Killing to defend property?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr. Bultitude

Mr. Bultitude

Puritan Board Freshman
Recently, a friend told me a story about a neighbor of his. I'm skeptical of some of the details, and I'm not interested in getting into the legal details in this space. Let's just take the scenario he described as a thought experiment about morality in general. Here's the scenario:

A man (let's call him John) heard noises in his driveway around midnight and exited his house to investigate. He found a man (let's call him Tony) trying to enter his vehicle to steal it. John approached Tony to tell him to leave and Tony pointed a handgun at him and said, "Back off." John went back into his house, grabbed a shotgun, came back to his driveway, and shot and killed Tony.

Was this justifiable homicide?
 
Mr. Bultitude said:
Recently, a friend told me a story about a neighbor of his. I'm skeptical of some of the details, and I'm not interested in getting into the legal details in this space. Let's just take the scenario he described as a thought experiment about morality in general. Here's the scenario:

A man (let's call him John) heard noises in his driveway around midnight and exited his house to investigate. He found a man (let's call him Tony) trying to enter his vehicle to steal it. John approached Tony to tell him to leave and Tony pointed a handgun at him and said, "Back off." John went back into his house, grabbed a shotgun, came back to his driveway, and shot and killed Tony.

Was this justifiable homicide?
Click to expand...
I think so. He warned him and then he defended his property.
 
No. It would have been justified to shoot Tony the moment Tony pointed the handgun at him, but at this point since John is back in his home safely, there is no danger to John's life (or his household's lives). John should call 911 to have police respond to handle the situation. If Tony made any indication to make his way into the residence, then John should shoot him to protect his family inside the residence.
 
Last edited:
Andres said:
No. It would have been justified to shoot Tony the moment Tony pointed the handgun at him, but at this point since John is back in his home safely, there is no danger to John's life (or his household's lives). If Tony made any indication to make his way into the residence, then John should shoot him to protect his family inside the residence.
Click to expand...
You know he has a gun though. What if he is deranged and just starts shooting into the house? Are you saying they need to wait till that happens first instead of proactively taking care of the threat? I feel it's one thing if it is just a vagrant without a weapon, but now you know he's armed and he clearly is not a person that is making good decisions.

The assumption here is that the police are not readily available to be called. If the police can be called, then that would be the first option.
 
My initial reaction was the same as Andres’ but it does complicate things that “Tony” has already made a threat of deadly force. Does he have to make a second one?

He is also committing a felony in progress while in possession of a firearm; I would think a strong case could be made that he is an imminent threat to public safety.
 
Eyedoc84 said:
My initial reaction was the same as Andres’ but it does complicate things that “Tony” has already made a threat of deadly force. Does he have to make a second one?

He is also committing a felony in progress while in possession of a firearm; I would think a strong case could be made that he is an imminent threat to public safety.
Click to expand...
Are we talking morality or legality here? Maybe if he were off duty law enforcement making the trip back outside would be prudent. But he made a retreat into his home. That should be his priority. You also don’t know if has an accomplice that could flank you and go into the house! Also, I have had two vehicles stolen in my life and wouldn’t have wanted the thieves shot for it. A host of other “scenarios” could be presented but as Andrew said, we have the OP.
 
No. For starters, where in all the Law of God might we draw a general-equity principle that allows this? Moses never says, for example, that if you catch a man trying to steal your donkey you have cause to escalate things by engaging him in a fight to the death. That would show reckless disregard for both his life and yours. I suppose if you really had cause to believe he was an imminent danger to yourself or others you might try to make a case, but I wouldn't buy it. You managed to de-escalate things by retreating. Having succeeded, you have no excuse to escalate them again merely in defense of property.
 
