Amazon.com Widgets

Is it ever justified to kill in defense of property?

  • It

    is justifiable, but I still think it's wrong. Someone trespassing on your property, even stealing your stuff, is still more valuable than the stuff they stole. Despite that, we do need to deter people from just helping themselves, and if you feel the best way to stop someone making off with your jewelry is a shotgun, then go for it.

  • Yes, it is justified to kill in defense of property, because everyone should be able to defend what is theirs.

    I think it is justified to kill if someone is threatening someone's property. Property belongs to individuals. They work hard and pay a lot for it, and it should not be up to one person to harm it. If a perpetrator decides to invade the property of someone else, then that is just the chance they take.

    Posted by: FemaleTyron73
  • I do think it is justified to kill in defense of property, if a person feels that their own life is threatened.

    I do believe that, if an armed person comes onto someone else's property, it is understandable if the property owner feels the need to defend themselves and their property with force, even if that force results in the death of the perpetrator.

    Posted by: ToughEfrain26
  • It is justified to use lethal force in the defense of property, if the aggressors are armed, or are willing to resort to violence in their theft or destruction of property.

    In some occasions, it is justified to kill in defense of property. If a criminal is armed, or threatens violence in the theft of property, than the owner is justified to use lethal force to stop the criminal. Furthermore, the use of lethal force against property crimes can severely lower such crimes, as it becomes much less profitable to steal a television or stereo, if one expects he might have to risk his life to do so.

    Posted by: EminentBennett93
  • it is justified

    killing in defense of the property is justified since the moment that someone else, with no right or authority at all tries to take possesion of our goods, and even with the risk that they injure our lives.

    Why should we give a stranger the opportunity to damage our family, or to take away the posessions that sometimes costed so much effort?

    at the moment that someone attempts to damage us, his existence is less valuable than ours...
    Just think for a moment, what kind of human being would be the one who tries to get some material posession without caring about a human life?


    not only our posessions but also our lives what is under risk. killing in self defense and defense of the property is called JUSTICE

    Defending a criminal's life contradicts any desire to defend our own life, since it is part of our nature to fight to protect our integrity and to pursue what is better for us, therefore if someone attempts to injure us the most logical reaction we will have as the human beings we are, is the one of defending ourselves.

  • the intruders deserve to die due to inhumanity and brutality in them

    although killing is against the law or it is such a vice or sin, the victim has the right to bear arm. Have you ever thought that how many people might have been killed by a robber or gang for a piece of jewelry or others belongings? A convict might be in the custody for the rest of his life in where dead penalty is not adopted. do you think it is fair to the victim's spouse or children? the society consists of black and white. when the black, the inhumanity and heartlessness is cleared out, people would live in peace and harmony. and those cruel robbers and killers should be eliminated from the mighty community where people enjoy happiness altogether.

  • Individuals should be allowed to use deadly force in protection of their home and person.

    The sanctity of an individuals home is among the greatest individual privacies. Those who would invade this sanctity are not above doing harm to the people within them. Those who invade a home in a criminal manner provide a deadly threat to the resident, and an individual should be allowed to use deadly force to protect their homes.

    Posted by: N3r0nKrooI
  • I believe that home defense is all justified.

    Your home, your rules. If a criminal wants to come over and be punished, it does not matter how they feel or what a bad life they have had. It's your family's safety you should care about.

    Posted by: girlatee
  • We have the right to defend our lives and everything in them.

    How do I know someone will not kill me in the process of stealing my
    property first? Where do we draw the line against home invaders and
    car jackers? Is there a value we should put on property before permitting
    someone to kill over it? Wrong is wrong, and there is too much of it out
    there and too many victims! Killing is wrong, but we need to be able to
    protect and defend ourselves.

    Posted by: MarsBIue
  • I believe that one should have the right to protect his family by any means necessary to ensure their safety.

