my answer to the first question? Not a chance.

It's a great work of art, but I have no desire to see my life ruined in an effort to preserve it.
 
Glenn, Glenn, Glenn.... You sure do know how to stir the pot ;). Gourmet food for thought, though.

Non-LEO:

a) The painting is not my property.
b) The painting is not on my property.
c) This is clearly not a self defense issue.
d) Monetary value is (or should be) irrelevant in the decision to use deadly force.

Conclusion: Deadly force is not justified.

LEO:

a) The offense is a felony.
b) The actor though, at this point, is not an immediate threat to the lives of others.
c) His continued freedom most likely does not pose an immediate and serious threat to others.

Conclusion: Tennessee vs. Garner does not apply and deadly force is not justified. Apprehend using non-lethal force if necessary.

The painting's already soaked with gasoline and is most likely ruined anyhow.
 
Thanks, Cap'n,

I would have spent eight paragraphs saying what you expressed in a series of bullet-points.

That "nut case" is a human being, most likely a sick human being. He is worth incomparably more than any work of mere human hands.

Cheers.
 
Ok. I'd support shooting the person, for afore-mentioned reasons.

But, can I "fight the hypothetical" for a second? Oil-based paint dissolves when you pour gasoline on it. Assuming the guy has already poured the gasoline, the painting would already be destroyed. We wouldn't be saving it by shooting the guy...

Sorry, couldn't resist. Back on track now: If we just take it as factual that "shooting the person would effectuate saving the Mona Lisa," then I'd say, do it.
 
Our favorite nut case opens his jacket, whips out a container of gasoline and drenches the picture. Stepping back a bit - he yells to the crowd -
So ends the atrocity of art in the purifying flames of God!!

He takes out a lighter - and - you are up to bat - you have the gear.

What do you do?
Click to expand...

Take the lighter away from him is my first thought. Wouldnt shoot, can you carry in a museum?

I would duck in case the overweight guard opens up on the crazy bastard.....

In all reality, I would read about it cause I dont do artsy fartsy stuff. I would go into the Chicago museum as I have in the past, not to look at art tho.
 
Thanks for the clarification on that the painting is already ruined.

Let's play as Samurai says.

Why is it that this particular human being is worth more than this product?

Saying he is a human being is circular. I say that a great work is more important than this guy. It will give years of inspiration to future generations and artists. The Bill of Rights is crucial to our heritage as Americans.

For those who take the view that shooting a human being over some action which is not protecting a human life is unacceptable apriori, does that extend to the death penalty?

The victim is gone. Life without parole could reasonably reduce threats to innocents (the guards in the prison didn't have to take that job).

Second, was the area bombings of Germany and Japan, plus the A-bombs immoral. We were going to kill innocent children and some in the womb.

However, it was to our utilitarian benefit to take these innocent lives.

When someone says that taking the life of the painting vandal is not justified on moral grounds with only the statement that the person is human that isn't really sufficient from my point of view.

We do take lives on a utilitarian basis that are innocent and uninvolved in the direct combat.

At the NTI, we had a great discussion of intervention and morality. We had a scenario where terrorists attacked and threw gas on a crowd. You could fight or flee. If you did the latter, you could save an elderly person - or just yourself.

Much consumer oriented gun training advice is to save yourself and immediate family at all costs. The bystanders - too bad!

Many people with truly significant fighting abilities did just that. Out of there - Grandma be damned. Some helped.

It is not so cut and dried as to your action. Also, are your actions based on risk analysis of your best outcome, moral principles that are reasoned for the good of society or immediate affection reactions (from evolution or socialization).

That "nut case" is a human being, most likely a sick human being. He is worth incomparably more than any work of mere human hands.


From the great state of TX - clearly there are circumstances that allow the protection of property:

PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. 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
TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS 53
(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



So I suppose this provision is in part immoral as it does set out circumstances were a man made item leads to the use of lethal force.
 
Heh - Mannlicher, no, not as a rule.

Mr. Meyer, if you look to the law for your moral compass, you are going to be one lost and confused child. See the sig.
 
It's just a picture of an ugly chick. Wouldn't the gas ruin the paint anyways? And I highly doubt the real thing would be hung out where someone could get at it with a can of gas. I might pepper spray him to keep him from setting the museum on fire but that's about it. I would more or less stand back and say "Wow, look at that nut." 'Art' is the last thing I would shoot someone over.
 
It's the principle of it. Property is an extension of your life. It is the fruit of your labor. You put time, energy, money, labor and effort out of your life to produce that fruit. When somebody steals it from you, they are in effect taking a portion of your life. Yes property is worth shooting over because it is in effect a portion of your life. The man who would steal from another has demonstrated that he does not value the life and labor of another.

As we live in a socialistic (I don't mean officially but rather mentally) egalitarian society today that sees property...almost as though it should belong to everybody or does belong to everybody and hence really isn't important at all. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of few, modern socialists tell us. In fact, if you argue in favor of property rights you are just a selfish person who is denying the whole access to your goods. (I.E. Affirmative Action, Welfare, so-called Fair Housing Act, even the modern use and concept of iminent domain to built a walmart for "the good of the community.")

Or even how we view criminals as more like victims these days. "Maybe they had a bad childhood or grew up in a bad neighborhood and that's why they became a thief and a murderer" or "society is to blame."

Consequently, all states, save and except Texas, see using deadly force to protect property from a criminal as a crime because it is somehow unfair to treat that way.

Now, does that mean I am going to shoot somebody if they walk into my office and deliberately steal a pencil? Probably not. But if a thief is willing to take one article from you he is willing to take the rest. If he is willing to break in and take your $50 DVD player he is willing to take the $1900 TV set if he has the chance. If he is willing to take your $1900 TV set then he will take your $28,000 car if he is able. You can't let thieves act with impunity.

