> If your defense against theft ends up killing the thief do you think you shouldn't be liable?
That depends. Are we talking about a thief who was accidentally killed in a brawl with the property owner (or the troublesome death-by-glitter scenario that some in this thread are so concerned about)? Or a property owner who subdues, binds, and executes the thief? I'm open to arguments that it should be illegal to use lethal force against thieves when it's 100% clear that the thief poses no physical danger to the victim. I also believe that the property owner generally bears responsibility if their traps or other defenses are mistakenly employed against an innocent party. But in general, any injuries a thief incurs during a theft should be his own responsibility, and I'm okay with a world in which thieves live in fear of committing thefts.
I don't think anyone would disagree that generally stealing is wrong and people who do it in general deserve to face consequences. But the consequences should be proportionate to the crime. I don't think anyone deserves to die for petty theft, regardless of circumstances.
It seems like you are suggesting that if someone takes a $50 package off of my front porch, and then I come outside to confront them, and in the altercation this person makes a threatening gesture towards me then I would be within my rights to use lethal force.
That seems like a disproportionate escalation to me.
Anyway I think we just disagree about some of these proportionality issues.
If someone steals something, that doesn't mean they automatically lose all of their rights to life and property simply because in your mind they are now a "criminal".
Defense is not about punishment. Thieves don’t deserve to die, but it’s okay that it’s a risk they run. As an aside, I see this all the time, usually in conversations about self-defense—“a rapist doesn’t deserve to die”; maybe not but they sure deserve to run the risk and they certainly deserve worse than their victims. At least they have a _choice_.
Because they have the agency and can trivially choose to forego the risks. Why should thieves be guaranteed safety? What else should we fournish for them? A guaranteed minimum haul? :)
That depends. Are we talking about a thief who was accidentally killed in a brawl with the property owner (or the troublesome death-by-glitter scenario that some in this thread are so concerned about)? Or a property owner who subdues, binds, and executes the thief? I'm open to arguments that it should be illegal to use lethal force against thieves when it's 100% clear that the thief poses no physical danger to the victim. I also believe that the property owner generally bears responsibility if their traps or other defenses are mistakenly employed against an innocent party. But in general, any injuries a thief incurs during a theft should be his own responsibility, and I'm okay with a world in which thieves live in fear of committing thefts.