Shooting a girl on your property

[NHArticleTen]

You don't bother reading much either, do you Rob?

Anyway, when you equate life and property, despite the fact that the former precedes the latter, and the latter is meaningless without the former, you wind up with absurd positions like "the girl is as much my property to dispose of as the lint in my pocket when she is on my property." Life is superior to property, property is just a claim that can only be made, and reciprocated, by living beings.

which came first, the chicken or the egg...
which came first, the chicken feed or the chicken...
which came first, the harvested grain or the chicken feed...
which came first, the unharvested grain or the harvested grain...
which came first, the full-grown mature grain or the unharvested grain...
which came first, the planted unsprouted seeds or the full-grown mature grain...
which came first, the plowed, tilled, and furrowed ground or the planted unsprouted seeds...
which came first, the wide open prairie with the stream running through it or the plowed, tilled, and furrowed ground...
which came first, the forest fire that burnt everything down to the ground or the wide open prairie with the stream running through it...
which came first, the forest and stream full of trees and animals and birds and bugs and fish or the forest fire that burnt everything down to the ground...

to wit...
that little girl scout...out in the forest...by the stream...strikes that match...and lights that cigarette...that she stole from her friend's dad...and the lit match falls to the ground...


and the fire begins...

enjoy!

[NHArticleTen]

who's up for eggs for breakfast, chicken for lunch, girl scout for dinner, and mint thins for desert?

eggs, chicken, girl scout roasted in forest fire, mint thins left in wagon on road leading to forest...

it's all good...

[Dylboz]

So we don't get too far off topic.  Here are the relevant quotes.

What isn't fine is treating 40 acres of open land the same as the inside of your vagina, Rob. It's absurd.

 

For one thing, your land is nothing like your pocket.

I would have thought it so obvious it was self-evident. When a thug wants your Rolex, or what's in the pocket of the jeans that are on your body, that entails a threat to your person, potentially ending your life and future ability to own Rolexes or yell "Hey kid! Get of my damn lawn!" On the other hand, if you don't see me walk across your back 40, you may never know there was a "violation." There was no harm done, no threat to your body, no damage to your person. Roughing you up for your watch or forcibly trying to stick an uninvited dick up your ass are physical violations of your bodily integrity and really potential threats to your life, and you have every reason to resist with deadly force. Cutting through the corner of your unfenced yard, not so much. See the difference now?

[Dylboz]

who's up for eggs for breakfast, chicken for lunch, girl scout for dinner, and mint thins for desert?

eggs, chicken, girl scout roasted in forest fire, mint thins left in wagon on road leading to forest...

it's all good...

You are the problem, not the solution.

[Ecolitan]

Cutting through the corner of your unfenced yard, not so much. See the difference now?

Yes, I always did.

Your argument should never have been that there is a difference between the types of property but that there were no damages, nothing to defend.  It DOES beg the question...  Can I put my hand in your pocket and play around in there for awhile so long as I leave everything the way I found it?

[NHArticleTen]

who's up for eggs for breakfast, chicken for lunch, girl scout for dinner, and mint thins for desert?

eggs, chicken, girl scout roasted in forest fire, mint thins left in wagon on road leading to forest...

it's all good...

You are the problem, not the solution.

I have the solution...if you become a problem...

go figure...

[Dylboz]

You are a violent thug who presumes to own and dispose of as he sees fit anybody within the geographic boundaries he claims an absolute dominion over. You're just a statist, Rob. A Royalist, and a medieval one at that.

[ziggy_encaoua]

Few years back there was a case here involving a farmer shooting a burgular in the back a court judged his actions as disproportionate & convicted him.

[Richard Garner]

You are a violent thug who presumes to own and dispose of as he sees fit anybody within the geographic boundaries he claims an absolute dominion over. You're just a statist, Rob. A Royalist, and a medieval one at that.

A person has a right to do what is necessary to ensure the protection of their rights. Shooting a little girl for picking flowers is not necessary, and therefore not something anybody has a right to do. There are perfectly simple alternatives. Hell, pick the girl up and dump her off the land!

[Dylboz]

Few years back there was a case here involving a farmer shooting a burgular in the back a court judged his actions as disproportionate & convicted him.

And I totally disagreed, the man's a hero. But the burglar was in the man's house, threatening his person. He was not reacting disproportionately to a little lost girl with a fistful of daisies.

[ziggy_encaoua]

A person has a right to do what is necessary to ensure the protection of their rights.

I totally agree however

[NHArticleTen]

You are a violent thug who presumes to own and dispose of as he sees fit anybody within the geographic boundaries he claims an absolute dominion over. You're just a statist, Rob. A Royalist, and a medieval one at that.

what part of real property don't you understand?

the fence?
the moat?
the tigers?
the alligators?
the landmines?
the castle?
the vault?

all of these pieces of property will be retained via lethal defensive forces if so chosen...

obviously at the discretion of the tigers and alligators and land-mines and sharp-shooters in the parapets...


so...in the final analysis you have shown that you actually do not respect other people's personal dictates with respect to issues regarding their property...irrespective of the actual property itself...

while it should be noted that each and every person who does actually respect the exclusivity of other people's property and their personal disposition of said same...those people will get along just fine...

others...not so much...

[Richard Garner]

Few years back there was a case here involving a farmer shooting a burgular in the back a court judged his actions as disproportionate & convicted him.

And I totally disagreed, the man's a hero. But the burglar was in the man's house, threatening his person. He was not reacting disproportionately to a little lost girl with a fistful of daisies.

Exactly. The question of what is or is not a person's property is irrelevent. The issue here is about what is a proportionate response to the violation of property rights in this case. Shooting the kid is not proportionate.

[NHArticleTen]

Few years back there was a case here involving a farmer shooting a burgular in the back a court judged his actions as disproportionate & convicted him.

And I totally disagreed, the man's a hero. But the burglar was in the man's house, threatening his person. He was not reacting disproportionately to a little lost girl with a fistful of daisies.

Exactly. The question of what is or is not a person's property is irrelevent. The issue here is about what is a proportionate response to the violation of property rights in this case. Shooting the kid is not proportionate.

but getting eaten by an alligator or tiger IS appropriate?

and does it really...REALLY matter...should it matter...whether it's bullets, or mines, or alligators, or tigers that provide your 24/7/365 security...

and if there is a difference then perhaps we should all have zoos with lions and tigers and bears...oh my...

or, by the same token...get rid of all the zoos and lions and tigers and bears and things that go bump in the night...oh my...

enjoy!

[Luke Smith]

You are a violent thug who presumes to own and dispose of as he sees fit anybody within the geographic boundaries he claims an absolute dominion over. You're just a statist, Rob. A Royalist, and a medieval one at that.

Well well well, what have we here? Rob, the most extreme anarchist ever, is a statist and a medieval royalist according to Dylboz, the second most extreme anarchist ever? Jeezus Christ, you people are so damn ornery and standoffish that you can't even decide amongst yourselves who's the "statist" and who's the "proper anarchist".