Ferguson discussion thread (FERGUDISHU)

[MDS]

The hesitance to use deadly force against arsonists is a fairly new development.

Question, though: in all cases, the calculus of justifiable deadly force revolves around a threat to life or limb, yes? E.g., if the use of deadly force against arsonists is justified, that's only because of the threat to life or limb, not because of the threat of property damage? It's my understanding that questions of property damage or theft don't figure into whether it's legally justifiable to use deadly force.

As for whether it's morally justifiable, my take is simple: if I'm not physically present to protect the property, I lose the moral ground to defend it by any means other than the justice system. And if I am physically present, I'll use non-deadly means to protect the property, and resort to deadly force only if I can articulate a threat to life or limb. This position is very simple, but it satisfies my moral sense and my legal obligations, in the vast majority of situations I can think of. Am I being naïve about this?

A situation like Ferguson raises hackles on all sides. The only defensible reaction to all that emotion is to look carefully at the legal and moral requirements and satisfy them both. Emotions - even righteous emotions - are for feeling, not for reasoning or justifying.

[1slow]

Insurance.

Property can be protected, cheaply, by proper insurance.

If you're inside your business or home and someone tries to set it on fire, you can articulate self-defense easily

Despite being a born and bred Texan, I have never fully bought into the "night time" rules of Texas. Most of them are derived from a different period of time, mainly to prevent trespassing and cattle rustling that represented more legitimate loss of property than they do today. Proper and affordable insurance has largely negated the need to shoot to defend property this day and age.

Anybody who robs, steals, commits arson makes you his slave.
You are not compensated for your labor, criminals take and destroy your property.
Insurance does not change this, you have to pay for the insurance and as crime rises so do the rates.
If you cannot defend your property under the law do you really own it or are you a slave to any criminal ?

[PPGMD]

Question, though: in all cases, the calculus of justifiable deadly force revolves around a threat to life or limb, yes? E.g., if the use of deadly force against arsonists is justified, that's only because of the threat to life or limb, not because of the threat of property damage? It's my understanding that questions of property damage or theft don't figure into whether it's legally justifiable to use deadly force.

How do you know that it will just damage property? Do you know the building is unoccupied? Do you know what it will not spread to other occupied structures?

What if you are on the roof of your business in Ferguson, like the Koreans during the LA riots? You just watched ten other buildings get looted and burned down. You see random cars on fire. The mob is approaching your business, what do you do?

[MDS]

Whats better for society-an environment where bank robbers are shot by 20+ armed customers and the bank staff because said customers' own money is on the line, or one where everyone lets the thugs go because FDIC has their back?

By all means, shoot the robbers. But screw the money or the FDIC or any of that. The robbers deserve shooting because they put all those customers in physical danger. It's not only justifiable, but IMO morally imperative that the customers' lives take precedence over the robbers'. This is a choice between endangering the robbers' lives (by shooting them) vs endangering the customers' lives (by not shooting the robbers,) and money shouldn't factor into it.

Any looter should be immediately shot, who recklessly or purposefully endangers the life or limb of someone not involved in illegal activity. Easier said than done in a (Ahem!) riotous situation where it's hard to tell who among the mob is actually crossing that line. This conundrum is the right-thinking reason for things like curfews.

[TR675]

I go back and forth on this.

My better nature says, "only use deadly force to protect life and limb; property is just stuff."

My old testament nature says, "my property is worth valuable money, and bad guys are worth negative money because I have to pay to keep them in prison and to clean up their messes, so using deadly force against bad guys who are trying to take my stuff is a net savings to myself and society and, hence, myself again, Q.E.D."

My brain says, "using deadly force against bad guys taking my property that is worth money is a good way to get sued and/or prosecuted and, thus, back into negative money territory, so don't do that."

Majority rules. I think I will listen to my brain and better nature.

[shane45]

If its your business, and insurance is not going to cover riots, and it will put your family in financial ruins, is it not worth protecting? Don't some states actually allow for deadly force in protection of property?

[joshs]

If its your business, and insurance is not going to cover riots, and it will put your family in financial ruins, is it not worth protecting? Don't some states actually allow for deadly force in protection of property?

Sort of. Some state statutes theoretically allow deadly force to stop any felony. However, I'm not aware of any use of these statutes outside of the standard violent/forcible felonies. Obviously, it's hard to see how such a statute could be interpreted literally. Imagine someone invoking the defense after walking into an office building and killing someone who was in the process of committing fraud.

[TR675]

If someone is trying to destroy my home or place of business, and I'm in it - that's a different kettle of fish than shooting someone running away with my TV. If my entire livelihood depended on that property - maybe I have some different opinions.

There's also a difference between me finding a burglar entering my home to get stuff and finding one leaving my home with the stuff. Leaving? Let him go. Entering? He might have some problems, but it's not because I want to protect my stuff.

As Glenn mentioned a couple of times - this is a complicated issue with a lot of shades of grey. More than can be resolved on an internet forum.

[JodyH]

New Mexico Statutes:

30-2-7. Justifiable homicide by citizen.
Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
A. when committed in the necessary defense of his life, his family or his property, or in necessarily defending against any unlawful action directed against himself, his wife or family;
B. when committed in the lawful defense of himself or of another and when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury against such person or another, and there is imminent danger that the design will be accomplished; or
C. when necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed in his presence, or in lawfully suppressing any riot , or in necessarily and lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

We don't play down here in the southwest.

[Cookie Monster]

Insurance.

Property can be protected, cheaply, by proper insurance.

If you're inside your business or home and someone tries to set it on fire, you can articulate self-defense easily.

Despite being a born and bred Texan, I have never fully bought into the "night time" rules of Texas. Most of them are derived from a different period of time, mainly to prevent trespassing and cattle rustling that represented more legitimate loss of property than they do today. Proper and affordable insurance has largely negated the need to shoot to defend property this day and age.

I don't want to pile on, but I never gotten close to the value of stuff from insurance. Cannot find the item used in the condition I've keep it in. There is the time I spent getting it and taking care of it. After people come into your house and take stuff, it is never the same and you never get it back. You get some cash but not close to the impact.

Then again, it'll cost me more to shoot them then the stuff I lost. It is just what is it.

Cookie Monster