B Cart wrote:
There is a big difference between a public place where open entry is allowed and encouraged, and your private home where your family lives and resides and open entry is not allowed and encouraged.
I don't disagree, but just to explore a bit deeper, if you are alone at home and able to safely escape, what exactly is the difference between having someone walk into your home uninvited and walk out with your TV, vs having someone walk out of a store with a TV they have not paid for?
Certainly Utah law recognizes a differences and so we have our castle doctrine.
But the law in some other States, and and some nations, do not recognize any material difference and so homeowners are required to retreat if they are able before they are legally justified in using deadly force.
And just so there is no question, I fully agree with yours and other sentiments about the personal toll likely inflicted on oneself by taking another life, even in the most justified and necessary of situations. I'm just trying to explore what our values and morals are and what maybe the law should be if the guy next door is less willing to watch his TV walk out the front door than you and I are. Should he go to prison? Or is that a matter between him, his shrink, and his God to deal with because really, the criminal lost recourse when he engaged in crime X. And then what crimes should qualify as "X"?
B Cart wrote:There is a big difference between the LA riots and a guy stealing a case of beer from a grocery store. The obvious difference is, the rioters during the LA riots were actively injuring and killing people. 51 people were killed in fact. The Koreans were protecting more than just their property in that situation IMO, and they may not have been able to just "run away", because people in the streets were being killed. The threat of injury or death was definitely present there, negating the claim that they were only protecting their property.
I understand the point that you are getting at, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a situation where protecting property with lethal force is morally justified if there isn't an imminent threat of bodily harm or death.
Certainly at the proximate view, there is a big difference. And so it is easy for us to differentiate. But again, step back and look big picture.
We all know
the Korean shopkeepers were justified so I think maybe we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume maybe they couldn't safely leave, rather than asking the tough questions of, "Why didn't they leave?" "Should they have made attempts to leave rather than stay and fight?"
I mean, assuming they could have left but chose not to, they essentially put themselves in harms way deliberately. Kind of like seeing a guy about to drive away in your car, and so standing at the end of the driveway where his attempt to drive away then becomes a direct threat of harm against you. Sure, being in imminent harm of being run over you would be justified in shooting the guy stealing your car. But you could have just as easily stepped aside and removed the danger. In doing so, you would have eliminated the only moral/legal justification that many here accept as grounds to use deadly force. In choosing not to step aside, then, I'm having a hard time seeing the moral difference between shooting the guy who is about to back over you, and instead choosing a tactically advantageous spot and just shooting the guy for stealing your car. I'm NOT advocating shooting the guy for stealing your car. But in taking that position, I think I may be required to also NOT advocate for you to put yourself in harm's way to try to prevent the theft, which by being in harm's way may justify or even require you to use deadly force to protect your life.
What do we think of people in areas hit by natural disasters who post the big "Looters will be shot" signs? In most cases, people could safely leave an area either before the storm hits (in the case of Hurricanes) or evacuate afterword (in the case of earthquakes or tornadoes). Depending on what is being taken, we might say that losing the provisions would represent a serous threat to the life of the owner. But there is a lot of stuff in most of our homes that is not at all essential for survival following a natural disaster.
This is my point. Putting aside somewhat all of our own good advice about not shooting unless really no other choice exists, what do we consider legitimate choices either morally, or legally imposed?
I spent 4 years living in a State with a duty to retreat from my own home if safely possible before using deadly force against any invader. Who here would impose that same requirement here in Utah regardless of what personal choice they might make under various hypothetical situations?
Do we consider a moral, legitimate choice to "shelter in place" at your home, with your food storage and guns and other provisions following a natural disaster and loss of police "protection" and other government services? Sure, we'll all share with neighbors in need. And a TV or car isn't worth dying or killing over. Loss of our food or drinking water or other essentials might represent a real threat to our physical well being. But do we condemn those who choose
to stay at home, and to defend their home and property from looters rather than evacuate to safer areas?
Do we see some significant moral difference between a business loss (even at a small sole proprietorship) and the loss of personal property? Is there really any moral difference?
Korean chop keepers justified in threatening deadly force against a mob when they very well maybe could have just left the area or stayed inside their home and avoided any real risk of personal injury. Store owner not justified in shooting a thief in the very act of robbing him.
These are not easy questions are they?