= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Unlike you, IANAL, but killing burgulars would be legal in most places if you can convince the courts that someone's life/health was in serious danger at the time, and that violence was the only reasonable option, wouldn't it? I mean, as long as you can argue that the violence was not excessive relative to what it would take to passivate the dangerous burgular, and that death was an accidental side effect and not intended?
That is, for some local interpretations of "serious", "reasonable" and "excessive", surely. Is it your impression that these things are interpreted too much in favor of the burgular in some places, or do you object to the principle that danger-to-life should determine whether killing trespassers should be legal or not?
I am new here on Less Wrong, and I hope I don't invite too much mind-killing here… But still, I'm a bit curious about this.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
You don't even mention climate or taxes. These affect your life every day.
Taxes?
Actual after-tax purchasing power relative to the amount of work that you do, is perhaps a better optimization target?