General

Re: Libertarianism and shooting intruders

Len Budney — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:15:31 GMT

Stranger:
You have the right to shoot him in self-defense, but not to kill him. Aim appropriately.

Stranger is half right. You always shoot to stop, not to kill. However, that has no affect on your aim: always aim for the center of mass. The difference between shooting to stop and shooting to kill is that in the former case you stop shooting when the threat is ended. I.e., when he ceases to threaten you, you don't finish him off.

--Len.

Re: Libertarianism and shooting intruders

Len Budney — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:12:33 GMT

Juan:
Killing or even shooting an unarmed intruder sounds to me like a criminal act itself. It is not proportional at all.

I suspect you don't really mean that: if a 250# unarmed man attempted to rape your 98# wife, would you insist that she defend herself using only her fists? There's a reason firearms are referred to as "equalizers." What you're probably picturing is the reverse case, in which a 60# teenager breaks into a 250# karate champion's home. You're imagining how unfair it would be if that great big bear of a man shot the young punk in the face with a bazooka.

If so, I would suggest you not use "armed" and "unarmed" as if they describe two specific threat levels. Many unarmed men could easily kill with their fists. Even a weakling can easily kill bare-handed someone who was weaker still. Instead you should speak of "threatening" and "non-threatening," realizing that the notion of "threatening" is fuzzy at best.

I'd agree with you that shooting someone who clearly poses no threat is a disproportionate response.

--Len.

Re: Libertarianism and shooting intruders

Len Budney — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:02:26 GMT

Then it seems you are not arguing that proportionality doesn't apply to defense. In any case, though, I fail to see just how you can see death as proportionate to trespass.

It seems to me that you're leaving threat entirely out of the equation. I can use lethal force on you not only after you attempt to kill me, but after you threaten to do so.

In this case trespass is all the intruder has done so far (assuming that's true for the sake of argument). But if he's inside your locked home after midnight, say, it's reasonable to infer that he intends to commit further crime such as burglary, rape or murder, and that he will react with violence if caught. He is therefore a deadly threat, and should be treated exactly as would a man pointing a gun at your head and threatening to kill you.

The same would not apply to a passer-by who accidentally puts his foot over your property line. There is no death penalty for trespassing--lethal force is permissible only in cases where the trespasser is reasonably seen as posing a deadly threat.

--Len.

Re: Libertarianism and shooting intruders

Aristotle100 — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 06:42:34 GMT

I would either A) call the cops (private or public cops depending on what kind of society we are talking about here) or B) Use force and physically remoive him, show the gun at first and tell him/her to leave and if they threatened violence against me, my family or tried to rob me then I would either shoot them or physically remove them some other way.

Re: Libertarianism and shooting intruders

Bostwick — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:56:36 GMT

Ego:
If you continue Rothbard's logic, it's not immoral for leftists to use the government force everyone to pay for universal healthcare because they too are being forced by the government to fund it.

Nope.

Re: Libertarianism and shooting intruders

Ego — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:16:38 GMT

Social engineering?

If you continue Rothbard's logic, it's not immoral for leftists to use the government force everyone to pay for universal healthcare because they too are being forced by the government to fund it.

Re: Libertarianism and shooting intruders

Bostwick — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:54:49 GMT

Ego:

Rothbard had the wrong conclusion. If I'm a leftist and feel that everyone should be forced to share their bubble gum, is a Rothbard-style punishment truly a punishment?

The punishment must be greater than the crime.

An you advocate yet another anti-libertarian policy: Social engineering.

Re: Libertarianism and shooting intruders

Ego — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:24:00 GMT

Rothbard had the wrong conclusion. If I'm a leftist and feel that everyone should be forced to share their bubble gum, is a Rothbard-style punishment truly a punishment?

The punishment must be greater than the crime.

Re: Libertarianism and shooting intruders

mr_anonymous — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:02:29 GMT

Not a very difficult question. If somebody tresspasses on your property, you have the right to make them leave by whatever methods work. If they refuse to leave, you can make them leave, even if this means shooting them. We have to keep in mind that if we did live in a libertarian society, people would not shoot other people for walking on their lawn. Common sense and judgement will prevail. Ultimately, if it comes down to it though, if somebody intrudes your property and you shoot them, you should always be given the benifit of the doubt.

Re: Libertarianism and shooting intruders

Arbitrator — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:57:46 GMT

And besides, determining objectively "equivalent" consequences would simply allow for economical decision-making on the part of the offender. "Hmm, is it worth the 6 months in prison I'll get for smashing my Ex's car window? Who am I kidding? Of course it is, this'll be so sweet!" I'd prefer not to live in a world of reactionary equivalences and be able to stop people however I choose when I know they are aware of what they are doing. Keep in mind, your example involves a child.

