From: tmi@netcom.com (Peter Alan Kasler)
Subject: Re: Law, inalienable Rights, and the Legitimate Use of Force
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:07:26 GMT

In <PA142548.847.727646205@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.004622.15424@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>>In article <pa142548.823.727464967@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>>>	Personally, I feel that a person is justified in using lethal force
>>>>	in some cases, to protect property.  Where that line is drawn is
>>>>	problematical, at best.  Got any ideas??
>>

	[stuff deleted]


>>
>>>...But I'm also not 
>>>comfortable just letting him get away with it.  Picture this: 
>>
>>>A brick comes sailing through the living room window, followed by a voice:
>>>"I'm just here to steal the TV, man.  I need a hit of crack."
>>>Then a young male slowly enters the window, hands up, back to you, and walks 
>>>to the TV.  He takes it from the wall, at no time going near you or makeing 
>>>any threatening motions.  Then he walks with the TV.  At no time did he 
>>>threaten you.  He made it clear that he only wanted your worldly goods.
>>
>>In such a case, I'd stand between him and the television. That would
>>force him to choose between leaving and using/threatening violence
>>to get the television. The choice is up to him. If he leaves, I 
>>prefectly happy. If he threatens me, or tries to harm me, I would
>>feel prefectly justified in defending my self. Given the facts of
>>a thrown brick and forced entry, I suspect he'd choose violence:
>>I wouldn't act until threatened, but I'd have a weapon available.

>That was the solution presented to me, and works for practical purposes.  He 
>must stay, leave the TV, or initiate violence.  At that point you may be 
>morally able to use force.  But you are still defending life, not property, 
>at that point.

>>
>>>...Is there a 
>>>justification for using lethal force when you KNOW your life is not 
>>>threatened?

	Under California law, a person can use lethal force against
another person who has trespassorily entered the first person's
residence, the presumption being that such an intruder caused the
resident to have "a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or
great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household..." 

>>There is another issue, in the case of defending property: Financial
>>losses _might_ threaten your life (or at least your health). Consider
>>the shop owners in Los Angeles, during last year's riots: Many had
>>no insurance and their stores were their only means of survival. In
>>that case, the loss of property would mean living impoverished on
>>the streets. That certainly seems to consitiute (indirectly) a
>>threat to life and health, so self-defence wouldn't be unreasonable.

>That's an interesting point.  Anyone else have anything to add?

	Under California law, and generally elsewhere, such an
indirect threat is too remote to justify the use of deadly force. In
the case of LA store owners mentioned above, the fact of no insurance,
etc., is not what would have insulated the shop owners from a charge
of (or, alternatively, provided a defense against a charge of)
wrongfully using deadly force. The mere fact that they themselves were
there when rioters or looters entered the premises is sufficient to
justify the use of deadly force, NOT to defend their property, but to
defend themselves and whomever else may have been there.
-- 
     Peter Alan Kasler                            Fax: 707-939-8684
     Threat Management Institute                Voice: 707-939-0303
     800 West Napa Street                     TMI BBS: 707-935-1713
     Sonoma, CA  95476                     Internet: tmi@netcom.com