Looters Vs Lawful Protesters

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: KyoZero

Thank you for reaffirming some of the points I was trying to make in terms of proportionate force, and threats to one's life vs. threats to property.

Other than that, I simply do not know how to even comprehend -- much less argue -- with such disregard for life. Nor do I have the heart for it right now.

I am sincerely glad I reaffirmed that for you. I agree on that point 100%. Proportionate is the proper way.

But as far as your veiled insult about my "disregard for life," I find that pretty ugly to be quite honest and I am not sure I have the "heart for it."

I'm gonna give it a shot though

Don't paint me like some piece of crap who lusts for blood, pain and death. I don't go around saying "oh please come at me" so I can invent some reason to kill a person. I thank you deeply for your attempt to bring too much emotion into this and make me and NavyDoc and others who believe in protecting property sound like barbarians who pray for the hunt. Frankly I'm kind of a wimp and I LOVE peaceful ways out. I'd prefer a peaceful protest and if my place was burned to the ground I would hope I didn't have to be in between. I truly mean that.

YES...my wife is more important than my computer
YES...my own life is more important than my car
NO...I will not kill some person over petty theft
YES...You ABSOLUTELY ignored/missed a big part of my statement

If I am tucked and covered and a mob is RUNNING at me and have weapons that could be DEADLY...I have a few scant seconds to determine what is going to happen. I'll give you a little clue from my years of psychology study/training/practice. When people are frightened, they are not at their most capable. If I have people ready to torch my house a couple of possibilities rise in my mind.

1. Are they going to torch me next? -shrug- Dunno but I got a solid three seconds to wade through panic and figure it out

2. If I try to peacefully stop them, am I going to be a target too? -shrug- Dunno but I got a solid three seconds to wade through panic and figure it out

3. If I choose to just run...what am I supposed to do? Just let a mob tear my entire life apart? Forget even what I said earlier about items also being part of my achievement and well-deserved

What about my livelihood? What about my entire life, contents, things, valuables, irreplaceable now torched? I am supposed to just shrug and be like "meh whatever. It isn't like my entire life outside of my skin means anything"

Then what? They get away with it. Are they just gonna stop at my house? History shows "no. that isn't how it happens." So how many lives do we let the mob destroy before we say enough is enough? Because like it or not, your motto of life over things is true, but things, places to live, memories...these ARE life for a great many people. It doesn't mean they are petty. Petty is saying a guy accidentally broke my watch...my life is over. Reality is saying these five guys burned down my house, my car and I have nothing left. That is a massive portion of me...gone.

Look. Let me pull back a second. Seriously. I love that your approach of life over things. I actually prefer that too. But to come tell everyone that we are violent and have a disregard for life because we prefer to protect all we have worked our rear ends off for is sickening to me. Sorry. You can absolutely feel as you want. My personal opinion is that you have a strong disregard for innocent lives. Am I right? I don't know but it sure feels that way.

But please don't dare paint me...you don't know a thing about me just like my stupid comment above. Are you disregarding innocence? I say yes...but that doesn't make me right now does it?

originally posted by: Boadicea
Your things are not more valuable than life.... NOTHING is more valuable than life. And if the people hired to protect and defend our rights -- including our INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE -- understood that, Baltimore would not be in this position right now.

It seems to me that you forget that we also have a right to be secure in our posessions, and that even though you have your opinion, Maryland has its own laws on being secure in our homes and what we can do when faced with a threat:

A man is not bound to retreat from his house. He may stand his ground there and kill an[y] person who attempts to commit a felony therein, or who attempts to enter by force for the purpose of committing a felony, or of inflicting great bodily harm upon an inmate. In such a case the owner or any member of the family, or even a lodger in the house, may meet the intruder at the threshold, and prevent him from entering by any means rendered necessary by the exigency, even to the taking of his life, and the homicide will be justifiable

I fully understand your stance on life being more precious than things, but if we disregard our right to our own protection of our own life and home (which includes things within the home), then we disregard the rule of law. Once someone decides that his desire for my things or my life is worth the possibility of him losing his own, then I argue that he has forfeited his right to life.

originally posted by: KyoZero
My personal opinion is that you have a strong disregard for innocent lives. Am I right? I don't know but it sure feels that way.

But please don't dare paint me...you don't know a thing about me just like my stupid comment above. Are you disregarding innocence? I say yes...but that doesn't make me right now does it?

Actually, it seems as though it does make you right.

It's hard to tell with some people where the line is drawn that it's okay to protect your life's accomplishments and achievements with deadly force--even if backed by local law--and when it's not okay. When someone says they can't comprehend "such disregard for life," you must question which life they are more willing to protect, the innocent life or the criminal one.

I simply can't comprehend someone's stance that is so strong that potentially deadly criminals should not be dealt with within the confines of the law. I'm much like how you describe your post--I don't ever, EVER want to be in the position where I'm making the decision between someone else's life and mine or my family's lives, but if it ever came down to it, if possible, it won't be me, and I pity the person who tries. But until that day, I'm about as peaceful and non-confrontational (in real life) as most people can be...until I'm cornered.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: NavyDoc

"Right to property" is one of those inalienable rights and defense of one's property has been a part of common law for millennia. Only recently have some governments outlawed one's natural right to defend their property.

I don't know of any laws that outlaw one's natural right to defend their property -- except, of course, when it's government stealing our property. I do know of laws which require equal and proportionate use of force. If a child is beating your legs (assault) and trying to take your ice cream (robbery) are you going to use lethal force to stop that child? No. You use the level of force necessary to stop the assault and robbery. Shall I shoot the schoolgirls who steal my flowers from my yard? It's stealing, but does not threaten my person. How about the mom stealing bread to feed her children?

As for morality? IMHO it is more immoral to let a criminal free to victimize someone else when you had the means of stopping them right then and there.

So the moral thing to do is to kill all criminals to make sure they don't victimize someone else? Because there are no better options? Including that child stealing your ice cream? I guess that would make sure they never grew up to commit more crimes. Because of course you know they would right?

Well, that would certainly save the taxpayers the cost of trials and jails and all that...

REducto ad absurdum. Nobody is talking about killing a kid stealing ice cream and the characterization in that manner is pretty low.

A violent mob breaking into your house and/or store is a much higher threat level than a kid pinching a candy bar. These "protests" are not shoplifting toddlers, they are violent felons who use force and threat of injury to take what they want, whatever they want.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
a reply to: NavyDoc
a reply to: KyoZero
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Okay. Everyone made their point and I made mine. Apparently never the twain shall meet. I can explain my position from a humanitarian perspective or from a position of faith, but the only one that matters is the Constitutional foundation based on natural law... including the absolute inalienable right to life.

Nor did I make anyone feel anything; I don't have that power. I made it very clear that I was referring to threats to property, not person/life.... others made no distinction. Perhaps too much was read into my words that I didn't have "the heart" for it; if so, please know that I was referring to the fact that my daughter had just been taken to the ER. My heart was not in it... my heart was elsewhere.

My apologies for any misunderstanding; and for not replying sooner. But I did not expect replies, and didn't check for any.