Replies

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.

You'd make a poor lawyer, as you have difficulty following the point.

No. I'd make a poor lawyer b/c I would never be able to find the motivation to argue from edict rather than principle. As I said, I have little interest in the stipulations of lawmakers--from any century and in any role. About my only interest in the law is in trying to avoid trouble--which is what my experience with the law has been, trouble.

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.

It's you who have trouble *understanding* a point. I have never argued from the law. What the law says about property (which BTW if is as you say, is, not surprisingly, absurd) was never part of my argument or thought. I DON'T CARE WHAT THE LAW SAYS. I'm talking about principles. Whether or not my property has a bed in it IS irrelevent. If an intruder confronts me on my property, I'm not going to stop and consider what "British-US jurisprudence" may have to say about the nature of my property.

"the defense of property, although strongly protected under the law, does not by itself EVER justify the taking of another's life. Period.

Under Texas law, a person can protect their property with deadly force if there is the chance the property can never be recovered. Absolute statements about the law between different locales is a risky business.

"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."

The idea that one cannot use lethal force in defense of property is a new invention of liberal lawyers in the Northeast, not the historical position of common law. That may be what they teach in schools of law these days, but it isn't supported by history. And, in fact, the use of lethal force in defense of property is STILL understood to be allowed in several states (most recently in the news, Texas).

You repeatedly assume that the perp was only after property, making the shooting illegal... you also imply that since it was a business, the break-in was for property, and that if a break-in occurs in a home, the break-in is not for property alone. Poor assumptions, all.

BTW - We only have trial lawyers to thank for the current perversion of traditional use of force doctrine regarding property. And now it varies by state.

However, if you do a little research, you will find that deadly force was appropriate for defending one's property prior to, and at the time that our Constitution was written.