The Glade 4.0

This has nothing to do with anything.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

There really should be a godwin's like label for rape in online forums.

So yes, rape is wrong, and I can't think of an instance that is remotely possible where it would be acceptable.

However, that doesn't invalidate my statement. There are no absolute rights. Rape falls under self-ownership. It's one specific area of that right that is pretty much inviolate, however there are other areas that can be violated. For instance if you commit a crime then your rights are revoked or lessened.

Unless that crime is trespassing, right?

_________________

Clearly.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Could someone please explain the rationale behind why someone committing a crime has more protections on their rights than the person being victimized?

What is the likely outcome of incentivizing criminal behavior like this?

Given one's answer above - is this a doctrine that should be spread to other areas of the law, one that should only exist here in a narrow scope, or one that should never exist?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

There is a reason for this. One cannot claim protection behind a doctrine he himself has shown contempt for by violating.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Exactly. I didn't say there weren't good reasons behind why rights aren't absolute. In fact I kinda assumed that everyone figured there were good reasons...

...

yeah, obviously.

Are you stating that you believe that currently today criminals have more rights than those of their victims? I don't believe that is true and I think it would be silly to setup a system where it were.

Exactly where does my punctuation indicate I am making any statements?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Sorry, I should have said "inferred".

Your rights are absolute, until you yourself decide to forfiet them. The way you decide forfiet them is violating someone elses rights, as you can't have rights which conflict with the rights of another person.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Fair?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

How about the notion of cruel/unusual punishment? If you speed should you be shot? You are a criminal and therefore sacrafice all rights to life according to your argument right? How about the punishment/penalty fit the crime. Not to mention you are advocating vigilanteism when there exists a perfectly capable mechanism for dealing with trespassers in the form of the police department.

If someone commits criminal menacing by threatening me I should be allowed to shoot them dead by your rationale.

_________________

Hopwin:

You're still making Straw Man arguments.

_________________

I am going to say a shotgun to the legs is excessive for unattended b and e. An alarm or a guard dog or even some kind of snare/detention device would have been okay.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Um....yes. Yes you should.

Criminal menacing, depending on the state, typically involves a real fear for your own safety. If you feel your safety is threatened, you should be able to defend yourself. In defending yourself, the other person may become dead. This is not bad, in any way.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Any guard dog worth his salt would have killed the individual. That said, I object to any mention of the police as perfectly capable.

_________________

Particularly in cases of "prevention."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Answer my questions and I will answer yours.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I did already.

So conceptually I agree with you. I had been posting within the context of codified rights within the law. And as such, you have to decide where those lines are drawn where the rights of one conflict with the rights of another. Your statement, while inspiring and a great place to start from is from a practical standpoint worthless, as everyones individual rights are almost continually in conflict with the rights of others.

As long as your booby trap is not a hazard to people lawfully entering your property, to neighbors, or to passersby then yes, you should have a right to do this.

That includes people pulling into your driveway or walking up your walk to your door to speak to you. People who wish, for whatever reason, to contact you, must have a safe avenue for doing so. Once they've contacted you if you wish them to leave, it's your right to tell them so, but you have an obligation to provide a means by which a person can approach you and ask your permission to be there.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You don't believe this is an instance where the crimminal has more protection on their rights than the property owner?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Says who?

_________________