Jack K said:
No. For starters, where in all the Law of God might we draw a general-equity principle that allows this? Moses never says, for example, that if you catch a man trying to steal your donkey you have cause to escalate things by engaging him in a fight to the death. That would show reckless disregard for both his life and yours. I suppose if you really had cause to believe he was an imminent danger to yourself or others you might try to make a case, but I wouldn't buy it. You managed to de-escalate things by retreating. Having succeeded, you have no excuse to escalate them again merely in defense of property.
Click to expand...
Doesn't sound like anything was deescalated. If anything it sounds like it got worse. Most of the time when you catch someone in the act they will retreat. This man doubled down and not only is trying to steal his car, he has now additionally threatened his life as well.
 
I absolutely disagree with the idea that this is unjustifiable. I praise and laud good and just laws that give me the right to protect myself and my property. Disheartening to think that some here think the moral law of God means I need to stand by like an impotent jerk while someone takes my stuff.

The most just laws are the laws that honor property rights a la the 8th Commandment and which recognizing that defending said property with lethal force is not a violation of the 6th Commandment.

The best societies discourage criminals by clearly and coolly conveying the brutal message - if you commit crime you might forfeit your life.
 
The law of Moses teaches that the one who kills a man who robs his house during the day is guilty of murder, but the one who kills the thief that enters at night is justified. The difference of course is that the thief that enters at night expects to find the home occupied and presumably intends to use deadly force against its occupants, while the one who enters during the day presumably expects to find the home unoccupied while the occupants are about their business. Both thieves are guilty of taking property. If mere robbery of property justifies killing, it would be justified to kill both. Therefore, the general equity of the law teaches that it is not justified to kill a man who simply threatens one's property.
 
Charles Johnson said:
The law of Moses teaches that the one who kills a man who robs his house during the day is guilty of murder, but the one who kills the thief that enters at night is justified. The difference of course is that the thief that enters at night expects to find the home occupied and presumably intends to use deadly force against its occupants, while the one who enters during the day presumably expects to find the home unoccupied while the occupants are about their business. Both thieves are guilty of taking property. If mere robbery of property justifies killing, it would be justified to kill both. Therefore, the general equity of the law teaches that it is not justified to kill a man who simply threatens one's property.
Click to expand...
You provide a lot of “explanation“ that’s not in that passage. You bring a lot of assumptions to the table. But regardless, the OP says this took place at midnight. It’s dark. So kill that sucker.
 
SolaScriptura said:
You provide a lot of “explanation“ that’s not in that passage. You bring a lot of assumptions to the table. But regardless, the OP says this took place at midnight. It’s dark. So kill that sucker.
Click to expand...
You also bring assumptions to the table. We all do. But I have made mine explicit. From your perspective, what are the criteria for when one may and may not kill a thief? From what you have said so far, I get the impression that you think any killing of a thief is justified, which may by no means be squared with the passage in question. Remember, a thief is a thief, to be fined (Proverbs 6:31), but one who kills a thief unnecessarily is a murderer, to be put to death (Exodus 22). Regardless of where you fall on the matter, we would do well not to be so cavalier about taking a man's life.
 
Charles Johnson said:
You also bring assumptions to the table. We all do. But I have made mine explicit. From your perspective, what are the criteria for when one may and may not kill a thief? From what you have said so far, I get the impression that you think any killing of a thief is justified, which may by no means be squared with the passage in question. Remember, a thief is a thief, to be fined (Proverbs 6:31), but one who kills a thief unnecessarily is a murderer, to be put to death (Exodus 22). Regardless of where you fall on the matter, we would do well not to be so cavalier about taking a man's life.
Click to expand...
They are to be fined if after the fact they are found and discovered. That has nothing to do with them being caught in the act on my property trying to take my stuff from me. For them to do so is an act of violence against me, and I can legitimately kill them for it.

You are fundamentally misunderstood Exodus 22. This passage is not saying that if someone does a break-in at night we can kill them but if they do the same action during the day we have to just stand there and let them do it. The text assumes that all thieves operate at night under the cover of darkness and by the time daytime has come around they have taken what they were going to take and they have gone somewhere else. It is in that circumstance that I cannot then simply hunt them down to kill them and to take my stuff back. But I sure as heck fire can kill them if, during the daytime, he tries to come up and take my stuff from me.
 
