In article ,
Mike Berger wrote:

In the biggest part of this country, it isn't legal to kill
someone over property. Morally, it's reprehensible.

Your information is incorrect. There are only a few jurisdictions that
require one to retreat from criminal threat.

Why is it reprehensible? My property cost me some portion of my life's
time to acquire. Stealing it is stealing a portion of my life. Moreover,
how can anyone be sure someone breaking down the door or otherwise
entering a home violently is not a threat to one's life or health?

People will defend their lives, families, and property as naturally as
gravity makes things fall down. Entering someone's home uninvited and
violently is, or should be, no less dangerous than jumping from the
fortieth floor of a building with no parachute. It's nothing personal,
just another way Nature culls the herd.


What value of property do you think is worth someone's life? Would

I don't know: I guess the criminal has to make that decision. He decides
to steal something from an occupied home, even though it could cost his
life. Apparently whatever he intends to steal is, potentially, worth his
life, to him.

you kill someone for stealing your garden gnome? Or do they
have to take your toaster before you'd shoot?

All "they" have to do is enter my home acting in a threatening manner.
That stands a non-zero chance of being a fatal miscalculation. Garden
gnomes they can take. Violently entering an occupied home, whether to
steal or hurt or kill, on the other hand, _should_ be an action that
endangers a criminal's life.


Dave Hinz wrote:

Riiiight. Because he just wanted the stuff, and wasn't a threat to the
people in the home he broke into, is that it? News flash: criminals
aren't stupid. They know the risks. If they decide to break into an
occupied house, they've decided that they'll harm the occupants.
The homeowner responded appropriately to the threat.


Agreed.