The right to defend one’s property with lethal force extends to outside the home in Texas. In California it is only inside the home, referred to as the Castle Exception. But is it moral to defend one’s property with lethal force outside the home, where clearly it is an avoidable event? For instance, a man is stealing your favorite potted plant on your walkway in Texas. Is it moral, if he is adamant about taking that pot, to shoot him? Is the pot really worth a life? The answer is clearly no, the pot is not worth a human life. But is that pot worth the rights of every good person in the community to acquire and enjoy possessions? The right to a lethal defense of that pot is a deterrent to crime, and that deterrent, is it not worth taking a life over? Some would argue not, but some, those who have lived in a community in which they feel secure and free to have their possessions where they want, would argue that the right to feel secure is worth a human life.
I wish I wondered what it looks like when bad people feel safe in taking what they want from whomever they want whenever they want without fear of life, and for the most part, prosecution. But i live in California so I know what it looks like.
Is protecting their lives from those who will suffer the loss of property because that piece of property is not worth a life worth the security of society? Is it worth the potted plant? And then what, the hose box? And then what, the car? And then what, my wallet? And then what, the dog? And then what, my freedom? And then what?
August 3, 2021