Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 18 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft (Read 1146 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #110 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 4:43pm
Print Post  
TYCapitalism wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 3:31pm:
You contradict yourself frequently in this statement.

According to you I have the right to use deadly force to protect one of my rights (my right to life only), but I also have a right to be presumed innocent, but my rights are conditional on respecting the rights of others such as presuming the innocence of the person who has stolen from me.

None of that is contradictory.

Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent.

The idea comes from the time when if the King declared you guilty  of whatever, you would be hung until you were not quite dead, then drawn and quartered.

The presumption if innocence is essential to individual liberty. So is the right of the jury that will try you to tell the King to crappity smack off.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GEMorton
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 252
Joined: Aug 24th, 2015
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #111 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 6:59pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 4:43pm:
None of that is contradictory.

Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent.



No, Jeff, they do not. The presumption of innocence is an element of due process, and due process is a set of procedural restrictions on the powers of the state to prosecute alleged criminals. They are put in place because none of bureaucrats charged with exercising that power --- police, prosecutors, judges, jurors --- have any direct knowledge of the crime alleged, nor any substantive interest in the truth or falsity of the allegation. But the shopkeeper about to be robbed, the woman about to be raped, the pedestrian about to be mugged, the homeowner observing a burglar absconding with his wife's jewelry, have utterly no duty to presume their predators are innocent --- they know first-hand, by direct observation, that they are not --- and have every right to resist those predations with any means available.

No person committing a crime has any "right" that his victim presume him innocent.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #112 - Sep 14th, 2018 at 6:45am
Print Post  
GEMorton wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 6:59pm:
No, Jeff, they do not. The presumption of innocence is an element of due process, and due process is a set of procedural restrictions on the powers of the state to prosecute alleged criminals. They are put in place because none of bureaucrats charged with exercising that power --- police, prosecutors, judges, jurors --- have any direct knowledge of the crime alleged, nor any substantive interest in the truth or falsity of the allegation. But the shopkeeper about to be robbed, the woman about to be raped, the pedestrian about to be mugged, the homeowner observing a burglar absconding with his wife's jewelry, have utterly no duty to presume their predators are innocent --- they know first-hand, by direct observation, that they are not --- and have every right to resist those predations with any means available.

No person committing a crime has any "right" that his victim presume him innocent.

You are right of course, for the specific sorts of instances you describe, but many, probably even most instances of crime, are not so clear cut. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable and lots of (most?) rapists, muggers and thieves escape the sort of instant justice you are talking about.

In those cases "I think he's the one that did it" is not enough to establish guilt.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TYCapitalism
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 52
Location: Mt. Vernon, IL
Joined: Feb 20th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #113 - Sep 14th, 2018 at 8:51am
Print Post  
Which is why just allowing people to defend themselves and their property with deadly force is so important. They must be presumed innocent unless circumstances show their story is suspicious.

For instance, if I am unfortunate enough to have to shoot someone and I tell the cops that he was running at me with a knife, but they see that I shot him in the back and his finger prints aren't on the knife.

We cannot live freely in a society that tolerates the violation of individual rights. For me to respect someone's "right" to being presumed innocent, they must respect my right to property and life. I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why they broke into my house or smashed the window of my car, but you know...whatever.
  

Help me buy shotguns for women.
https://www.help50.org/donate
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #114 - Sep 14th, 2018 at 12:21pm
Print Post  
TYCapitalism wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 8:51am:
Which is why just allowing people to defend themselves and their property with deadly force is so important. They must be presumed innocent unless circumstances show their story is suspicious.

For instance, if I am unfortunate enough to have to shoot someone and I tell the cops that he was running at me with a knife, but they see that I shot him in the back and his finger prints aren't on the knife.

We cannot live freely in a society that tolerates the violation of individual rights. For me to respect someone's "right" to being presumed innocent, they must respect my right to property and life. I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why they broke into my house or smashed the window of my car, but you know...whatever.
As I mentioned, it's illegal to booby trap your hunting camp in Maine because someone just might break in because they are lost and in danger of dying from hunger and exposure.

Anyway, here's a bit of U.S. law on the use of deadly force-

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/1047.7
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TYCapitalism
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 52
Location: Mt. Vernon, IL
Joined: Feb 20th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #115 - Sep 14th, 2018 at 2:35pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 12:21pm:
As I mentioned, it's illegal to booby trap your hunting camp in Maine because someone just might break in because they are lost and in danger of dying from hunger and exposure.

Anyway, here's a bit of U.S. law on the use of deadly force-

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/1047.7


A law is not a right.
  

Help me buy shotguns for women.
https://www.help50.org/donate
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GEMorton
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 252
Joined: Aug 24th, 2015
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #116 - Sep 14th, 2018 at 2:55pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 12:21pm:
As I mentioned, it's illegal to booby trap your hunting camp in Maine because someone just might break in because they are lost and in danger of dying from hunger and exposure.


Such a person could not even be convicted of trespass or burglary, much less justifiably killed with a spring gun. That is called the "defense of necessity." The trespasser/burglar would be liable for any damage he caused or supplies he consumed, however.

Quote:
Anyway, here's a bit of U.S. law on the use of deadly force-

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/1047.7


That is a federal law applicable to federal law enforcement personnel. It has no bearing on self-defense of property by private citizens, which is governed by state laws.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #117 - Sep 14th, 2018 at 5:14pm
Print Post  
GEMorton wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 2:55pm:
That is a federal law applicable to federal law enforcement personnel. It has no bearing on self-defense of property by private citizens, which is governed by state laws.
On things like this, state laws follow federal laws quite closely...

Not because states are puling sycophants, but because the theory behind it is deeply embedded in the theories of justice that underlie our theories of government and law.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GEMorton
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 252
Joined: Aug 24th, 2015
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #118 - Sep 14th, 2018 at 10:46pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 5:14pm:
On things like this, state laws follow federal laws quite closely...


State laws are all over the place on this issue. In several states the state constitutional right to keep and bear arms mentions defense of property. Here is Colorado's:

"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.  Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13)."

Missouri:

"Missouri:  That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.  Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).

In those states (and others with similar provisions) a law that prohibited lethal force to protect property would be facially unconstitutional.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #119 - Sep 15th, 2018 at 7:02am
Print Post  
GEMorton wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 10:46pm:
State laws are all over the place on this issue. In several states the state constitutional right to keep and bear arms mentions defense of property. Here is Colorado's:

"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.  Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13)."

Missouri:

"Missouri:  That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.  Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).

In those states (and others with similar provisions) a law that prohibited lethal force to protect property would be facially unconstitutional.

Defending your home and property with guns does not mean shooting anyone you catch stealing from you.

Seek legal advice before you try it.

I understand that you are looking at this as a moral issue, and so am I.

You think it's moral to kill thieves, and I don't. I have the weight of civilized opinion as it has been codified into law on my side. The law holds it to be a crime to kill thieves except in extraordinary circumstances, and it does so because civilized people have believed, for hundreds of years, that killing thieves is not a moral response to theft.

Neither is cutting off their hands.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 18
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy