Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reasonable force

Rate this topic


Mr. Wynand

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Any and all force necessary.

As a clarification, "any and all force necessary to prevent the taking of your property", just so that it's not mistaken for the right to give "frontier justice" after you have prevented the threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a society governed by laws designed to prevent theft of property, it isn't reasonable to use any force at all. The reasonable thing to do is call the Police.

In anarchy, the reasonable thing to do is complicated: it is moral to do whatever it takes to stop him, but that doesn't make it rational. The rational option might be to walk away with your life.

It's also reasonable to try and form a government, and end said anarchy as fast as possible.

[edit] I'm assuming the question refers to property, not anyone's life. In most cases of home invasion, the reasonable thing would be to shoot to kill, no questions asked. (Have a moderate to large caliber weapon handy at all times.)

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a society governed by laws designed to prevent theft of property, it isn't reasonable to use any force at all. The reasonable thing to do is call the Police.
In some contexts it may be reasonable. Specifically, if the police will not be able to arrive on time to stop the theft, and if the thief's escape means that the property will not be recovered; or, if the loss of the temporary loss of the property causes another loss. The point is, you do not need to lose your property if you can prevent it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is worthy to note that, armchair analysis after the fact aside, at the point of impact there is no real way to verify if the person who has broken into your house, apartment, or whatever is attempting to is:

1) Armed (unless they have nothing in their hands and are also naked)

2) Intends only to steal something of minor value, such as something where you may simply call the police and wait for them to apprehend them

3) Does not intend to do you any harm

So this talk of specific contexts in which one should only call the police seem, to me, to be a little bit silly. At the very least it'd be an extremely rare circumstance, even within the sample of the already fairly rare assault / home invasion. The proper response to such a thing is to bring the maximum amount of force to bear that you can, without damaging surrounding property (or your own, if you can help it.)

In some jurisdictions the police acknowledge that the likelihood of, for example, property being lost forever and compensation or catching the person being difficult, if not impossible (as petty thieves are not known to have large bank accounts and for many crimes people get away with them, at least for a period of time.) In light of this they allow shooting to prevent a subject from fleeing the scene in certain crimes (assault, arson, burglary, and the like) in certain times (usually after dark, where the likelihood of catching the person goes way down.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone intends to take your property by force, and acts, what is the reasonable amount of force that you can use against him?

Suppose you were to let him take it, and found yourself feeling absolutely calm during the process and afterward, would that make you an irrational person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose you were to let him take it, and found yourself feeling absolutely calm during the process and afterward, would that make you an irrational person?

No, but I don't see the relevance of the question.

I am absolutely calm during the process of filing my taxes. That doesn't make the requirement that I pay them, under threat of force (arrest, seizure of assets, etc.) moral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if police reaction time is excellent (a few minutes), they won't react in time to save you or your property. The fact that your property is being taken by force implies a direct threat against your person, and thus you are fully justified in using deadly force to protect yourself, your property, and your family. Even in a 'civilized' society, there can be no reasonable expectation that your life and property can be secured by anybody other than yourself and those you reside with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if police reaction time is excellent (a few minutes), they won't react in time to save you or your property. The fact that your property is being taken by force implies a direct threat against your person, and thus you are fully justified in using deadly force to protect yourself, your property, and your family. Even in a 'civilized' society, there can be no reasonable expectation that your life and property can be secured by anybody other than yourself and those you reside with.

I agree that, unfortunately, police action is usually post-hoc. That said, I do not think the use of deadly force is justified to take down a fleeing thief. No court in the land would assign the death penalty for someone making off with your PS3. Deadly force is totally justified if it is a question of your personal safety, but I just don't see how it can be right to maim or kill someone who is not placing others in immediate danger. Not only that, there is a good chance innocent, uninvolved people near all this commotion could be hurt in the process, which is totally unjustifiable.

That said, if I saw someone making off with my property, I wouldn't shoot him in the back, but I would certainly pursue. And if I caught up with him at the very least a beating is in order. Once he was subdued, I'd call the cops on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reasonable level of defensive force depends entirely on the circumstances. One can lay down principles of what is reasonable under what cirumstances, but ti comes down to individual cases that should be judged separately. It even comes down to the victim's belief at the time of the incident (example, since many robbery victims are shot after a robbery, is it reasonable to pre-emptively shoot the robber?)

But here's an interesting question:

Suppose you're carrying something that is of little intrinsic value, but of very high potential value. No, I'm not contradicting myself. Suppose you're carrying a propposal for a customer, or your latest manuscript, or a comic you just made. The intrinsic value of each is low: some papers, some labor, some ink or toner. But the potential value once it's judged or appraised by the customer or editor can be enormous. If a thief tries to steal that, what's a reasonable level of force to use against him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is impossible to come up with a hard and fast rule about the use of force. Having said that, when you reach the point at which you are able to restrain the attacker/robber (presuming that there was no chance of official protection in the first place) you should do so. That means if you strike the guy and he crumples unconscious to the floor you are not protected by "self defence" should you continue to beat him to death while he is unconscious.

As my sensi says though... "It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is impossible to come up with a hard and fast rule about the use of force. Having said that, when you reach the point at which you are able to restrain the attacker/robber (presuming that there was no chance of official protection in the first place) you should do so. That means if you strike the guy and he crumples unconscious to the floor you are not protected by "self defence" should you continue to beat him to death while he is unconscious.

As my sensi says though... "It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

This sounds reasonable. So what is needed for acts of self-defense during an actual attack are guidelines, rather than hard & fast rules?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sounds reasonable. So what is needed for acts of self-defense during an actual attack are guidelines, rather than hard & fast rules?

I would say so. But there are a lot of mitigating factors,not the least of which being the emotional state of the person protecting himself. For example if he fears for his life, regardless of the attackers ability to kill him then when he responds with force he will respond as if it is a life and death struggle. This might end up with the attacker winding up dead. Now it would be the responsibility of a court to determine whether this is a reasonable use of force or not, but for me I would side with the attacked over the attacker by default... Live by the sword die by the sword.

So in the end. Defend yourself until you feel you are no longer under threat and deal with the consequences of your actions later. Whether that means poking your assailant in the eye and running away or slamming a brick into his temple and killing him...

It really is all about me (all of us individually) after all. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say so. But there are a lot of mitigating factors,not the least of which being the emotional state of the person protecting himself. For example if he fears for his life, regardless of the attackers ability to kill him then when he responds with force he will respond as if it is a life and death struggle. This might end up with the attacker winding up dead. Now it would be the responsibility of a court to determine whether this is a reasonable use of force or not, but for me I would side with the attacked over the attacker by default... Live by the sword die by the sword.

So in the end. Defend yourself until you feel you are no longer under threat and deal with the consequences of your actions later. Whether that means poking your assailant in the eye and running away or slamming a brick into his temple and killing him...

It really is all about me (all of us individually) after all. :P

Generally speaking, Zip, I agree with you. In physical confrontations shit happens and sometimes people have freak injuries and die (just like sometimes people walk away unharmed from things when they had no business doing so, realistically). The results of that confrontation are squarely the responsibility of the one who made that confrontation necessary. All I'm saying is there's got to be a sense of, as you say, stopping the beating when he stops moving, or not shooting a guy in the back. Something like a home invasion, I would have a lot more leniency...someone is in your home and you don't know what they're going to do. What I'm thinking off is more along the lines of a guy picking your pocket and running away in a crowded street - we can't have people just pulling out their pistols and opening fire on this guy. In that situation, I'd start running after the jerk and make a holy racket about it, hoping someone up the sidewalk would have the basic benevolence to stick their foot out in front of him. At the very least, there'd be tons of witnesses. I swear one of the best defenses you have in a public place is to make a bloody racket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say so. But there are a lot of mitigating factors,not the least of which being the emotional state of the person protecting himself. For example if he fears for his life, regardless of the attackers ability to kill him then when he responds with force he will respond as if it is a life and death struggle. This might end up with the attacker winding up dead. Now it would be the responsibility of a court to determine whether this is a reasonable use of force or not, but for me I would side with the attacked over the attacker by default... Live by the sword die by the sword.

So in the end. Defend yourself until you feel you are no longer under threat and deal with the consequences of your actions later. Whether that means poking your assailant in the eye and running away or slamming a brick into his temple and killing him...

It really is all about me (all of us individually) after all. :P

I'm in full agreement, Zip!

themadkat, I agree with you about bloody rackets. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with shooting a running thief in the back on an open street is not moral - he deserves to be shot - but the lack of objectivity. A society with objective (rule of) law can't have people issuing retaliative death penalties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with shooting a running thief in the back on an open street is not moral - he deserves to be shot - but the lack of objectivity. A society with objective (rule of) law can't have people issuing retaliative death penalties.

