There are several on this site who consider it morally justified to shoot and kill someone who is robbing your (or a neigh home. This is regardless of immediate physical threat. Correct me if I misrepresent, but the idea is, if someone is trying to steal your property, you are justified, morally and legally, to shoot and/or kill them.

This is my question: if you find out that some corrupt corporate CEO is, for instance, robbing your life savings, are you justified morally and legally in marching into his office and executing him or her?

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
Matthew 5:9

Based on the bolded statement above, then yeah, I guess you would be justified in killing a corrupt CEO. You pose an interesting question here. I don't personally agree with it, but yeah... Actually, if the CEO is stealing your life savings, you're even more justified in killing him/her than if you catch someone stealing a few of your possesions from your home.

I think the catching point is the implication of bodily threat.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Like two guys running away from your neighbors house?

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
Matthew 5:9

I'm not really defending it - just pointing it out. But, two guys running away from your neighbor's house definitely pose more of a potential bodily threat than a CEO holed up in an office, sipping a latte.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

What if the CEO is stealing you life savings, which you may need to pay for your own healthcare? Couldn't that be construed as a "potential bodily threat"? I know it's not an immenent bodily threat, but it's still a threat.

That introduces a level of absurdity that probably takes the discussion somewhere that isn't useful. This level of threat could also be applied to people who drive cars or go out in public while sick. I'd say that the two main criteria that are being used by supporters (and I'm not one of them) is the commission of a crime involving trespass and close proximity.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

how can a CEO rob your life savings ?

I think he means some sort of Enron like scandal or something...?

I believe you're correct but wanted to be sure I wasn't making an assumption not intended.

Well i assume you are talking about the Horn case and as i remember it was only me and Erikokc that were advocating the law, not several (though sorry if i missed someone).

But you're being silly Donkey, if the CEO is stealing your money out of his office, you're asking if i would advocate the trespassing into his office so i could kill him? I assume it would have to be third party death and not the victim who shot him so it all fit in with the Horn case?

Well, regarding that specific case, I would say the person should have more of a right to plug the CEO than Horn did to get his Yosemite Sam on. No one was stealing anything from Horn or wronging him in any way.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I know, I know... this is all just a thinking excersise anyway.

And our law clearly states that he may if he chooses defend the property of another left in trust and or in third party, the threat doesn't have to be to him at all.

We can also shoot, and kill if need be to stop a fleeing criminal.

But one thing we could do with is to make an ammendment to state it woud have to be a physical theft and fleeing; not say an electonic theft, to stop stupid ideas like this from being thrown around.

So really, anyone can shoot the embezzling CEO, even if said CEO is fleeing, crying and wetting himself in the face of the Avenger's high powered semi-automatic weapon, maniacal grin, and raging erection. And, it's a bonus if the Avenger actually knew anyone who was being wronged by the CEO.

That seems purely to be a class distinction. Electronic theft is often the most significant theft of all, as you can point and click away millions while only bodily carrying a few hundred dollars worth of shit out of (most) people's homes. Still, that would allow you to whip out a knife and stab a child in the back for pocketing candy at the five and dime, so I guess all isn't lost.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson