killing over stuff.

My friend Jay has a post up on “killing over stuff”, and he asks the question “At which point is it worth killing someone (over property)?”

He says that he routinely carries only $20-30 in cash on his person, and that this is definitely not worth killing a mugger over. He would still defend himself, but his (correct) reasoning is that he can’t divine the mugger’s intentions, and doesn’t want to hand over his wallet and end up dead anyway like the victim in this story. On the subject of “mere” property, however, he says that thirty bucks of your money aren’t worth a life.

I disagree.

Leaving aside the notion of relying on the goodwill of the mugger and his willingness to abide by the unspoken rules of his “your money or your life” blackmail, here’s why thirty bucks in your wallet are good and damn well worth a life.

That money in your wallet represents time–namely the time it took you to acquire that money. I don’t know Jay’s houry salary, but it’s probably fair to say that he works the better part of an hour for thirty bucks net. That’s an hour of his life the mugger is now commandeering. It’s like someone pulling up next to you, forcing you into a van, and making you lick stamps for his home business at gunpoint for an hour. Add to that the time it will take Jay to replace his credit cards, driver’s license–and anyone with MA DMV experience knows that there’s a morning pissed away–and you’re looking at a day or so of Jay’s time. That mugger stealing $30 from jay has effectively enslaved him for an entire day of his life.

Well, if that’s not worth using force in self-defense, what is? Where do you draw the line? If someone tries to make me their slave at gunpoint for a day, do I have the right to resist with lethal force? How about a week? A month? A year? Where does the moral threshold lie, and how do you determine that?

In my view, that moral threshold is crossed the second someone steps in front of you with a gun to make you do his bidding under threat of force. It doesn’t matter if the mugger wants to commandeer your life for an hour or a decade–your life is your own, and you have the absolute right to defend every bit of it against unlawful theft. If I’m morally justified to shoot someone over a million dollars of my property, I am justified to shoot them over ten dollars. If I am not justified to shoot them over ten bucks, I’m not justified to shoot them over a million. That’s the only consistent and non-arbitrary application of that moral principle.  Any other interpretation puts a dollar value on your existence, and your right to live your life as your own master.

About these ads

52 thoughts on “killing over stuff.

  1. Laughingdog says:

    I think the key dividing point for me on whether lethal force is justified over the theft of property is whether they’re threatening your life as well in the process. Pull a knife on me over $20, and I’ll kill you. If I see you pilfering things from my shed, I won’t unless you come at me when I tell you to get the hell off my property.

    • Marko Kloos says:

      That’s basically the threshold. Are you threatening my life over that property? Then I have the right to defend my life, regardless of the property’s value.

      • Tam says:

        That thief stealing the lawnmower from your shed is representative of the time spent acquiring it as much as it the money in your wallet. Why is it not morally justifiable to smoke the kid boosting your lawn mower?

        By your own logic above, it is.

  2. Lissa says:

    “That money in your wallet represents time–namely the time it took you to acquire that money. I don’t know Jay’s houry salary, but it’s probably fair to say that he works the better part of an hour for thirty bucks net. That’s an hour of his life the mugger is now commandeering.”

    True, and I agree that the mugger has no RIGHT to Jay’s money. But if it’s just a question of TIME … how about the time it will take to fill out a police report? To appeal for the return of his historical guns, which will probably be confiscated immediately? (Remember, it’s the Volksrepublik.)

    Again, I completely agree with the PRINCIPLE. I’m just saying that the time comparison doesn’t make sense to me because the shitstorm that the MA government will rain down on his head is gonna cost more than an hour.

    • Marko Kloos says:

      Well, Jay doesn’t have the moral or legal right to shoot a tax collector, even though he works for the U.S. treasury for half the year. The difference is that the time spent in the courts, police station etc. is lawfully commandeered by the state to safeguard the rights of others…due process to make sure Jay didn’t gun down someone while trying to get *their* wallet.

  3. “That’s an hour of his life the mugger is now commandeering… Add to that the time it will take Jay to replace his credit cards, driver’s license–and anyone with MA DMV experience knows that there’s a morning pissed away–and you’re looking at a day or so of Jay’s time. That mugger stealing $30 from jay has effectively enslaved him for an entire day of his life.”

    And if Jay shoots him, he’ll spend much more than a day of his life and/or $30 talking to cops, giving his statement, meeting with his lawyers, etc. I know at least one person who’s been in self defense shooting. It cost him thousands and months of his life besides. So the thief is going to steal the time no matter what.

    Also, if he’s going to steal an hour or a day of your life away, does that mean you have the moral authority to take all of his life from him? If he is going to end your life, then you certainly have the authority to end his. It is equivalent. But if you knew with a certainty that he was just going to take this week’s lunch or gas money, how is ending his life morally equivalent? The only reason the shooting is justified is because you can’t know that he will only take your lunch money.

    • Marko Kloos says:

      Because you dont know “with a certainty”, and because the mugger set the terms of the transaction by threatening lethal force to get your property.

    • ATLien says:

      “does that mean you have the moral authority to take all of his life from him? If he is going to end your life”

      yes. fuck his scumbag life.

    • Mike says:

      There is no way to know for certain that he will only take your money. A lot of times the robber likes to toss in a free pistol whipping for intimidation purposes. Criminals believe that your fear to react will also keep you silent. So, they add a little violence so that you will stay afraid.

      I’ve seen it many times since I started working for a police department.

  4. STW says:

    The mistake many people make is to only look at this from one perspective. An armed robber has implied and possibly stated that he is willing to kill me for whatever I have in my pockets. The perspective seems to be that it is wrong for me to kill him over $10 but it is okay for him to kill me for the same amount. He, not I, made the decision as to what was worth killing over when he approached me with a weapon. By defending myself I merely agree to use his worth-it-scale even if it might differ from my own.

    • cybrus says:

      Bingo – that last sentence is exactly how I feel. The criminal set the ground rules, I’m just following along.

    • I would argue that, by that point, you are not using his scale at all. He decided that it was okay to kill you for the $10. If you put him down, you aren’t doing it for the $10. You’re doing it because he threatened to kill you. Different scale entirely.

      tweaker

  5. M T Coalhopper says:

    Does anyone else find it alarming that we live at a time when sticking a gun in someone’s face and demanding money is a good way to earn a living? Consider it from a business standpoint:

    You have $30 in your wallet. A guy walks up and robs you. How much time does that transaction take? Then, he goes to the next person he meets and repeats the process. How much money can he acquire, per hour? And tomorrow, he’s going to get up and “go to work” just like today. This is a pretty sweet deal, if you think about it.

    With all due respect for anyone’s personal feelings, there may be a moral responsibility to put this character “out of business.”

  6. ILTim says:

    Its not about the property, stupid. (That’s not aimed at anyone here)

    The act of violent physical force, assault, breaking and entering, mugging, etc is worth a life. The mere attempt to commit such a crime legitimizes the use of lethal force in order to protect yourself from the probable lethal completion of the act.

    What the thief is after, thirty bucks or a thirty thousand dollar Rolex, has no bearing on his methods or intentions, most especially when your wallet is still closed and he has no idea how rich the target is. The criminal may be robbing you simply as a power trip and will discard the loot immediately, or he may really be after a lucrative score. Who knows and who cares.

    In court: “Oh that robber just needed his meth fix SOOO BAAAD and he just needed twenty bucks, cant you see how hard that must be on him, that mean John Doe should have just found it in his heart to spot him the few dollars and then nobody would have needed to be hurt. Mean John Doe, to jail you mean man”.

    • I completely agree. Suppose a man points a gun at you and demands that you simply turn around and walk away? Suppose he breaks into your house to look through your personal papers, but takes nothing? In both cases no actual property is taken, but both are still wrong. It’s against the violation of your autonomy inherent in force that you have the right to defend yourself. Property, time, privacy, etc. are only extensions of your autonomy.

      • Geodkyt says:

        Exactly — once the aggressor threatens the use of serious force against me without legitimate justification, it doesn’t matter if he’s carting off a wheelbarrow full of gold, or if he thinks he can “steal my mojo” by inhaling deeply.

        He threatened potentially lethal force — so potentially lethal force is an appropriate response.

  7. southtexaspistolero says:

    Great post. I was musing on this very subject last week after my truck was broken into for the second time in three months. My comments:

    It has always irked me greatly that some people would look down on those who would shoot someone for stealing their stuff. I feel the same way about that as I do the right to life — if you don’t have the right to protect your property with whatever means you can manage, then you don’t really have a right to your property. Which means you’re working to acquire stuff that criminals can take at will. Which makes you, in effect, a slave to the criminals. And the structure of the slavery system that we fought a war to rid ourselves of is different, granted, but the basic principle isn’t that much different.

    • M T Coalhopper says:

      Umm, yes. It’s amazing how your perspective changes after being violated. It doesn’t matter if you start out loving all of God’s little creatures or if you learn early that some of ‘em are predators. Your attitude changes when you find your truck window forced out of its track (my own story, some years ago). Suddenly, it becomes clear that even a well-equipped, well-intentioned law enforcement organization can not be everywhere, all the time. And, by golly, they were not right HERE when somebody was stealing my stuff.

      The problem was, no matter how righteously vengeful I felt, I couldn’t do anything about it. And, the officer who filed the report made a point of telling me not to concern myself; leave everything to the police. I never saw my stuff again, and never heard anything from the authorities. I did, however, hear from my insurance company, when they raised my rate.

  8. Ian Argent says:

    My thought on this of that the value of the property is irrelevant. It’s the offer of physical violence that permits a violent response, ethically speaking. If you scam me out of $30, that doesn’t justify user of force in defense. Threaten me for an empty wallet, though…

  9. Mike Dodson says:

    At college in Nebraska in the early 70’s it was determined there would be no graduation unless a humanities course was completed. I chose the Philosophy of Modern Ethics. Largely we listened to a “learned professor” tell us what ethics was all about. No tests or papers, but attendance and participation were mandatory. Every day I was angry because of all of the progressive fecal matter being spread around by both the prof and many of the students. One day someone made the startling statement that if a burglar broke into their home and stole their brand new TV, they’d just let him take it. Since the BS level had been deep I spouted off and asked why they wouldn’t shoot the burglar. The ensuing discussion, during which I never made a statement but simply kept asking questions, involved exactly the point you make: the TV set ($1,000 at a time when common good salary was $10/hr) represented a lot of someone’s life. By the end of the period, about half the class (mostly the males) were convinced they’d drop a hammer. By the next class, about half of those left indicated they would probably do more than call the police. Waiting for the retaliation from the professor resulted in a conversation with him in his office: “No. You’ll get an A, just like everyone else who participated. I very much disagree with you, but you have fulfilled the requriements of the course and I am a man of my word.” Yeah, well ….

  10. divemedic says:

    Question: If you confront the poor, misguided man who is only trying to feed his family by stealing from your shed, and you are unarmed, will that man flee, or will he attack you, thus making this a violent crime? How do you know? Are you willing to bet the rest of your life on the goodwill of a man who has no respect for the property of others? Even if you are, and decide to confront the man without force, and it turns out that you are incorrect, who will care for you and your family when he beats you so badly that you can no longer earn a living?

    Once you attempt to steal my property, I will confront you as an armed defender. Whether or not the conflict ends with you getting injured depends on the very next thing that you decide to do.

  11. Another Mike says:

    I’ve been making this same argument for years, and usually get a blank stare or an argument. Thank you!

  12. Ancient Woodsman says:

    You may be morally justified in using deadly force for $10.00 as much as a few trillion, but in the Granite State the only justifiable use of deadly force for a property crime is to prevent imminent arson (RSA 627:7).

    It seems to me, though, that you hit on a key point: the original use of violence against violence – to us, anyway – is not a reaction to a property crime; it is a reaction to the unjustifiable use of force against our person, no matter what material element may also be at stake.

    I think those who would cry, “why did you have to shoot my poor, choir-boy baby? All he wanted was your ten dollars!” are simply whining against the opportunity lost to be a good parent – which obviously the whiner was not – and to obfuscate the issue. A threat of force is a threat of force against the person, not the thing that was supposedly to be ‘bargained’ for at the point of a gun or knife.

    Regardless of what is at material stake – be I Warren Buffett or some homeless dude living under the Manchester Street Bridge off Exit 13 in Concord – someone threatening me with any amount of force for any item I may have is first & foremost threatening me. Me. A person. Not some thing.

  13. Anthony L. says:

    STW is entirely correct. Put another way, if a mugger sticks a gun or a knife in my face and demands my wallet, he is placing no more value on MY LIFE than the value of what is in that wallet.

    That, in my opinion absolutely justifies the use of lethal force.

  14. Joe V says:

    Slippery slope here. In some states (I’m referring to the US) shooting an armed mugger will still get you hard prison time. Justifiable homicide has nothing to do with property crime, but whether your life is in eminent threat of termination or severe bodily injury. And it has to be clearly and plainly obvious to the subsequent investigators that you had no such choice. Thus, the threat of minor bodily injury isn’t justifiable. The threat of the mugger taking all your possessions isn’t justifiable. And if you’re carrying a weapon illegally, you may get charged regardless of justifiable reasons.

    Remember, in most states in the US, the prosecutor (and often the police) are not interested in your right to carry weapons. They also are not interested in your 2nd, 4th or 6th Amendment rights. Their world view doesn’t look out from the pages of American Rifleman, but from their perspective any armed citizen is a bad guy, a criminal. Your job, after you terminate the mugger, is to convince them that you weren’t the bad guy; but he’s dead, and you’re the one who killed him with a handgun, and they (the prosecutors) are often running for reelection on a hard-on-crime ticket. It’s a shooting, you’re the shooter, the bad guy. That’s their world view. Maybe you can convince them otherwise if you have the right skin color, or belong to the right political party. Maybe. Good luck with that.

    • Mike S says:

      I’ll admit that I’m only passing familiar with use of force laws in three states, but two of them are California an Michigan. In neither of those states (and definitely not in my new home state of Texas) is it even conceivable that the law states you are a felon for defending yourself against an armed mugger. Even in California, lethal force can lawfully be used to stop a felony being committed against you.

  15. M T Coalhopper says:

    In summary, folks, don’t threaten Marko or his munchkins with bodily harm. The story is not likely to end well. And, in the event that a bully-with-a-badge and an electioneering prosecutor try to frame Mr Kloos, they better select their jury very, very carefully. The majority opinion seems to be in favor of a citizen having the right to protect his own stuff.

    As a former Federal Firearms Licensee with a cop for an ex-wife, I think I’ve contributed just about enough to this discussion. :)

  16. Josh A. Kruschke says:

    I’m going to push a friends book here.

    “Facing Violence” by Rory Miller.

    The fist two cover the ethics and legal ramifications of defending ourselves.

    His first book “Mediations on Violence” is a must read also.

    Just some FYI. :-)
    Josh

    • Josh A. Kruschke says:

      Correction:

      The fist two ‘chapters’ cover the ethics and legal ramifications of defending ourselves.

      Josh

  17. PhillipC says:

    Thank you. You’ve made the very argument that I’ve been making to anyone that’s asked “Would you kill someone trying to mug you or just stealing from you” of me. I’ve said for years that someone who takes my stuff is stealing a part of my life. Now I have someplace to link to that makes the full argument in a very persuasive manner.

  18. TBeck says:

    I personally decided years ago that property crimes, even if justified under the color of law, do not merit lethal force. However, the threat of violence during the commission of ANY crime will be treated as real and defended against appropriately.

  19. Priest says:

    My personal line is any destructive threat to my person, property, or loved ones will be met with the level of force I believe most likely to resolve the situation in my favor. The above line of reasoning is a very eloquent argument for why fighting back against someone who offers you violence over something “trivial” is a Very Good Thing, but to me the argument is only partial.

    The rest of the argument has to deal with a concept that has been brutalized in recent years by many different attackers: Violence over Honor. 150 years ago in most cultures men would have dealt with a mugger who offered them violence with violence in turn, if possible to the point that the mugger would take early retirement. Now, anyone who thinks of shooting a violent mugger because it’s Just the Right Thing has to search for some other reasoning, and worry almost endlessly about the law taking a dim view of what it views as the usurpation of its responsibilities. I think society has suffered for this, and I hope it changes in my life time.

  20. Fred2 says:

    Pity the poor Canadians who effectively have to withdraw from confrontation with a criminal ( one in their home actively stealing and perhaps event threatening) and should violence ensue, it must not to be disproportionate ( as defined by clear daylight Monday morning quarterbacks of the crown appointed prosecutors office).

    So this effectively means that should a miscreant attack you with a screw driver (in the dark, in the adrenaline driven rush of finding burglar in your home at a 3:15AM, and you shoot him, AS he comes into your bedroom where you are cowering. YOU _are_ the bad guy. Disproportionate, don’t you know. (And you’d better have some effective proof that that licensed gun started off unloaded in a safe, anything else is seriously naughty.) In fact, if you respond with a sword or spear, that’s pretty well disproportionate force right there too. He only had a screwdriver.

    And let’s not get started on the difference between, I, a big powerful 250lb man and a 110lb woman. Pray I don’t get too effective and beat the burglar dead in my bare hands – in my living room – I could have retreated.

    Yes boys and girls, Canadian criminal law is effectively insane on this topic.

    • George Smith says:

      This sad situation is the result of a very real failing of the so-called Canadian Charter of Rights. In Canada … unlike in the USA … we have no property rights. Thus … defending our property cannot mean the use of force … much less lethal force. We can, however, defend ourselves or others under our care and control. In then, though, the use of force must be appropriate to the threatened force.

      Regards,
      George

  21. Larry says:

    Wow, this story has really grown legs!
    It started here: http://ncguns.blogspot.com/2011/07/give-them-what-they-want_11.html
    where it was picked up by Weer’d Beard here: http://www.weerdworld.com/2011/lethal-force-over-stuff/
    which is where Jay got it: http://stuckinmassachusetts.blogspot.com/2011/07/killing-over-stuff.html
    and now it’s here.
    (Credit where credit is due, and all that.)
    Go read the other posts, they are good, too.

  22. BD says:

    Oh good grief. Are you all walking around with loaded guns in your pockets, waiting for someone to approach you unpleasantly? What kind of a world do you live in?

    Your excuses for justifying the taking of a LIFE–the ultimate possession, without which no possessions are possible–are as pathetic as excuses to continue smoking, and just about as trivial. I’m confident you all believe yourselves to be good-hearted, upright, thoughtful human beings, and a number of you proud Christians to boot.

    Do you want to live in a society in which people can kill people with impunity? Then move to Florida, where life is cheap and you can kill someone who looks cross-eyed at you because you feel “threatened,” especially if that someone isn’t lily white.

    The fact that such arguments can be made publicly shows to what depths our wonderful culture has sunk. This is not Socratic discourse, exploring the logical ramifications of accepted beliefs. This is vengeful rage masquerading as reason. I can understand and empathize with the rage, but the reason displayed here is unimpressive. I’d like to know where you all reside, so I can stay far from such a dangerous, unfriendly locale!

    (Anyway, you all seem to be wildly overestimating your capacity to overpower or harm a determined criminal. Be realistic: When was the last time any of you even had a fistfight? Can you run two blocks without collapsing? Can you climb a flight of stairs without palpitations? Life is, surprise surprise, not a movie, and your ability to handle such a situation in a violent, lethal manner will probably not materialize miraculously. The almighty gun you place all your hopes upon will have to be pulled out quickly and you will have to somehow either outdraw the criminal or keep him from taking it away and using it against you. Maybe you’re all secretly Marshall Dillon, but I have my doubts.)

    • The Rock says:

      What kind of world do we live in? One with people that like to hurt others and don’t care about it. I’m assuming you live somewhere else? How fast is your internet connection?

    • Josh A. Kruschke says:

      DB – did you follow the links to the article about the guy that was killed after he gave has wallet up?

      That’s the world you and I live in.

      Sigh….,

    • Tam says:

      Are you all walking around with loaded guns in your pockets

      It’s in a holster, actually.

      What kind of a world do you live in?

      A pretty pleasant, sunshiny one, actually. You’d probably like it. People are friendly.

    • divemedic says:

      Your post is filled with misinformation and anti gun talking points. Let me see if I can help you:

      1 I carry a gun nearly everywhere, because I live in a world called reality, where you have a greater chance of being a victim of a violent attack than you have of being in a fatal car accident.

      2 If a man is mugging me, he is saying, “Give me your money, or I will kill you.” The fact that you hand over your money shows that you are reasonably in fear of death or sever injury, or you would just laugh and walk away. Thus, defending yourself from the threat is a matter of survival, unless you want to trust that a man who is willing to mug you at gun or knife point is honest enough to keep his word that he will not kill you for sport in exchange for your property.

      3 I live in Florida. It is not legal here to “kill with impunity” and your saying so convinces me that you have no earthly idea what you are talking about. The statute in this state says that you may only use deadly force to protect yourself from the REASONABLE fear of death or serious bodily injury, or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. (chapter 776)

      4 You do not have to fear me or my guns, unless you are planning to use unlawful force against me. Chances are, you have passed close to someone carrying a concealed weapon every day this week, if you are anywhere within the United States. Did they try to kill you? No. the fact is, statistically a concealed weapons permit holder is less likely to commit a crime than is a police officer.

      5 I don’t need to “overpower or harm” a determined attacker, which is the whole idea behind carrying a gun. It is the tool which enables a smaller, weaker opponent to be on equal footing with a larger, younger, fitter attacker. A 72 year old man with one leg and a bad heart doesn’t stand a chance fleeing from or fighting hand to hand against an 18 year old, 240 pound attacker, and neither does a 22 year old 110 pound woman who is carrying her 3 month old child. A handgun places them back on an even footing.

      I am just guessing here, but I bet you think that a person being attacked by another should just “be a man” and attempt to fist fight an attacker.

    • Laughingdog says:

      Actually, the first time I was in the position to need a firearm I wasn’t even out and about waiting for something to happen. Trouble tried to force its way through my front door at 1:30 in the morning.

      Oh, and it’s not un-Christian at all to decide that, if someone is likely to die from an encounter with a criminal, I inted to do my best to make sure it’s not me.

      Finally, by your logic, senior citizens should just keel over and die if someone mugs them? My mother wouldn’t be able to win a fist fight with a thug. She carries precisely because being a gray-haired old lady makes her an appealing target to some.

    • Priest says:

      Hmmm, that’s how Florida is? Why didn’t anybody tell me this? I’ve been here for 23 years….*sniff* *sniff* I deserve to know these things!

    • Anthony L. says:

      “Your excuses for justifying the taking of a LIFE–the ultimate possession.”

      As I stated in my comment, the criminal in question is threatening to take my possessions, under the threat of relieving me of my “ultimate possession” as you said. Why should I afford any such person any quarter at all.

      “I’d like to know where you all reside, so I can stay far from such a dangerous, unfriendly locale!”

      I already told you where I live; to reiterate, I currently live in southeastern Vermont, Brattleboro, to be specific. Vermonters enjoy not having to endure waiting periods or other crap to buy a firearm. Vermonters can also carry a loaded weapon concealed, without a permit. Do your own homework. Look up crime stats for Vermont, especially those involving violent crime with a deadly weapon. Hell, I can leave my front door wide open here when I am away, and fully expect to come home to my place unmolested.

      This in contrast with such hell holes as Washington DC, or Boston MA, where criminals run amok with all the ILLEGAL guns they can lay hands on, while honest citizens are prevented from defending themselves from such scum because of oppressive and idiotic gun laws.

      “Life is, surprise surprise, not a movie, and your ability to handle such a situation in a violent, lethal manner will probably not materialize miraculously.”

      No, it doesn’t appear miraculously, it takes practice and dedication, not only with your firearm, but also in how to AVOID such situations in which you would have to use deadly force. I could bore you to tears with details, but I won’t do that to the other readers of this fine blog. I will not presume to speak for Marko here, but it is my belief that he, and most of the readers of his blog have: One, invested the time and effort necessary for the proficient and responsible use of their firearms, and two, are most definitly NOT marshall Dillon types.

  23. Ruth says:

    You threaten my life for the contents of my purse (which most days is less than $10 cash, no credit cards) I’m going to take that threat seriously. Rage has nothing to do with it. I can’t fight you off, or run away. Two bad knees means that running a couple blocks isn’t an option, the worst knee will generally give out in about 100ft if I try to run on it (and that took lots of physical therapy to get to that point), and although I’ll admit to weighing in at far more than I’d like I’m still a “little girl” by most every other definition. Add in arthritis in both hands and I’m not going to be able to fight off much more than a 5yr old bare handed. That makes me a victim, and I refuse to be one.

  24. [...] Putting a price on it. [...]

  25. Kaerius says:

    I live in sweden, and we have similar laws to those in canada… I’m none to happy about it either. Though I believe they’re not quite as harsh(IE: any lethal force may be defended against with lethal force, if you happen to have an axe/sword/whatever in your home and someone comes at you with a screwdriver, then most likely you won’t be prosecuted for using it). Guns must be stored in safes, not entirely sure if the law states they must be unloaded, but wouldn’t be surprised.

    If anyone broke into my home while I was present, my defense would be limited to my martial arts training and my kitchen knives(and whatever blunt objects happen to be nearby), and heck since I have martial arts training, if I killed an unarmed attacker bare-handed, I’d probably be treated as having used a lethal weapon.

  26. [...] | Home The decision to pull the trigger Self Defense So, there’s been a few discussions amongst some gunnies about when is it ok to use lethal force on stuff. On the Florida Open Carry [...]

  27. The worth and morality are 2 different things. Suppose someone stopped you at gunpoint and demanded a minute of your time, after which they would leave, they don’t have a right to that time but I guarantee it’s cost you a lot more than a minute if you decide to plug him.

  28. Al T. says:

    Goodness, it’s not the loss of anything, it’s about the threat. Offer me a lethal threat and I’ll honor that threat. When I react in a manner not of your choosing, sucks to be you.

  29. [...] for their fab­ri­cated assailant.And in a call back to these arti­cles [here, here, here, here, and here], I won­der if it is ok that the dealer shot him in defense of his prop­erty. After [...]

  30. [...] have been a slew of posts about this topic on the blogs as of late.  I hope my fellow bloggers will forgive me, but [...]

Comments are closed.