Please post reasons why it is OK to kill people in defense of property.

[rrneck]

121. Hmmmmm.

A criminal chooses to steal my stuff. That's the original crime. Do TRY to keep that in mind.

That would be the stuff acquired by a citizen of the greatest empire the world has ever seen. An empire that has perpetrated human rights abuses, political mechanizations, extra legal killings and extraditions, and unnecessary wars resulting in the destruction of entire cultures and millions of lives. That's how you got that stuff. I wouldn't brag if I were you.

At that point, the criminal is deciding he is willing to risk his life and freedom in exchange for my property. You following along here?

The criminal is making that decision for a given set of reasons. Those reasons may or may not be valid, nevertheless they are being made by a human being. Stopping to inquire as to the nature of those decisions is called a Theory of Mind. Most adults with an understanding of morality beyond that of a ten year old are capable of that.

By assuming that risk, he is accepting the consequences if he does not obtain my property and escape. We still clear?

The default position that you are willing to escalate the theft of any portion of your property to that of a life and death struggle is a morally bankrupt and hopelessly blinkered view of both the way people should behave and the way they have actually lived their lives throughout history.

Because of his actions, the criminal has placed me in a position of either letting him take my property or keeping him from taking my property. Again - this is the criminal's choice.

The criminal is forcing you to measure the value of your property against his life. The fact that you are perfectly willing to value your property above a human live reveals a, well, truncated level of moral development. "Look what you made me do" ain't much of an excuse for killing someone over a TV.

If I make the choice to stop him, that choice is reactive not proactive. I did not seek out the criminal - he came to me. I'm being forced to react.

The decision to react the way you do is proactive, as is the default position to shoot anyone over property.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proactive
pro·ac·tive
   [proh-ak-tiv] Show IPA
adjective
serving to prepare for, intervene in, or control an expected occurrence or situation, especially a negative or difficult one; anticipatory: proactive measures against crime.

Once I choose to stop him, the criminal may or may not end up dead, but at the end of the day, it was the criminal's choice to start the whole process.

Or you may end up dead. Over a TV. Unless you're Chuck Norris. This "process" is one of your design and your inflexibility regarding its execution reveals a rigidity not in keeping with one who might consider themselves a productive member of society or in full possession of their full emotional faculties.

At every point in this process, the criminal has made or forced every single choice. The sole choice I as the victim can make is to choose to be a victim or not.

If he elects to do that after you have demanded he stop whatever it is he is doing an escalates the confrontation to a contest of a life for life rather than a contest of a life for property, you are justified in shooting him. But you have to go through the steps, all of which may take only two or three seconds. If your default position is to shoot anyone stealing, you will fight like you train and you have removed any sense of human decency or morality from you response.

By the way - i consider the use of lethal force to protect myself or my property to be the legal, moral and ethical choice. It is absolutely legal, certainly moral within the Judeo-Christian standard of morals and absolutely ethical.

You are wrong. That Judeo-Christian standard of morals has been used to perpetrate some of the greatest outrages against humanity in history. If you want to argue the morality of killing someone over property I suggest you go read a book so I don't have to walk you through Philosophy 101.

Seems to me, you're advocating for the criminal and suggesting people have an obligation to be victimized.

Wrong again. I'm advocating for compassion, justice, and civilized behavior, ideals that are not always possible, but for which we should always strive.