re: Should a US Citizen have the right to protect property by use of deadly force?

In WI, per the Kyletrial, you cannot protect property with deadly force.

Kyle is not on trial for that.

quote:

---

course they can, ...and should. Why is this being asked?

---

Because there are people that don’t believe you should.

quote:

---

Would you defund the police?

---

Not completely, no. We have laws, and someone must enforce them. Make me king and I'll immediately eliminate probably 75% of the laws that they have to enforce. Then I cut funding to the point that will cover just the enforcement of what's left.

quote:

---

Should the state have the right to use deadly force?

---

Absolutely. I think that in select cases where there is no possibility that the defendant is innocent, appeals should be severely limited, and execution should be soon. For violent crimes such as rape, you get 1 chance that comes with a harsh prison sentence. Conviction #2 comes with execution.

quote:

---

If an individual has to enforce a "natural law," why would the individual consent to the state's power to use force?

---

Because it is not the states responsibility or mandate to protect every citizen at all times. It is the individual's responsibility to protect himself and others if needs be. What must be eliminated is the state trying such an individual, when it is indisputable that the person was in fact enforcing that natural law. The prosecutors in the KR case, all the way up to the district attorney should be facing charges themselves, not to mention being disbarred.

Only if protecting your own property.

quote:

---

"so you value your property more than the lives of you fellow man"

---

People constantly confuse rights with requirements. If you don't want to defend your property--you don't have to--even if you have the right to do so.

If it’s on my property or my vehicle then yes.
If the law allowed criminals to pay a price again then crime would be heavily reduced. Far less repeat offenders for sure.

quote:

---

What must be eliminated is the state trying such an individual, when it is indisputable that the person was in fact enforcing that natural law.

---

The tragedy of the Rittenhouse trial is that a 17 year old kid is on trial for the state's failure to maintain order. This trial is what happens when adults allow children to run society. We're punishing a kid because the adults failed to stop children from burning a city.

Rittenhouse shouldn't have brought a gun to defend the property because he shouldn't have been in the position having to defend the property. Why isn't the mayor on trial; how about the police chief? Why is a kid on trial instead of those put in charge of maintaining order?

I'm kind of thinking we have the government we deserve.

Yes - if someone is willing to violate your personal boundaries enough to enter property that he doesn’t own, you have the right to assume he would ignore them to physically harm you.

quote:

---

The tragedy of the Rittenhouse trial is that a 17 year old kid is on trial for the state's failure to maintain order. This trial is what happens when adults allow children to run society. We're punishing a kid because the adults failed to stop children from burning a city.

Rittenhouse shouldn't have brought a gun to defend the property because he shouldn't have been in the position having to defend the property. Why isn't the mayor on trial; how about the police chief? Why is a kid on trial instead of those put in charge of maintaining order?

I'm kind of thinking we have the government we deserve.

---

As stated, the police can't be everywhere all of the time. Individuals must take responsibility for some aspects of their life. You should like you want the government to nanny you from birth until grave..

quote:

---

Who is the commie downvoter?

---

Maograth, tardzana, c on z, LiberalHank…