Philosophy Now Forum

http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm

Apparently, in Texas, if someone steals my stuff at night (or burgles it at any time) and tries to run away, I can blow them away - as long as I have reasonable belief that I cannot get my stuff back otherwise.

Wow. This seems a bit harsh.

On the other hand, if you steal stuff while in Texas, and try to run away while being aware that you are in Texas then, fug, you are just too dumb to live, and the shooter does you and all of humanity in favor by putting a Smith & Wesson .50 round between your shoulder blades (or in your neck if he is a really good shooter).

Side question: is there a morally significant difference between between shooting a fleeing burglar with a Smith & Wesson .50 caliber, or a Desert Eagle .50 caliber?

How about a nice but reasonably priced antique like the Nagant M1895 revolver, my own personal favorite - one of the most accurate revolvers ever built (but a bugger to reload!)? Unlike the .50 caliber hand-cannons, the target has a pretty good chance to survive given prompt medical care, but if they do croak, there is a good chance it will be much more painful than with the larger guns.

Thoughts, anyone?

Why not use something a little more substantial, like a minigun?
Most people in civilised countries allow the law to assess levels of doubt and mitigation for crimes because they do not consider summary execution a valid and proportionate response.
Given this Texas law, as you state it, it would be lawful from you to shoot me in the face with a Kalashnikov because I stole a french-fry from your plate.
I image that the law does not use the term "blow them away". Does it allow for a more moderated response such as 'stop them'?
One might be inclined to suggest a weapon that would not automatically kill but slow down.

What is the nature of your objection to blowing someone away for stealing a french fry at night?

Is it that it is obviously a trivial theft, and does not warrant deadly force if one decides to defend oneself against it - and Texan law does not explicitly rule out trivial theft?

Or are you opposed to use of deadly force to defend property in general?

There is a world of difference between stealing someone's motorcycle or a laptop - motorcycle and laptop thieves clearly deserve death - and stealing someone's fries. Even if one is opposed to death for both, the arguments against death in the former case would have to be very different from the latter.

In any case, shooting a french fry thief is not likely to lead to recovery of the french fry, as it will probably fall on the floor and cease to be suitable for eating. So I do not think that you would get away with shooting a french fry thief in the face in Texas - not even if you used one of these:

Nice picture - proof positive that Texas is gay.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. If its their lifestyle choice, we must respect it.

Do you respect every way of life on earth regardless?
DO you respect the North Korean's way of life? China's?

Nowhere did I say that I respect all ways of life. Besides, you are the moral relativist (whatever that might be, the concept is incoherent), not me.

To clarify:
-gay lifestyle - deserves respect
-executioner in North Korea or China lifestyle - deserves no respect

I thought you would say that.

The law can be abused killing innocent people, that has been mistaken for this and that.

There's this old anectdote about a japaneese student who got lost in USA and went into a farm to ask about his way, he got shot and killed for trespassing, as he couldn't read the sign saying so.

..well the anectdote didn't have much to do with OP, but you can invite a victim to your house and afterwards kill him putting some "stolen" goods in his hands placing him outside your house after he's dead, or even a gun claiming it was in selfdefense.

Who is this directed to?