    If someone attempts to break into your home, do you just allow it to happen? While "property" can mean numerous things, I feel that what it all comes down to is what exactly property is defining. If someone were to try and break into my house and potentially hurt my family, then the first thing on my mind would be to protect them, and if that requires attacking the person, then so be it. I believe in that case, it is MORE than justified to kill in defense of one's family. However, it all depends on what "property" defines.

    Posted by: LeticiaR
  • Life no matter whose it is always should be more valuable than material items.

    Unless someone has taken a life or intended to do so, his or her life should be afforded the same protections as anyone else. Car theft, house theft, Bernie Maddof; only warrants detention for a long time but not life imprisonment or death sentence. Kidnappers, DUI, druglords, mobsters deserve life sentences.

  • Killing over ownership of property is not justifiable.

    If one accepts the premise that the very act of owning property is a sort of theft, then it not ever justified to kill in defense of property. The notion that property is theft is based in the idea that we are participants in a interconnected system and while it is possible to earn the right to use things those things can never truly be "owned".

    Posted by: Wynn354
  • Killing in defense of property represents the worst kind of materialism and is always immoral.

    As human beings we have to ask ourselves what is it we truly value. Any value system worth living under puts human life above all things material. While it is the case that taking a life in defense of another life is justified, killing can never be justified when only property is at stake. We must never give greater inherent value to any material possession than we give any human life.

    Posted by: GLawrence
  • To kill in defense of property is to place a lesser value on life.

    It is never justified to kill in defense of property because all property can be replaced eventually, and property has no significance other than as a material possession. To kill in defense of property is to place a higher value on a material possession than on a human life, and impacts the person that kills by making them carry the thought that they took a life.

    Posted by: ThegaXen
  • Killing in defense of property is not justifiable, because a person's life is worth far more than your property.

    The only time that it is ever justifiable to kill a person is when you are defending your own life (i.e. self defense). When someone is stealing or harming your property you should call the police to deal with the situation. Threatening them with a gun is even a justifiable means to protect your property but actually killing them is not. Your property is worth less than the life you would be taking.

    Posted by: TwoVic
  • I believe it is never justified to kill in defense of property because no material item is worth another human life.

    I believe it is never justified to kill in defense of property because no material item is worth another human life. When someone is killed to defend property, a life is taken away that can never be replace. However, a piece of property such as a car or even a wedding ring can be replaced and sometimes even recovered by law enforcement officials. Also, sometimes with property we may lose interest and the item becomes of no value to the owner. When a life is taken that person is lost forever to someone who cares for them.

    Posted by: 53r3n3Piers
  • You can replace your radio. You can't replace a human being.

    People, if you honestly think you're justified in shooting someone in the back because they're running away with your television, you have to seriously consider your values. You have the right to shoot someone for theft about as much as an intruder has the right to steal your jewelry because you're wealthy.

  • No, any person's life is worth more than any piece of property.

    The only reason that comes even close to being justifiable for killing someone is in self defense - because one's own life is threatened. There is no piece of property that is worth more than a person's life. And, there are definitely other methods of dealing with someone who has, or is trying to, unlawfully act on your property. How satisfying would it be to say that one killed someone because they vandalized, stole or threatened their property. Sounds crazy to me.

    Posted by: MohaI0v35
  • I do not believe that it is justified to kill when defending property.

    Unless the situation is putting your or loved ones in danger, I do not think that any one persons life is worth being lost over a piece of property. Without having imminent danger to you or yours I do not understand how someone could decide someone's fate for them, and end there life.

    Posted by: 5h4rdEgbe
  • Property is entirely different from a person's life and in a decent society will always remain so.

    Any society in which people deem property to be worth more than the life of another human is in serious trouble and should seriously re-consider it's values. A person should ensure their own safety and their family's and rely on the justice system to do the rest. Stating that the law must be taken into your own hands is blatant vigilantism. We must remember that that person breaking into your home is just that, a PERSON, he doesn't sacrifice his rights and place in society upon committing a crime and it is not the place of a homeowner to say that he does.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.