Is it ever justified to kill in defense of property?
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.
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.
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.
If I was to shoot someone stone dead, I'd be a murderer. I'd be just as much a murderer if I took someone's insulin and deprived them of the ability to control their blood sugar. At the same time if people have no home to go to, they become homeless and homeless people are as much in danger of dying as someone with a medical condition. It should be a last resort at high cost, but still available. A home invasion is a sort of kidnapping in place, it's a terrible situation that needs some sort of firm answer.
There are too many crimes committed and too many criminals, there needs to be examples set. Robbing an innocent is wrong and against the law. Simple you break into someone's house therefore breaking the law, you deserve to die. It's their fault they broke the law. Your right to defend yourself and honor the 2nd amendment.
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.
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.
Let's say your an old man. You live by yourself, on a fixed income. You can't afford to buy a lot, and you don't have a lot. Someone breaks into your house, and is trying to steal something that you need to survive. I think that would give you the right to use lethal force to stop an intruder. I also believe that if people break into your home, and attempt to steal your goods, you have a right to use whatever force necessary to stop them. I don't think you have that right if someone is simply on your property, but if someone is inside your house, you have the right to use whatever force necessary to get them out, even lethal.
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.
It can be shown that killing in defense of property can sometimes be justified by using a current example: the post-earthquake situation in Haiti. Suppose a shipment of food and medicine has arrived that will save the lives of 100 children, but looters are intent on taking the supplies for themselves, and nonlethal methods have failed to stop them. By stealing the supplies, the looters would be causing certain death to the children the supplies are intended to save, so killing the looters would make sense from both a deontological and utilitarian perspective.
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.
If someone is on your property without your consent, attempting to steal your belongings, you absolutely should have the right to stop them by whatever means necessary. They wouldn't have gotten shot if they wouldn't have broken into your house. And how do you know that they aren't going to try and harm you? I'm not advocating execution/overkill but i think you should be able to shoot someone thats on your property without your permission/prior knowledge
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.
If somebody is going to steal someone elses property, their life isn't worth anything anyways. Better to have them dead than in jail paid for by the government, or to reoffend and maybe hurt somebody who is actually worth a damn. I'll say it now, my personal property is worth more than some lowlife criminal.
Shoot first, then determine if they were actually a threat. If someone breaks into a house they put you into a position where you can't be completely sure your life is in danger. It' in your best interest to kill them. If they're willing to rob you they just might be willing to kill you first and you could be dead before you were able to accurately access the situation and determine the threat to you.
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.
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.
Property is just a monetary issue, and killing someone to defend said property, for example in the case of simple theft or breaking and entering, is inappropriate and unjustified. Things can be replaced. However, in the case of assault, kidnapping or threats to human life, then the justification changes and it becomes more ambiguous.
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".
It seems pathological to me to kill over any sort of non-living possession. Does it matter to the people in the "yes" column how old the person is? You might not be able to determine the age, etc. of any intruder, in the heat of the moment. Of course, if someone is intruding, you don't automatically know the motive, and could end up doing something regrettable and out of proportion out of sheer terror, if you could even hold yourself together long enough to find the gun you may or may not own. I would not want that level of disproportionate reaction on my conscience. I would hope I could disarm or diffuse the situation before ever resorting to the taking of ANY human life. I've been robbed -- I wouldn't have wanted the police to have taken any of those young persons' lives.
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.
I personally feel that killing over property is not a good thing to do, as property can be replaced. The person can be ordered through court to give the victim however much money the item that they broke or stole costs. This may keep the person from doing it again, too.
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.
Property can always be replaced. People's lives cannot be replaced. There is no piece of property that I own that I think is worth taking someone's life over. Now, if they were threatening my family, that would be a different story. I would do whatever is necessary to protect my family, but property is replaceable.
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.
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.
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.
I can understand why certain people would feel it necessary to kill to protect their property. But, in most cases, it is completely out of order and inhumane to kill a person, or an animal, for that matter, just to protect material items that technically belong to you. At the same time, certain property, depending on its importance, should be protected by physical presence.
Material goods can be replaced--human life cannot. Killing someone over possessions is not justified. Especially since most thieves have absolutely no intent to kill people, but are only interested in taking things or money. Murder carries the death penalty in some states--burglary never does.
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.
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.
Disabling the intruder is definitely a better option. There is no excuse for killing someone. It is one of the most heinous crimes. The victim should use a weapon to restrain the intruder or disable him in some form but not resort to killing.
Taking the opposing view, I would say that there is no possession that is so valuable that someone should be killed for it. This same view does not apply to the defense of family or persons, wherein the taking of another's life is definitely justified to save your own or a loved one's life.