Thieves deserve to be shot? I'm not so sure about that. I think only those who would cause others bodily harm deserve to die. Now, obviously, thieves deserve to be PUNISHED, but there are degrees of punishment for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose you were to let him take it, and found yourself feeling absolutely calm during the process and afterward, would that make you an irrational person?

Then I would say you have a psychological disorder.

I was robbed in my home several years ago. If I had owned a gun at that time, I would've shot him and kept shooting until he was dead. He was a large, loud, violent man that was obviously on drugs and had with a nervous partner with him. They kicked their way into my back door. Fortunately, neither of them touched me, but they threatened me and made me feel it was necessary to plead for my life. That's worthy of being shot to death, IMO. Fortunately, Texas law agrees. (I think Texas also allows you to shoot a robber if they're running away, but only at night, since your vision is impaired at night and it's hard to tell if the threat is really gone, or something to that effect.)

Shooting a thief, that did not physically threaten you or cause you any bodily harm or injury (if you surprised a thief who thought no one was home, for example), in the back as they're running away is a bit much. If they harmed someone, I say fire away in an attempt to stop them.

Current laws vary from state to state, but my above comments are based on either Texas law or what I think the laws should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some ways this depends on how the thief steals from you.

1). He enters your home, points a gun at you or a loved one, and demands loot.

2). He sneaks into your home while you sleep, steals the silver... or in my case stainless :) and you spot him as he is climbing out the window.

The ability to project force requires the ability to escalate and de-escalate force to the appropriate level for the situation of the moment.

In the first situation, lethal force is warranted, moral, and in most jurisdictions legal.

In the second situation the most that is warranted is an attempt to physically restrain the thief. However, if this attempt causes the thief to become violent toward you, then you must be able to escalate appropriately.

Note: hard and fast rules do not apply to these kind of confrontions. There are too many variables, not the least of which is the mental state of the thief. The best you can do is work from principle. This is not easy to do and requires much training. Even with a lot of training there are no guarantees and things can rapidly spiral out of control. So, suffice it to say that "reasonable force" is a very context-specific concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you for the most part, but let's say the thief sneaking out in scenario two has a gun that you can't see and once he realizes your awake, plans to use it? That's why in Texas, you can shoot after dark even if they're trying to escape.

And you're right about the unknowns...there are so many. While I was being robbed, they counted down two minutes until they had to be out of the apartment. (I guess they knew that's how long it would take for police to arrive...and sure enough, cops were there about one minute after they left.) For me and my boyfriend at the time, it felt like 2 hours. In addition, we had no idea what their plans were or if they had weapons other than the baseball bat and lead pipe they had hovering over us.

So when a person chooses to assault someone or trespass on their property or take their stuff, that person leaves himself open to a lot of misinterpretation, and frankly, I don't feel sorry for that person when someone decides to shoot first and try to find out what they were up to later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion you only should have the moral right to kill someone if he is a threat to your life or health. You may very well stop someone from stealing your property, but if he does not pose a threat to you, you can't kill him no matter how valuable the thing is he is about to steal.

If a little girl steals a watch and the only way to stop her from running away with it is to use the gun in your hand, you have to let her run away. You might say: "A watch is not that valuable". That might be true, but any item can has huge personal value. What it was a watch that was passed down in your family for generations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I would say you have a psychological disorder.

Count me in. I was robbed at gunpoint in broad daylight in the street and I kept totally calm. I found it helped me think, which worked to my advantage. I tricked the thieves out of more than half of what I was carrying at the time and managed to remain un-shot.

People react differently to threats. I think it helps to think ahead of time what you would do when faced with an emergency, including the threat of physical force (I did). I was wary, but not scared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion you only should have the moral right to kill someone if he is a threat to your life or health. You may very well stop someone from stealing your property, but if he does not pose a threat to you, you can't kill him no matter how valuable the thing is he is about to steal.

Property and life are part of the same currency of life itself: time. Having my car or some of my work stolen is no different than physically hauling me off to a dungeon for the amount of time it took to produce those things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Count me in. I was robbed at gunpoint in broad daylight in the street and I kept totally calm.

I'm not saying you should/must freak out during an emergency. Frankly, I was very calm and quick-thinking while being robbed. After the guy left, I found myself shaking like a leaf, talking 90 mph, and crying uncontrollably. I think for someone to say they're completely calm before and after is unrealistic. If you value your life at all, you're at least going to be pissed. Your body produces adrenaline for a reason.

I agree with you that people should think about how they plan to react to life threatening situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...