Lethal Force in Defense of Possessions?

[Caesar517]

Is it justifiable to use lethal force in defense of possessions?

For example (assuming he is after your possessions and you don’t know if he is armed or not): Someone breaks into your house during the night. If he is not directly threatning your life, it it justifiable to shoot him? The standard answer is to place yourself in front of the offender and use lethal force if he doesn’t stop coming toward you. This, however, may not be the smartest thing to do in a home invasion scenario; the man might be armed. From a defensive standpoint, it is better to incapacitate him before he knows you’re there.

Suppose you are in a situation where you have two options: shoot the intruder or escape via a window with your cell phone. From a moral standpoint (not a common sense one) would it be sinful to shoot him in defense of your belongings?

Previously, my belief has been that it was justifiable to use lethal force in a situation like this (your life isn’t directly threatned), but I have seen some forum members here present strong opinions to the contrary. Thoughts?

Note: Please ignore the fact that these scenarios may be rare or unlikely. Murphy’s Law dictates that it will happen.

 

[Tracyms1974]

If I had a gun, which I don’t, I would shoot him assuming that he was after me. It is perfectly okay to use lethal force to defend yourself. Who are you as the victim to know what his motives are anyway? This is a stranger in your house. You have no idea what he wants. I suppose if you wanted to be nice you could yell, “Leave this house now or I will shoot you,” before actually shooting him. In other words, give him a chance to comply. But hey, people buy guns to protect themselves, not their possessions and I don’t think they are obligated to ask any questions when a prowler breaks in to their house.

Tracy

 

[ForwardProgress]

Legally, you would probably get away with it, esp. if he’s in your home…but spiritually you would only be off the hook if you truly believed your life was in danger…which would probably be true in most cases, but if it’s a 15 year old with no weapon and no way to hide a weapon and you see that he has no way to harm you and he begs you not to shoot him and you do it anyway b/c he has your flatscreen tv, you probably are guilty of murder. Legally, if you have the Castle Doctrine in your state, you’ll not be charged with a crime. Or if you catch someone after they have taken something and are running away and you shoot them, or you catch someone breaking into your car, etc…a lot of times, legally, people don’t get charged for it. Spiritually, I’d say you are guilty of murder.

 

[bilop]

The Old Catholic Encyclopedia indicates that it is moral to use lethal force in defense of possessions.

However, in the U.S., you generally need to be in fear of your life or serious bodily harm in order to use lethal force.

In practice, if some one breaks into your home, it is impossible to tell their intentions, or whether they are armed, so lethal force will almost always be justifiable.

newadvent.org/cathen/13691a.htm

Defense of property
It is lawful to defend one’s material goods even at the expense of the agressor’s life; for neither justice nor charity require that one should sacrifice possessions, even though they be of less value than human life in order to preserve the life of a man who wantonly exposes it in order to do an injustice. Here, however, we must recall the principle that in extreme necessity every man has a right to appropriate whatever is necessary to preserve his life. The starving man who snatches a meal is not an unjust agressor; consequently it is not lawful to use force against him. Again, the property which may be defended at the expense of the agressor’s life must be of considerable value; for charity forbids that in order to protect ourselves from a trivial loss we should deprive a neighbor of his life. Thefts or robberies, however, of small values are to be considered not in their individual, but in their cummulative, aspect. A thief may be slain in the act of carrying away stolen property provided that it cannot be recovered from him by any other means; if, for example, he can be made to abandon his spoil through fright, then it would not be lawful to shoot him. If he has carried the goods away to safety he cannot then be killed in order to recover them; but the owner may endeavor to take them from him, and if the thief resists with violence he may be killed in self-defense.

God Bless

 

[rwoehmke]

In practice, if some one breaks into your home, it is impossible to tell their intentions, or whether they are armed, so lethal force will almost always be justifiable.

If they are in your home this statement is absolutely correct. Shoot first and question it all later. On the other hand, it is illegal in most states to set a lethal trap for someone to kill or harm them in your absence.

 

[cerad]

Folks seem to be ignoring this part:

Suppose you are in a situation where you have two options: shoot the intruder or escape via a window with your cell phone. From a moral standpoint (not a common sense one) would it be sinful to shoot him in defense of your belongings?

I myself would not shoot someone if I had a reasonable means of escape. Of course I’m just an atheist so my morals are obviously questionable.

 

[LukeFive]

Folks seem to be ignoring this part:

I myself would not shoot someone if I had a reasonable means of escape. Of course I’m just an atheist so my morals are obviously questionable.

Being someone that keeps loaded weapons in the house for defensive purposes and carries a weapon when legally permissible, these type of scenarios are things I have thought quite a bit about.

Even in the scenario of a “possible escape” nothing is sure. There are many things you would need to take into consideration. What if there is an armed accomplice outside? Are there other people in your house that you would be abandoning? The Catechism talks of a grave moral responsibility to use necessary means to defend those in your care in the section that talks about using lethal force. Has the threat already seen you and could possibly harm you while you are trying to escape?

Please do not take my statements as looking for a fight. I firmly believe that I am alive today because I have been armed in the past. Twice I have gotten out of threatening situations without having to discharge my weapon. The reasons that I did not discharge my weapon in both of these cases are too complicated to explain here and would get us off topic, but it was not because of hesitation or unwillingness to pull the trigger on my part. I just if at all possible, want to avoid using lethal force. I have also have been shot, I can tell you that nanoseconds count in situations like this. You have to be able to make instant decisions and judgments. I think that the fear, adrenalin, and all the other dynamics of a situation like this could probably reduce the moral culpability of neutralizing what you thought was a threat but turned out to be an unarmed intruder. It is not like you are planning someone’s demise or attacking them with the objective of committing murder. You objective is not to kill them, it is to neutralize a threat that you believe to present a clear and present danger to yourself or other innocents.

 

[Caesar517]

The Old Catholic Encyclopedia indicates that it is moral to use lethal force in defense of possessions.

Thanks for this link.

Even in the scenario of a “possible escape” nothing is sure. There are many things you would need to take into consideration. What if there is an armed accomplice outside? Are there other people in your house that you would be abandoning? The Catechism talks of a grave moral responsibility to use necessary means to defend those in your care in the section that talks about using lethal force. Has the threat already seen you and could possibly harm you while you are trying to escape?

Those are good points. I’d like to add to this scenario and see where it goes. Let’s say that you were the only one in the house and knew with certainty that you could escape unharmed and unnoticed. The only downside to escaping would be the good chance that the intruder could damage or make off with your property. What then?

 

[bilop]

Folks seem to be ignoring this part:

I myself would not shoot someone if I had a reasonable means of escape. Of course I’m just an atheist so my morals are obviously questionable.

Legally there is no duty to retreat in your own home.

Since the Catholic Encyclopedia says you can use lethal force to defend your property, there is very likely no moral duty to escape.

I would not attempt to leave if I were armed.

Too much could go wrong, as others stated (accomplice outside, etc.).

 

[LukeFive]

Thanks for this link.

Those are good points. I’d like to add to this scenario and see where it goes. Let’s say that you were the only one in the house and knew with certainty that you could escape unharmed and unnoticed. The only downside to escaping would be the good chance that the intruder could damage or make off with your property. What then?

Assuming that what you say is true and you are not under some contract to protect the contents of the house (ie. you are a security guard or LEO of some sort), then I would say it is not worth it and at best, it is morally questionable. Is the Old Catholic Encyclopedia current? As I read the Catechism’s section on legitimate use of force (primarily 2263-2265), lethal force is only justifiable in defense of life and when used in a reasonably proportionate amount of force to that of the aggressor. If you clearly know that without a doubt you can retreat from danger without risking your wellbeing, then I would say lethal force is not justified. That being said, the likelihood of knowing those facts without any shadow of a doubt is highly unlikely. I can not think of a scenario where you could know those facts with certainty.

I will even extend this line of reasoning to avoiding situations where you may be forced to use lethal force. I had a case where I confronted a trespasser on a piece of rural property I was managing. It was adjacent to some public land and usually, if people were not causing a problem, I would leave them alone. This guy threw a beer can on the ground and it made me mad so I got out of my truck, told him to pick up the can and get off the property. He got belligerent, pulled a 12” fixed blade knife, and started advancing on me. This is one of the cases I mentioned where a long story short, he dropped the weapon (knife in this case). Had he not, I would have been forced to use lethal force to neutralize the threat. It would not have been worth it. I should not have confronted him in the first place. I know people that would disagree with me, but my response to them is, until you have been in a situation where you have had use a weapon, you do not know what you are talking about. It totally changes your prospective. It is something that even if you know you did the right thing and have no moral qualms about it, you will never forget it and it will change you.

 

[SarahR]

You objective is not to kill them, it is to neutralize a threat that you believe to present a clear and present danger to yourself or other innocents.

That’s what I was gonna post as well.

 

[Allen537]

We all have a right to defend ourselves and our families. That being said, if you awake to find an intruder in your home in the middle of the night, you have no idea what his/her plans are. This is especially true in our world today. He may be looking for money, jewelry, and other valuables, or he may be there to kill and or do other unspeakable acts. You really cannot know. I know that in the state of NC, this is taken into consideration, and because of that it is legal to shoot an intruder that is in your house.

Is that an unjust law? I find it hard to convince myself that it is.

Any thoughts?

In Carmel,

Br. Allen

 

[LukeFive]

We all have a right to defend ourselves and our families. That being said, if you awake to find an intruder in your home in the middle of the night, you have no idea what his/her plans are. This is especially true in our world today. He may be looking for money, jewelry, and other valuables, or he may be there to kill and or do other unspeakable acts. You really cannot know. I know that in the state of NC, this is taken into consideration, and because of that it is legal to shoot an intruder that is in your house.

Is that an unjust law? I find it hard to convince myself that it is.

Any thoughts?

In Carmel,

Br. Allen

I do not find anything unjust about that. If you read my posts, my position is that it is almost impossible to determine one’s intent when they are unlawfully in your place of residence. You have to be able to act accordingly. I think everyone that has posted on this thread with probably one exception would be pretty much in agreement as well.

 

[vz71]

I do not believe it is moral to use kill in defense of possessions.

However, in any type of scenario such as what is listed, you cannot make the assumption that it is only possessions that are in danger. The individual was bold enough to trespass and break in…at that point, I believe it would be naive to believe your life is not endangered.

Of course, this opens up other questions concerning killing when it is possible to render the intruder harmless without killing.

But for now I believe the OP is answered.

 

[vz71]

Folks seem to be ignoring this part:

I myself would not shoot someone if I had a reasonable means of escape. Of course I’m just an atheist so my morals are obviously questionable.

As a parent, that is not an option.
I have a wife and kids. Should I stumble upon an intruder in my house in the middle of the night, I would dispatch the person into the afterlife without a second thought.

 

[LukeFive]

As a parent, that is not an option.
I have a wife and kids. Should I stumble upon an intruder in my house in the middle of the night, I would dispatch the person into the afterlife without a second thought.

Yes but that is not your objective, to “dispatch the person into the afterlife”. You may not have meant it this way, but I believe that having the mindset where the objective is to kill the intruder is wrong under pretty much all circumstances. Your objective should be to neutralize a threat that you believe presents a clear and present danger to yourself or someone else (in this case your wife and kids). Even though you uses what you know will almost certainly be lethal force, the intruder surviving should not compromise your objectives as long as the threat was neutralized. For example, if you shot the intruder and he was unconscious (clearly no longer a threat), it would be wrong to shoot him again to kill him. If I were in that situation, I would grab my medic pack, and perform whatever care I could given the circumstances. I do not view the use of lethal force as killing, I view it as protecting life. After the threat is gone, the life of the aggressor becomes just as valuable as that of those you are trying to protect.

 

[vz71]

Yes but that is not your objective, to “dispatch the person into the afterlife”. You may not have meant it this way, …

Not exactly.
The intuder’s life is not a concern. The threat they present is.
And since I do not know any more then that, the force I utilize to remove the threat will not stop until I am 100% assured they no longer present a threat. Should they survive, fine.
But I’ll not lose sleep over their death.

 

[Dirk_Skene]

I catch somebody in my house, uninvited, I’m gonna empty the clip.

 

[LukeFive]

Not exactly.
The intuder’s life is not a concern. The threat they present is.
And since I do not know any more then that, the force I utilize to remove the threat will not stop until I am 100% assured they no longer present a threat. Should they survive, fine.
But I’ll not lose sleep over their death.

By saying that you are agreeing with me. I believe in using whatever force necessary to neutralize the threat, but the objective is neutralizing that threat not kill the aggressor. At that point, the life of the aggressor is of no concern. But even if you know that what you did was your only real option and you are morally comfortable that you did the right thing, you will loose sleep over it for a while at least. There are aspects of it that will bother you to a degree.

 

[vz71]

By saying that you are agreeing with me. I believe in using whatever force necessary to neutralize the threat, but the objective is neutralizing that threat not kill the aggressor. At that point, the life of the aggressor is of no concern. But even if you know that what you did was your only real option and you are morally comfortable that you did the right thing, you will loose sleep over it for a while at least. There are aspects of it that will bother you to a degree.

There is nuance to what you are saying that I disagree with.

If I stumble upon an intruder in my home, I am not using only the force necessary to remove the threat…that makes too many assumptions about the threat.
I am using the maximum force I can until I perceive the threat to be gone…

Perhaps the same effect, but looked at from the opposite angle.