Posted on 08/30/2020 1:14:19 PM PDT by grundle
The property. To answer otherwise is to destroy law & order in America. If you are killed while committing a crime the blame is solely yours no matter the circumstances.
Destroying outside of war is one's declaration he/she does not adhere to civil society anymore. Those currently destroying have declared war and are a domestic enemy that need to be put down. We used to shoot them on sight and put them in prison for a long time to think about it.
You are not responding to the question.
There is no demand.
If someone decides to commit arson the put their life at risk. If they can be stopped without being killed fine. If they are killed by accident or to prevent the arson that’s the breaks.
the property.
The terrorist lost their right to life.
Sure as all get out it does. People can be trapped and burn. Bad way to go.
Neither are you. The question boils down to what is more valuable, property or life.
Well said. I was trying to formulate a response and you said it very well. If one is voluntarily and intentionally committing a violent crime he is inviting certain consequences.
If he wants to avoid the worst consequences then a Molotov cocktail should not be his drink of choice.
“If they are killed by accident or to prevent the arson that’s the breaks.”
I don’t think I would shoot the arsonist. I’d shoot the molotov cocktail out of his hand. ;)
The crime of arson does not demand ones life as punishment.
..............................................
It does if its my property!
i’m gonna say property
that property feeds a lot of people and helps a lot of customers
this should not even be a legitimized question but this is how far the country’s morals have fallen
all marxist commies need to be dead
all violent thugs that won’t stop being so need to be dead
how does one know the arsonist isn’t trying to kill anyone in the building through burning up the place?
there are many motives for arson
i default to murder, therefore, yes you can kill him
i mean are you just going to sit back and allow someone to burn your house or business down? da phuck you are, if they wont stop from you yelling at them you have to use force
this is so idiotic, of course you neutralzie them
If you attack property you forfeit your right to life.
....................................
Absolutely, and I wouldn’t hesitate a second to bring the life of an arsonist to an end.
The life of a business owner or anyone else. Loss of property can lead to loss of life, or in the least, a lower quality of life that may have been hard earned. And what if a business owner is in a building that’s burned down by an arsonist?
Picture this. A person who has barely enough to eat and would starve with any less food. Then a thief steals the food.
Theft can be a horrible crime. So can vandalism.
And if you missed, there’s the breaks.
I don’t say try & kill the arsonist. I say that at the point where someone is committing a crime they have put themselves at risk and have put others at risk.
No it does not.
That is the fallacy in your approach.
If there is a boat sinking you save the person not the diamond tiara. People are irreplaceable.
If someone is committing a crime they have stepped outside the law and they can and should be stopped from destroying property and risking the lives of others. They should be stopped using the least damaging method that will stop them be it taser or lethal force.
As of 5:0 PM EST:
The property of a business owner 98.39% (305 votes);
The life of someone who tries to burn down that business 1.61% (5 votes).
Total Votes: 310.
I don’t know how much Freepers had to do with this.
As of 5:0 PM EST:
The property of a business owner 98.39% (305 votes);
The life of someone who tries to burn down that business 1.61% (5 votes).
Total Votes: 310.
I don’t know how much Freepers had to do with this.
The question boils down to what is more valuable, property or life.
.........................................
Depends on the value of the property and the value of the person’s life who is committing the arson. If you’re suggesting the existence of an absolute, sorry, there isn’t one in play here. In my view anyone sets fire to property not his own needs to die.
Right you are.
It the old “Shall we have a peanut butter sandwich or sell the Chevy?” choice.
Shall we vote for Trump or have a cookie? I think I’ll do both, thank you!
How about an option C: Is it worth getting killed to burn down a building?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.