Support NeoGAF

[King Tubby]

Right and that's the crux of where you are disagreeing with people who don't think you should kill people that are stealing from you. Personally I think that since the intentions of the home invader aren't clear, though I think it's very unlikely that someone would want to kill you if you didn't present a threat, you don't have the right to kill the person since you don't know if killing them would prevent your own death. I acknowledge that I'm taking bit as axiomatic though, and it's basically as far as the conversation could go.

I think on one side you have people who value human life above other considerations, and on the other side you have people who value the rights of the innocent above the rights of those who would do them harm.

Well for one thing I think you should attempt to flee first, I doubt most theives would actually bother chasing after you. If you did and they followed with the intent of harming you then I think you can defend youself.
If you look at what I typed before the relevant justification for killing someone in this situation is to prevent your own murder. Under this line of argument until it becomes clear that the person is attempting to kill you, I'd say pulling a gun, you are not justified in killing the thief.

I simply don't agree with conceding these things to a criminal out of some kind of consideration of their interests above my own. I'm going to give them a warning and an opportunity to flee and if they choose to ignore that, I'm going to do what I can to stop them and I don't think it's unethical to do so.

 

[Cocaloch]

I think on one side you have people who value human life above other considerations, and on the other side you have people who value the rights of the innocent above the rights of those who would do them harm.

I think this is probably why people pick one side or another, but it is not the actual argument defending either side.

I simply don't agree with conceding these things to a criminal out of some kind of consideration of their interests above my own.

It isn't about their interest though, it's about the fact that you don't have the right to take someone's life by default. I think we can all agree on that here. What the side defending this is arguing is that this is a situation in which you have that right.

 

[King Tubby]

I think this is probably why people pick one side or another, but it is not the actual argument defending either side.

I didn't claim it to be so, I simply think that both sides of the argument have rational and legitimate perspectives on the issue, even if I myself fall on one side of the argument.

It isn't about their interest though, it's about the fact that you don't have the right to take someone's life by default. I think we can all agree on that here. What the side defending this is arguing is that this is a situation in which you have that right.

If you're trying to argue that ethically the onus is on the person being robbed to flee the situation in order to avoid harm coming to the person committing the robbery, it's absolutely about elevating said criminal's interest above that of the victim's.

 

[diffusionx]

Use common sense, there is a gradient to most actions.

That's the thing, common sense is in short supply. Historically, even in states like Florida people have been arrested for shooting burglars as they are running away for example. In the current climate I'm not sure that would happen, but that's because this whole debate has gone off the rails.

I'm fine with the castle doctrine. I'm fine with self-defense when one's life is in danger. I don't think the onus is on the person to run away if someone breaks into their home. But the debate has gone wayyyyy beyond that, to the point where people seriously ask questions such as the topic.