There seems to be a lot missing from the scenario. When john went back inside, did he call the police? When John came back outside with the gun, was Tony trying shoot John first, or was he just still trying to steal the car (or just rob)? Did John fire when Tony's back was turned? Was Tony intending harm on John or his family?

I'm no lawyer or police officer, but once John decided to come back outside with the gun, did that remove self-defense, or turn it into premeditated?
 
SolaScriptura said:
They are to be fined if after the fact they are found and discovered. That has nothing to do with them being caught in the act on my property trying to take my stuff from me. For them to do so is an act of violence against me, and I can legitimately kill them for it.

You are fundamentally misunderstood Exodus 22. This passage is not saying that if someone does a break-in at night we can kill them but if they do the same action during the day we have to just stand there and let them do it. The text assumes that all thieves operate at night under the cover of darkness and by the time daytime has come around they have taken what they were going to take and they have gone somewhere else. It is in that circumstance that I cannot then simply hunt them down to kill them and to take my stuff back. But I sure as heck fire can kill them if, during the daytime, he tries to come up and take my stuff from me.
Click to expand...
Not so. V. 2 gives the context: "If a thief be found breaking up" (breaking in). And then the differentiating factor that determines whether the killer has incurred blood-guilt: "if the sun be risen upon him." Neither scenario deals with someone found in possession of stolen goods. That is handled further on.
 
Charles Johnson said:
Not so. V. 2 gives the context: "If a thief be found breaking up" (breaking in). And then the differentiating factor that determines whether the killer has incurred blood-guilt: "if the sun be risen upon him." Neither scenario deals with someone found in possession of stolen goods. That is handled further on.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Your interpretation is ridiculously pedantic.
 
I still remember from law school the common law definition of burglary:

"Breaking and entering in the night season with intention of committing a felony or theft therein. "

Looks like Blackstone used a simpler definition.

"THE definition of a burglar, as given us by fir Edward Cokes , is, “he that by night breaketh and entreth into a manfionhoufe, with intent to commit a felony.” In this definition there are hour things to be confiderd; the time, the place, the manner, and the intent."

Book 4, Chapter 16 Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England

Up until the liberal takeover of the Supreme Court, burglary merited the death penalty.
 
SolaScriptura said:
Incorrect. Your interpretation is ridiculously pedantic.
Click to expand...
I was under the assumption, or had been told, that at night it almost certainly was with an intention to conceal burglary while in the morning the intentions could be more easily discerned and likely weren't sinister. Correct me if I am wrong.
 
Matthew Henry on the passage in question:
"If a thief broke a house in the night, and was killed in the doing of it, his blood was upon his own head, and should not be required at the hand of him that shed it, v. 2. As he that does an unlawful act bears the blame of the mischief that follows to others, so likewise of that which follows to himself. A man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril. Yet, if it was in the day-time that the thief was killed, he that killed him must be accountable for it (v. 3), unless it was in the necessary defence of his own life. Note, We ought to be tender of the lives even of bad men; the magistrate must afford us redress, and we must not avenge ourselves."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Is this justified killing? The right to defend life.
Replies
25
Views
4K
Willem van Oranje
Willem van Oranje
A
  • Locked
Does Refusing to Defend Oneself = Murder
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
Tim
Tim
Confessor
  • Locked
When not to defend one's life
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
kalawine
kalawine
shackleton
  • Locked
Eating, drinking and sleep related to killing? LC 135,136
Replies
7
Views
2K
Rev. Todd Ruddell
Rev. Todd Ruddell
Reformed Covenanter
  • Locked
B. B. Warfield on communism, marriage, and private property
Replies
0
Views
456
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
Back
Top