4 ms·

Something tells me you wouldn't support this were it your business being burned. They're gonna run into some roof Koreans, get shot, then more people will get

Something tells me you wouldn't support this were it your business being burned. They're gonna run into some roof Koreans, get shot, then more people will get mad even though it's completely justifiable to defend one's property with lethal force from an angry mob.

SauciestGNU 6y ago
It's actually not justifiable to protect property with lethal force, and doing so is unlawful in many jurisdictions. Protecting the life of yourself and others is a justifiable reason to use lethal force. I'm trying to be charitable here, so I will ask you to reflect on the reasons why you think protecting replaceable (or even irreplaceable) property is worth extinguishing a human life.
- mmm_grayons 6y ago
  I'm aware that most states don't allow for it, though in Texas, my home state, that's somewhat in question and may be allowed[0][1] under certain circumstances. Regardless of the current legal situation, I believe all states ought to allow deadly force to defend or recapture property. In light of your magnanimous question (inquiring after the views of another is called conversation, not charity), here's my rationale as to why one is justified in using lethal force to defend property. Let's take an extreme case: Say I'm an immigrant from a third-world nation who arrives in America at a young age. I spend my life working to build a successful small business. I pour my blood, sweat, and tears into it. Now, someone comes along, full of "justified anger" and ready to burn it down. By doing this, he is destroying a huge portion of my life. While this is less severe than murder, it's on the same spectrum of evil; one is destroying another's entire life, the other, only part of another's life. Therefore, a man is justified in any amount of force necessary to protect his property. I'm aware this isn't a common way to view, but I'm happy to answer more questions and defend it further. I don't believe life has any absolute importance over property because property represents a part of another life. While a person represents more life than a thing in most cases, a thief or arsonist forfeits his rights by committing crimes against another. [0]: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm [1]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3161145627178569736 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=316114562717856...
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Get insurance.
    - mmm_grayons 6y ago
      That's your entire answer? Get insurance? Pretty inadequate for a discussion that's shifted to what's moral and not. People don't carry insurance on everything. A business, maybe, but I picked that as an example through which I could more easily illustrate the point. Same thing applies to a television.
      - SauciestGNU 6y ago
        I said I was being charitable earlier because I think only a truly monstrously evil person could believe any property could have worth comparable to a human life, and I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt that you are not such a monster.
        leetcrew 6y ago
        a few thousand dollars worth of insured inventory in a corner store is certainly not worth killing someone over. but surely you can envision a scale of destruction where use of violence is justified. suppose for instance a group of people is rampaging through the countryside burning fields and destroying a meaningful portion of the food supply for a country. is it still wrong to do what it takes to stop these people before everyone starves?
        SauciestGNU 6y ago
        Sure, yes I agree with your pillaging the countryside example. I would qualify that though by asserting that the pillaging army is not threatening just property but the ability of the victims to survive. So yes there is a threshold of destruction that threatens life itself, and that would probably justifiably be met with deadly force.
pmiller2 6y ago
And, something tells me that if you and your family had been oppressed by the police for hundreds of years, you would support this. Moreover, businesses have insurance that covers these kinds of losses. As I said, violence against people is simply not acceptable here. Showing how violence is often the first resort of police rather than a last resort is the entire point of these protests.

SauciestGNU 6y ago

It's actually not justifiable to protect property with lethal force, and doing so is unlawful in many jurisdictions. Protecting the life of yourself and others is a justifiable reason to use lethal force. I'm trying to be charitable here, so I will ask you to reflect on the reasons why you think protecting replaceable (or even irreplaceable) property is worth extinguishing a human life.

mmm_grayons 6y ago
I'm aware that most states don't allow for it, though in Texas, my home state, that's somewhat in question and may be allowed[0][1] under certain circumstances. Regardless of the current legal situation, I believe all states ought to allow deadly force to defend or recapture property. In light of your magnanimous question (inquiring after the views of another is called conversation, not charity), here's my rationale as to why one is justified in using lethal force to defend property. Let's take an extreme case: Say I'm an immigrant from a third-world nation who arrives in America at a young age. I spend my life working to build a successful small business. I pour my blood, sweat, and tears into it. Now, someone comes along, full of "justified anger" and ready to burn it down. By doing this, he is destroying a huge portion of my life. While this is less severe than murder, it's on the same spectrum of evil; one is destroying another's entire life, the other, only part of another's life. Therefore, a man is justified in any amount of force necessary to protect his property. I'm aware this isn't a common way to view, but I'm happy to answer more questions and defend it further. I don't believe life has any absolute importance over property because property represents a part of another life. While a person represents more life than a thing in most cases, a thief or arsonist forfeits his rights by committing crimes against another. [0]: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm [1]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3161145627178569736 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=316114562717856...
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Get insurance.
  - mmm_grayons 6y ago
    That's your entire answer? Get insurance? Pretty inadequate for a discussion that's shifted to what's moral and not. People don't carry insurance on everything. A business, maybe, but I picked that as an example through which I could more easily illustrate the point. Same thing applies to a television.
    - SauciestGNU 6y ago
      I said I was being charitable earlier because I think only a truly monstrously evil person could believe any property could have worth comparable to a human life, and I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt that you are not such a monster.
      - leetcrew 6y ago
        a few thousand dollars worth of insured inventory in a corner store is certainly not worth killing someone over. but surely you can envision a scale of destruction where use of violence is justified. suppose for instance a group of people is rampaging through the countryside burning fields and destroying a meaningful portion of the food supply for a country. is it still wrong to do what it takes to stop these people before everyone starves?
        SauciestGNU 6y ago
        Sure, yes I agree with your pillaging the countryside example. I would qualify that though by asserting that the pillaging army is not threatening just property but the ability of the victims to survive. So yes there is a threshold of destruction that threatens life itself, and that would probably justifiably be met with deadly force.

pmiller2 6y ago

And, something tells me that if you and your family had been oppressed by the police for hundreds of years, you would support this. Moreover, businesses have insurance that covers these kinds of losses. As I said, violence against people is simply not acceptable here. Showing how violence is often the first resort of police rather than a last resort is the entire point of these protests.