VanHooty Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Hey y'all. I have a really good friend who happens to be an atheist, and more often than not we get into interesting conversations. His father is an intellectual property attorney, and Martin considers himself to be a bit of a "law ninja" (yeah... whatever that is). Anyhow, a couple days ago we were talking about abortion. Martin, my friend, supports abortion rights. I, as a Catholic, think the term "abortion rights" is a nice oxymoron. However, we were talking about the ordering of rights during the conversation. Life, liberty, and property. I try to use secular and legal arguments with Martin, so I tried to establish that the right to life comes before the right to liberty and property, and the right to liberty comes before the right to property. Martin replies with, "No. There are cases, legally, when property comes before life. Many states have laws that inable citizens to kill thieves that are a threat to property." Now, I immediately thought such laws existed because that specific type of attack on property was also a presumed attack on one's life. However, it made me think. Would such a law, if worded in such a way to make it clear that it is only the property being harmed, be ethical? No, I'm thinking that the answer so such a question would be "no," and that the only reason such laws exist is that there is a presumed attack on life if there is a break-in. However, anyone have any other takes or viewpoints? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conservativecatholic Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Nice post! I live in Texas. Laws are stiff! The sheriff and the judge [u]are[/u] the law. As you know, property in Texas is taken quite seriously. "That's my land over yonder," as some say. Land, land, land. Anyway, I am a staunch conservative and die-hard Texan who supports the right for citiznes to own guns. This was granted to us in the second amendment of the Constitution! . I also support the use of guns in cases where property is being damaged or when houses are intruded. Here is a little story... My uncle was at home one afternoon and heard someone bust in the door. My uncle got his gun immeadiately. The intruder came in to the living room where my uncle was waiting. My uncle said, "Stop!" The intruder then ran with a broken glass bottle attempting to stab my unlce. My uncle pulls his gun and kills him. My aunt was supposed to be at the house that afternoon- not my uncle. She does not know how to operate a handgun. She could have been raped or even killed by this evil man. This, my friends, is the reason why I am such an avid supporter of gun rights and the defense of property. Houses are property and when someone breaks in- the owner has every right to defend his property and family. May God Bless! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 (edited) [quote name='VanHooty' date='Jul 18 2004, 05:43 PM'] Hey y'all. I have a really good friend who happens to be an atheist, and more often than not we get into interesting conversations. His father is an intellectual property attorney, and Martin considers himself to be a bit of a "law ninja" (yeah... whatever that is). Anyhow, a couple days ago we were talking about abortion. Martin, my friend, supports abortion rights. I, as a Catholic, think the term "abortion rights" is a nice oxymoron. However, we were talking about the ordering of rights during the conversation. Life, liberty, and property. I try to use secular and legal arguments with Martin, so I tried to establish that the right to life comes before the right to liberty and property, and the right to liberty comes before the right to property. Martin replies with, "No. There are cases, legally, when property comes before life. Many states have laws that inable citizens to kill thieves that are a threat to property." Now, I immediately thought such laws existed because that specific type of attack on property was also a presumed attack on one's life. However, it made me think. Would such a law, if worded in such a way to make it clear that it is only the property being harmed, be ethical? No, I'm thinking that the answer so such a question would be "no," and that the only reason such laws exist is that there is a presumed attack on life if there is a break-in. However, anyone have any other takes or viewpoints? [/quote] Firstly, based on the natural moral law, the right to life is the foundation of all other rights. Secondly, as it concerns protecting your right to private property, you are permitted to use a proportionate amount of force against an unjust aggressor; therefore, you don't have a right to take a person's life unless he is threatening your own life or the lives of those entrusted to your care. If, while protecting your property, you use an excessive amount of force and in the process you kill an unarmed man who is stealing something from you, you can charged with the crime of murder, or depending on the case, manslaughter. Finally, this same truth holds during war, in other words, you may kill a combatant from the opposing side, but if he lays down his weapon and surrenders, you are not allowed to kill him, and if you do kill him, you commit the crime of murder. Edited July 19, 2004 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conservativecatholic Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 (edited) Correct. Like I said in my previous post, my uncle's life was threatened when the intruder charged at him with a broken bottle. I disagree with you though, Apotheoun, that when defending private property, one must use proportionate force as the intrduer. When the intruder has a knife, and the owner has a gun, the owner has every bit of legal authority to defend his own life as well as his property with that gun. A knife can inflict major damage and so can a gun. By the way, what would an intruder be doing on his private property with a knife? Edited July 19, 2004 by conservativecatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 conservative, Apotheoun is merely stating the Church's teaching that a [i]proportionate[/i] amount of force is acceptable. If a man is running at you with a knife, in your own house, you may shoot him, though I would argue that if you have a gun, and he a knife, you could very well protect your house by shooting him in the leg or a non-lethal target area, so as not to kill him. If protecting your property is truly your concern, then disabling the intruder is just as effective, without having to kill him. I believe this is all that apotheoun was saying. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conservativecatholic Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 (edited) [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 18 2004, 09:26 PM'] conservative, Apotheoun is merely stating the Church's teaching that a [i]proportionate[/i] amount of force is acceptable. If a man is running at you with a knife, in your own house, you may shoot him, though I would argue that if you have a gun, and he a knife, you could very well protect your house by shooting him in the leg or a non-lethal target area, so as not to kill him. If protecting your property is truly your concern, then disabling the intruder is just as effective, without having to kill him. I believe this is all that apotheoun was saying. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote] Jeff: In my first post, I was merely stating the legal right of one to defend his or her own property and life by the use of force. And by what do you mean acceptable amount of force? May God Bless! Edited July 19, 2004 by conservativecatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 By acceptable I mean proportional to the danger. That is, if you have a gun and your opponent has a knife, you certainly have the upper hand (assuming you know how to fire a gun). In such a situation, it may be inappropriate to kill the knife-wielding intruder, if you could stop him and bring safety to your house and family by shooting him in a non-lethal way. Thus, a the power of a gun can be used in a manner proportional to the threat, or, if you will in an "acceptable" manner. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 I think it's kinda like, if the person has a force that could threaten your life, you may threaten their life. if they're two feet away from you with a knife, blasting their brains out with your gun is not bad because a person with a knife in that close of a proximity is threatening your life. if they're across the room with a knife, you should probably try to aim for their legs and disable them. the right to defend property is only based on the assumtion that one on your property is a threat to your life. .02 from me to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now