[beavus]

You don't know, apparently, the long history of the law on this point. The law makes a huge distinction on moral grounds between your rights to use force, especially lethal force, when protecting YOUR OWN LIFE or the LIFE OF OTHERS versus mere property. I suggest you do a google search and find a nice dissertation on the subject.

Whether or not I know the law on that point is immaterial your honor. My morals don't follow from the law, and so I repeat that I don't see what difference it makes how they chose to use their property. I realize, however, that the law can contain any ridiculous notions that legislators stipulate. All the more reason for not judging right and wrong based upon law.

[Ches]

"the law can contain any ridiculous notions that legislators stipulate."

Well said!

[WL-law]

Whether or not I know the law on that point is immaterial your honor. My morals don't follow from the law, and so I repeat that I don't see what difference it makes how they chose to use their property.

You'd make a poor lawyer, as you have difficulty following the point. The point is not how you USE your property -- it is whether the relative value of your "property" (as opposed to your life and physical safety) ever allows you to take another's life in the defense thereof. And the longheld legal reasoning in British-US jurisprudence (not "statutory" law, so you don't understand that distinction either) is that the defense of property, although strongly protected under the law, does not by itself EVER justify the taking of another's life. Period.