3 ms·
> Your position is that people should be able to take the law into their own hand, using their own judgement, even if it's flawed judgement Yes, and if the jud
by blindmute 5y ago
> Your position is that people should be able to take the law into their own hand, using their own judgement, even if it's flawed judgement
Yes, and if the judgment turns out to be flawed, then punish them accordingly. There are many instances of laws where the legality depends on circumstances bounded by reasonable judgment, such as self defense. I am legally allowed to kill someone if I fear for my life in some circumstances. The judicial system then determines if my fear was justified. Likewise, defending your own property with violence is legal, depending on circumstances and judgments which are validated in court. The case you referenced was obviously poor judgment.
Your original point is that property cannot be morally defended through violence. This is neither the actual law, nor does it make sense from any real world perspective.
- TameAntelope 5y agoMy original point was not that property cannot be morally defended through violence, my original point was that you cannot defend property morally through violence, which is the law (not a single state allows the use of lethal force to protect property, only life), and it makes perfect sense when you value human life over property (as the vast majority of human society does). And considering the stakes, it does not make sense to enforce post-hoc a punishment for incorrectly applying this imaginary "defense of property" law you've invented. People's lives are not something you can un-end.