Shooting a girl on your property

[Spideynw]

On the show the other night, I think Friday, they were talking about how the law would resolve shooting a girl for being on your property, for nothing more than being on your property.

For the law to be just, it has to be equitable.  This scenario deals with the property rights of two individuals.  The girl owns her body, even though she is on the property of someone else.   Or at the least, the parents own their girls body.  And then the owner of the land is the property owner of the land.  Shooting someone for just being on your land would be considered excessive, in a civilized society.  I never heard anyone on the show arguing about the fact that the girl, or at the least the girl's parents, owned her body.  So the purpose of the law would be in resolving the property violations, the one being the girl trespassing, and the second being the land owner destroying the girls property, her body and life.  I think just about any reasonable judge would say that taking a life is far worse than trespassing, and that the action taken by the land owner was far in excess of what the land owner should have done.

As to the solution being "democratic", it most definitely would not be "democratic".  Democratic would be the majority imposing their will on the minority.  The man who shot the girl could accept the courts decision, whatever it is, as well as the people who brought the suit.  Or, either party could still disregard the decision, in which case they would be giving up the protection of a "fair" court of law.  In this case, if the man who shot the girl decides to disregard the decision, he would be opening himself up to some other kind of retaliation from the offended party (the parents).  If they decide to kill him for retaliation, then the case would go to court and the whole process started again, but probably with not as stiff a sentence than if he had complied with the court.  If, on the other hand, they decide to kill him, even though he complied with the court, then they would go to court, and they would probably face a pretty stiff sentence.  Regardless, it has nothing really to do with being democratic.

[Ecolitan]

Your land is like your pocket.  You own what's in it.  If I put something in your pocket than I gave it to you.  If I put myself on your land than I must be gifting myself to you.  Why would you shoot a girl you own?

[mikehz]

Your land is like your pocket.  You own what's in it.  If I put something in your pocket than I gave it to you.  If I put myself on your land than I must be gifting myself to you.  Why would you shoot a girl you own?

Very poor analogy. For one thing, your land is nothing like your pocket. For another, just because someone crosses my property, there is no reason to suppose I "own" them, or can dispose of them in any manner I wish.

I agree with the caller (whose name I forget) that both the property owner and the girl likely belong to a DRO, which has clauses covering this sort of thing. It is almost inconceivable that any DRO is going to authorize the murdering of little girls!

[Dylboz]

Once again, the insanity of extreme "Royal Prerogative" libertarianism rears it's ugly head. You can't own people, not your kids, and certainly not someone who wanders onto your property. Mere trespass is never grounds for murder. The proper reaction is for the parents to lead an angry mob armed with shotguns and pitchforks onto his property to seize the guy and hang him from the nearest tree. He's a murderer who forfeited his rights when he shot and killed a girl who posed him no threat and did him no harm, nor damaged his property. Once he's been disposed of, the girl's parents then inherit the property as recompense for the loss of their child's life. Problem solved (and something for the next jack-off with an itchy trigger finger to think about when he happens upon some lost little girl on his back 40).

[Spideynw]

Just to clarify, parents "ownership" of their children is not the same as ownership of other pieces of property.  If you would be happy to call it "stewardship" instead, fine.  But children do not have full rights at birth, and parents are the ones that would have to bring charges against others on their behalf.  And the relationship would be akin to property.

[fatcat]

Once again, the insanity of extreme "Royal Prerogative" libertarianism rears it's ugly head. You can't own people, not your kids, and certainly not someone who wanders onto your property. Mere trespass is never grounds for murder.

I was with you right up untill all the mindless vigilante execution stuff.

The proper reaction is for the parents to lead an angry mob armed with shotguns and pitchforks onto his property to seize the guy and hang him from the nearest tree. He's a murderer who forfeited his rights when he shot and killed a girl who posed him no threat and did him no harm, nor damaged his property. Once he's been disposed of, the girl's parents then inherit the property as recompense for the loss of their child's life. Problem solved (and something for the next jack-off with an itchy trigger finger to think about when he happens upon some lost little girl on his back 40).

ugh...

executing murderers doesn't "solve", anything, it doesn't bring back the person they murdered, it doesn't help in anyway to restitute for the crime, unless you count "making you feel better" as restitution, and that for any amount of restitution, you're allowed to do whatever you want so long as it makes you feel better

So next time someone steals from me, I'm going to rip out their teeth, and sell them on ebay to repay what was stolen from me.

Oh wait, thats fucking stupid, and barbaric.

The only appropriate, moral, and civilized use of violence is to stop violence.

And that isn't an invitation to pull out the bullshit "we need to kill murderers so they don't do it again". Besides the obvious future crime bullshit, why don't we start cutting the hands off thieves? Because we're not fucking savages, or at least I'm not.

[Dylboz]

Once again, the insanity of extreme "Royal Prerogative" libertarianism rears it's ugly head. You can't own people, not your kids, and certainly not someone who wanders onto your property. Mere trespass is never grounds for murder.

I was with you right up untill all the mindless vigilante execution stuff.