Re: Libertarianism and shooting intruders

Arbitrator — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:53:39 GMT

Though your quote is about punishment (Post Facto), you bring up an interesting point. But there is something in my above post that you failed to note that is incredibly relevant: the fact that value is subjective (something I doubt you disagree with). Most people in the Western world are familiar with the concept of "let the punishment fit the crime." And of course, it is not meant to be taken literally--conversions must be made. Smashing a window no longer means that the State will in turn smash your window. But how does one accurately create equivalent punishments for a crime? With human guesswork. They can never really know the true intensity of the infraction because whatever was damaged held a subjective value to its owner that was probably unique when compared to anyone else's in the world. True, it is easier when it comes to things that get damaged, but it is not always so simple. I am not disagreeing with you necessarily, but I don't believe that system is any more exact than the human guesswork that goes into deciding whether or not someone is a "threat."

Re: Libertarianism and shooting intruders

Bostwick — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:19:52 GMT

Arbitrator:
If an intruder entered your house and attempted to assault you, they are clearly demonstrating a complete lack of recognition of your jurisdiction over your property--he refuses to leave, and on top of that, tries to attack your own person. Is he not, according to Rothbard, implicitly declaring a lack of jurisdiction over his own? So what's wrong with shooting him? I believe the answer is nothing.

This is what Rothbard really said

Secondly, we may ask: must we go along with those libertarians who claim that a storekeeper has the right to kill a lad as punishment for snatching a piece of his bubble gum? What we might call the “maximalist” position goes as follows: by stealing the bubble gum, the urchin puts himself outside the law. He demonstrates by his action that he does not hold or respect the correct theory of property rights. Therefore, he loses all of his rights, and the storekeeper is within his rights to kill the lad in retaliation.

I propose that this position suffers from a grotesque lack of proportion. By concentrating on the storekeeper’s right to his bubble gum, it totally ignores another highly precious property-right: every man’s—including the urchin’s—right of self-ownership. On what basis must we hold that a minuscule invasion of another’s property lays one forfeit to the total loss of one’s own? I propose another fundamental rule regarding crime: the criminal, or invader, loses his own right to the extent that he has deprived another man of his. If a man deprives another man of some of his self-ownership or its extension in physical property, to that extent does he lose his own rights.[5] From this principle immediately derives the proportionality theory of punishment-best summed up in the old adage: “let the punishment fit the crime.”

Re: Libertarianism and shooting intruders

Arbitrator — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:08:31 GMT

Juan:
Killing or even shooting an unarmed intruder sounds to me like a criminal act itself. It is not proportional at all.

Though I think we can all agree to disregard logic such as this, the participants in this thread all need to clear up their stances and be aware of any arbitrary distinctions that arise. I don't believe that anyone here is against self defense. If an "intruder" is heading directly at you with a gun drawn, we are in agreement that shooting him is okay. If he were to instead have a knife, still I think some would agree that the shooting is justified. Where we seem to be coming into conflict, and it is probably all semantic, is if the "intruder" is unarmed. If he is charging at you with a raised fist and mad glint in his eye, some think shooting him is acceptable. Some of you, however, point out that it is possible that even though he is obviously attempting to hurt you, he may not be intending to kill you, and therefore shooting him in the head is unacceptable. With the Gun scenario, it is clear that shooting him in the leg will hardly curb the intruders ability to kill you, so lethal force is allowed. With the others, it could be argued that a leg shot is all that is necessary.

There have been some jabs and jokes about toes and neighbors walking across your lawn, but I want to make one thing clear: if your property is in question, under normal and guilt-free circumstances, you have complete jurisdiction over it. But before you decide that I must be that guy with the "trespassers will be shot" sign on my fence, hear me out. If I have jurisdiction over my property, I therefore have the right to make sure that any unwanted persons will be removed. I have a right to not have you sitting in my living room, yes? Or can you barge in whenever you please, like a sitcom?

If an intruder entered your house and attempted to assault you, they are clearly demonstrating a complete lack of recognition of your jurisdiction over your property--he refuses to leave, and on top of that, tries to attack your own person. Is he not, according to Rothbard, implicitly declaring a lack of jurisdiction over his own? So what's wrong with shooting him? I believe the answer is nothing.

I also get the feeling that many of you are making a moral distinction between killing and maiming, which is not necessarily wrong, but very interesting to me. In your nonlethal scenario, once we've shot the intruder, there are obviously an infinite number of ways of removing the knife from the suspect and incapacitating him, not merely shooting him in the head. But if killing is inhumane, does that mean that anything shy of it is not? What if we then worked out a plan to shoot every major tendon in his body, as well as his hands, feet, kneecaps and elbows (oh, and shoulders!) so as to minimize the risk to our person as much as possible before rolling him out the door? I believe you all are making a mistake in determining that killing is objectively worse than maiming. Yes, it happens to be that in 99% of healthy people, their number-one priority is living. Their life is the most important thing. But haven't you seen movies with torture scenes, etc.? When situations change, people's priorities change. Suddenly, when before they were screaming "Stop, you're going to kill me!" they begin screaming "Stop! Please kill me!" Your body is your property, whether your most valuable or otherwise. And its value is subjective. And if the value of your property in your mind can change, is it not reasonable that your permitted abilities with regards to protecting it should be constant, no matter what its value to you at that particular moment? Protecting your carpet or T.V., no matter how insane it will inevitably make you [look], is actually the same as protecting your physical well-being.