Now obviously if the property can obviously be prevented from being stolen by some other means and someone uses deadly force when it is not necessary in preventing the theft then that is another matter (known as excessive force).

Some might argue that "well the insurance pays for it." Insurance might NOT pay for it...at least not all of it. And even if it does, somebody's insurance rate is going to up. Even if it does pay for it, nothing is free, that money is coming out of somebody's pocket.

Now, as to the original post. I'm not an "artsy-fartsy" (like that term) kinda guy, so I probably wouldn't be in the museum seeing the "inner meaning of a pile of nachos with cheese" or "understanding the secrets of the universe through a jar of urine."
However, if I was, even if it was a copy of the Bill of Rights on tour or something like that, in this day and age (with laws being what they are and bleeding heart mentality being what it is and dominant today) I am not going to risk my neck shooting some piece of trash to save some corporation or government owned painting or copy of the Bill of Rights.
 
Glen, you're headed down a confusing, cloudy, spiral path, here. There's endless philisophical ramblings ahead!

For years and years, people have debated the endless pursuits of "evil is a point-of-view" and the "utility of evil for the sake of perpetuating good" thing.

Consider this: Why is it that when some scum bag tries to hold up the wrong guy and gets himself shot, the next morning the scum bag's family is ALWAYS on the T.V. and the radio screaming about what an "injustice" this is, and how the "man who murdered our baby" should be "brought to justice"? Can you HONESTLY tell me that every-single one of these people is EVIL, because they thought that the self-defense killing of their loved-one was WRONG???

What are they, then? In truth, we live in a world where evil is a point of view, and morality is a sliding scale. There is no absolute "right and wrong." There is only that which benefits me (perhaps at the cost of others), and that which harms me (perhaps for the sake of someone else's salvation). Those "stupid" family members of the scum bag, screaming on the T.V.? They are just poor folks who have lost someone dear to them. That "scum bag" you shot last night? He was a person, and he had a momma who loved him. The momma is hurting, and it was an "evil" thing to her for her to lose her son.

All actions (every single one) in this world are both inherently good and inherently evil. Those who truly ponder this fact will end up with a headache, as well as a mis-spent life. But, this is what I mean when I say things like, "Every man's gotta make his own decision."

If you believe that what is "good" to you will be served by your killing this guy in the museum, then by all means, open up and let him have it! And, if you have to go to jail because your concept of "good" (preserving the art) does not coincide with the norms of society, then "that's a decision every man must make." Likewise, many others feel that "good" is the preservation of life, even unto the discontinued existence of our humanity's culture and identity. For those, I say, when Glenn Meyer shoots, dive into the path of the bullet!

Either way, you have to accept the fact that, if you shoot someone, regardless of who it is, you may be doing good, but you are also doing evil. Any way you cut it, that's somebody's son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, or sister. It's just something that CCW holders have to come to grips with. Notwithstanding all of this, my concept of "good" favors protection of the culture, thereby protecting the group. I say, shoot the guy. Others may disagree...
 
I think the fact that a large amount of gasoline lit in a confined and populated buidling does make this a self-defense issue for both yourself and everyone else in that building.

I'd try and rush the guy, getting whatever ignition device he was using and hold out for help. I wont speculate what I would with a firearm.
 
I'd get the h___ out of there, quick. The art work doesn't belong to me and it can and will be replaced. How many paintings have been painted anyway? They mean nothing. someone else will paint another better one someday. Property means nothing in the long run, you'll die and someone else will own it. I won't kill another human being over a canvas smeared with pigment.

Don't get me wrong, I love art. But no painting is more valuable than another human life. Man can create a painting, but no man can create another human being. Nor can he bring back the dead. What if the nut case is the owner of the painting? Hmmmmmmm.:cool:
 
Why?

Why not let a vandal burn the painting?

It's not yours, you never really liked it anyways, and it can be replaced.

Why not vandals burn a library?

It's not yours, you never really used it anyways, and it can be replaced.

Why not let Vandals destroy civilization?

It's not yours, you were never really a part of it anyways, and it's irreplaceable.

You can and will be replaced.

The Mona Lisa cannot, and never will be, replaced, only copied.

Some things ARE worth more than a human life.

Not so much because of monetary value, but because their significance to Western civilization and culture transcends the centuries, serving as inspiration to future generations, and as a testament to the accomplishments of past generations.

The transitory presence of a human life, compared to the centuries past and future of that painting, is insignificant.

Same for the Gutenberg bible, the Sistine Chapel, and the many other transcendent pieces of art and culture that our (Western) civilization has produced.

Remember when the Taliban destroyed the thousand year-old Buddha statues in Afghanistan? It was that kind of mentality that needs to be guarded against, or else we'll find ourselved without a civilization, just like they don't have.

PS: A human life is still worth more than a dog, regardless of the excuse.
 
I have thought about it quite a bit, and cannot find it in me to consider lethal force in defence of property - mine or others; with the obvious exceptions such as arson or tampering with an aircaft etc.

Here's a facetious but thought provoking idea:

Some time back, I was fuming while stuck in line behind some chump buying fistfuls of lottery tickets (a tax on stupidity) and it occurred to me that this clown was wasting my time - time that I would never get back. He was literally stealing a little bit of my life! He was trying to kill me - just a little bit - so wouldn't I be justified in blowing him away in self defense?

This absurd little train of thought actually served to jolly me out of my irritation, but it made me realize just how skewed some people's concept of the appropriate threshold for deadly force is.

Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top