The proper reaction is for the parents to lead an angry mob armed with shotguns and pitchforks onto his property to seize the guy and hang him from the nearest tree. He's a murderer who forfeited his rights when he shot and killed a girl who posed him no threat and did him no harm, nor damaged his property. Once he's been disposed of, the girl's parents then inherit the property as recompense for the loss of their child's life. Problem solved (and something for the next jack-off with an itchy trigger finger to think about when he happens upon some lost little girl on his back 40).

ugh...

executing murderers doesn't "solve", anything, it doesn't bring back the person they murdered, it doesn't help in anyway to restitute for the crime, unless you count "making you feel better" as restitution, and that for any amount of restitution, you're allowed to do whatever you want so long as it makes you feel better

So next time someone steals from me, I'm going to rip out their teeth, and sell them on ebay to repay what was stolen from me.

Oh wait, thats fucking stupid, and barbaric.

The only appropriate, moral, and civilized use of violence is to stop violence.

And that isn't an invitation to pull out the bullshit "we need to kill murderers so they don't do it again". Besides the obvious future crime bullshit, why don't we start cutting the hands off thieves? Because we're not fucking savages, or at least I'm not.

I was being over the top for effect. I suppose it's up to the parents to decide how to proceed, but I do think the guy has forfeited any rights he had claim to by committing the murder. So if it's bloody retribution they want, I can't really argue with them. What would you intend to do with the guy, fatcat? If they kick him off his land and take his house after some trial or whatever, what's to stop him from just coming back and murdering them too? You have this almost pathological aversion to even the appearance of violence.  There is a profound difference between aggressive and defensive violence, and there are important concepts like guilt and innocence that enter into these questions. If you eschew all violence, then you will be a victim before you know it, and you'll keep being victimized until you stand up for yourself. Whether you want to be a savage or not is immaterial. A murder is not concerned with being civilized, he's demonstrated a total disregard for the values of civilization. Do you think he'll just see the light after a stern talking to from you? Sometimes, you have to use violence to deal with violent people. But, I ask you, what would you do with him, how would you keep people safe from him, why does he deserve to continue drawing breath?

[Dylboz]

executing murderers doesn't "solve", anything, it doesn't bring back the person they murdered, it doesn't help in anyway to restitute for the crime, unless you count "making you feel better" as restitution, and that for any amount of restitution, you're allowed to do whatever you want so long as it makes you feel better

This is simply not true. It solves the problem of what to do with a guy who has demonstrated a total lack of respect for human life and a willingness to kill children in cold blood, it solves the problem of a murderer running around in your community, it solves the problem of the danger his continued existence poses to other children and humans. As for the "feeling better" part, you ignore proportionality. Stringing him up and taking his land as recompense is proportional to the crime. Tooth removal for sale on eBay is obviously not. Lack of proportionality is the reason this guy is a murderer in the first place! I know you're not that stupid, fatcat. Neither am I.

[Laetitia]

I cringed when I heard this discussion the other day. I suppose it's good Ian & Mark keep getting these calls, because it gets people talking about it. I'm just not so sure it's good for changing anyone's mind on less government being a good thing.

Yes, the freedom to protect your property is the freedom to protect your property, whether it's your house or a patch of violets by your driveway. The thing is though, there are not a lot of people who are going to shoot a little girl picking flowers. Just because the gun control crowd can hold up the possibility it might happen is not enough reason for making more restrictions on firearm ownership. It's not possible to pass laws against every crazy thing somebody might do.

It's like the people ought to be able to own personal nukes because they have a right to arm themselves. When a professed lover of liberty and personal freedom makes a statement like "hell yes, I should be able to have a suitcase nuke tucked under my coffee table" or "shoot the little girl in pigtails - that's my flowerbed" it gives the pro-state side assurances they're right. And, it's extreme enough that many folks on the fence will hop over to their side, lest they choose the nutters who want to blow up little girls picking dandelion/violet/clover bouquets for their mommies.

***and now, back to my chains of servitude, aka entering medical & business expenses in TurboTax*** 

[Spideynw]

Individuals can already own nuclear weapons.  Laws don't stop people from owning things.  It is just that individuals are not interested in owning nuclear weapons.

[edit] It may be that they are too expensive to obtain.

[blackie]

Individuals can already own nuclear weapons.  Laws don't stop people from owning things.  It is just that individuals are not interested in owning nuclear weapons.

I'd get one if I could.

[Ecolitan]

Very poor analogy. For one thing, your land is nothing like your pocket.

How's it different?  Why are the rules of ownership different depending on the thing that is owned?  Is my car like my pocket?  My house?  My Rose Garden?  I can still shoot someone for coming in my house right?  What if my property is fenced?  Does that make it more like my house or does it need a roof before I can defend it from trespassers?  What if my car doesn't have a roof?  What if my house has big holes in the walls, a smaller space to solid matter ratio than a chain link fence perhaps but no an impenetrable wall either?  Can I still defend the interior with deadly force?  If not?  What is the magic space to to solid matter ratio that makes my house more inviolable than my yard?

[rwwright]

You can't own... your kids...

You most certainly can. You own your kids until they assert their own self-ownership.

[Richard Garner]

You can't own... your kids...

You most certainly can. You own your kids until they assert their own self-ownership.

I can destroy the things I own. other people may value them highly, but they being mine, I can destroy them if I want. Can I destroy my kids, then?

[Richard Garner]

Your land is like your pocket.  You own what's in it.  If I put something in your pocket than I gave it to you.  If I put myself on your land than I must be gifting myself to you.  Why would you shoot a girl you own?

This can't be right, for the simple reason that I don't own whatever happens to be in my pocket. If I find your book and put it in my pocket, it is still your book, not mine.