Obviously this scenario isn't exactly realistic, as one would actually leave a body to be documented to help prove your innocence, etc. And obviously this can all be taken to extremes, but I suppose I should address the most likely scenarios that will be brought against me. Scenarios of people walking across lawns and therefore giving me the right to shoot them through my living room window are fallacious. Why? Because there is a social subtext to things like yards and walkways that lead to front doors. People use that to approach and attempt to communicate. There is a general understanding (at least in most societies) that one may walk up to your door and knock without being fired upon. Now, if I haven't taken my medication and I respond to the knock, and open the door brandishing a loaded gun and demanding that they get the F*** off my "propertaye" they would hopefully do so. If they refuse they find might a bullet in their chest. Yeah, I won't be making friends or getting invitations to community picnics, but that's purely because I stupidly chose to sidestep any and all social courtesies.

The verbal warning is not a necessary prerequisite to the use of force, especially in cases like a man with a gun barging into your bedroom. What it is, is a very effective tool for determining whether or not someone intends to harm you, steal something, or any other form of violating your jurisdiction over your property. Because in all honesty it can be very vague, and telling them that you are going to stop what they are doing by any means necessary unless they get the hell away from you or off your property is a FANTASTIC way of clearing it up. But it is, as I said, a social courtesy and nothing more.

Saying that will likely rile up some angry responses, and some will say that I'm advocating rampant, thoughtless violence, etc. But consider this: people get away with murder all the time. You may not like it, but they do. All it takes is being alone, and you can often do what you want. There's no way to fully stop that on a civilian-to-civilian basis, aside from Big Brother, but that adds a whole new slew of problems. And I think we can all agree on that.

Re: Libertarianism and shooting intruders

CShirk — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:01:38 GMT

In a fight, you do not want even odds. The idea of a fair fight does not exist. You don't know what your opponent's assets are, and for every second you take in a "fair fight" that is one seconds' less endurance that you have to fend the person off if they present a weapon - be it a knife, a gun, or even a stick. Sorry people, but that's just the facts. I've been trained in hand-to-hand, grappling, stick fighting, swordplay, and firearms. I've never been in a fair fight, not even in sparring match. Speaking with other martial artists has convinced me that fair fights don't exist. The best thing you can do is find something immediately that makes the fight unfair. Grab a stick, a knife, a gun, whatever, (or even go do some serious combatives/martial arts training) but make it clear to the person that he needs to leave or it's going to result in very serious harm, or even death. If that person refuses to leave - as the original poster clearly stated in his hypothetical situation - then his refusal implies that he has the means to press an attack against you in spite of your obviously superior position. He could be drunk, on drugs, or he could have a weapon. (Sorry, but the only time a rational person stands and fights against a weapon is if they are either desperate or armed themselves. In either case, your life is threatened. That individual is clearly either derranged, desperate, or armed.) Your only recourse at that point is to incapacitate him, that is to remove - temporarily or permanently - his ability to fight. If you fail to incapacitate them from the onset, you will in all likelihood lose. Remember: you are being attacked. You don't have the initiative unless you either have superior fighting skill to seize the initiative, or the ability to cheat to take the initiative - such as presenting a weapon.

Further, shooting to wound doesn't happen. Believe me...it looks great in the movies, but it is extremely rare off the silver screen. First off, handguns aren't that accurate. Second, your adreniline will be pumping, so your fine-tuned hand-eye coordination will be off. Yeah, you may be able to empty an entire magazine under a quarter at the shooting range, but can you do that under stress? In most cases, I'm sorry, but I'm going to say I doubt it. You always shoot center mass (chest cavity right around the heart), and you shoot in a steady pattern until the person no longer presents a threat.

Re: Libertarianism and shooting intruders

Bostwick — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:28:00 GMT

JAlanKatz:
Then it seems you are not arguing that proportionality doesn't apply to defense

JonBostwick:

Proportionality always applies

JAlanKatz:
In any case, though, I fail to see just how you can see death as proportionate to trespass.

I did not intend to prove that it is.

Proportionality requires the response you give to an intruder in your front yard be different than to one in your bedroom.

Probability must play into this, and the benefit of doubt must fall towards the inhabitant. Its kind of like being robbed by someone with an unloaded gun. If someone threatens you with a gun, the assumption is that it is loaded. If we find out later the gun was empty that does not change how we look at the crime, or invalidate any attempt towards self defense.