This is an interesting problem, and I don't know the answer. If you go to Starbucks, someone assaults you, and you kill them defending yourself, I'd say you haven't done anything wrong.
But if you go to the police about your laptop, they don't do anything, and then you go out of your way to create a possibly tense situation by confronting the thieves... And an altercation breaks out... And you fight to sieze the laptop... And an alleged thief is killed...
It's easy to say you have done nothing wrong because the thief brought it upon themselves by stealing the laptop and attempting to fence it. But blame is a non-zero-sum game. You also made choices that perhaps involved knowingly creating a risk of a physical altercation.
On the whole, if you are going to try to do a sting, I'd hope that you do not press the issue if the thieves refuse to run away without a fight.
Although it may sound like you are defending yourself, in reality you are saying that the laptop is worth more to you than a human life, and that is disturbing to me.
>in reality you are saying that the laptop is worth more to you than a human life, and that is disturbing to me.
// I think you've misconstrued the situation.
If the thief refuses to return the stolen item and save their life then they are the one that has chosen to value their life below the return they can get on a used stolen laptop. Assuming that they are the thief and are not acting under some complex duress ("steal that laptop or we kill your child") then at any point they can return it and save themselves.
The onus is not on those who have been stolen from to act in favour of the thief. The thief assumes, and interestingly controls, all risk.
My instinct is that if someone does a self-motivated major immoral harm to you, are in a position to relieve or remove that harm and chooses not to then you're pretty much justified in carrying out any pre-warned harm against them. (Like I said that's just my instinct, very interested in contra-positions).
The thief assumes, and interestingly controls, all risk.
The hidden assumption you make is that blame adds up neatly to 100%. Since the thief is in the wrong, he controls the risk. But you also control the risk in the situation described, where you choose to meet the thief and take your laptop back. You both had an opportunity to make other choices.
My instinct is that if someone does a self-motivated major immoral harm to you, are in a position to relieve or remove that harm and chooses not to then you're pretty much justified in carrying out any pre-warned harm against them.
So for instance, if a thief is running away from me carrying my laptop, may I tell them to "Stop or I'll shoot?"
This is one of those things where different cultures take different positions. I don't want people doing things like that in Toronto, and the fact that people do things like that in other places is one of the reasons I do not wish to raise a family there.
I suppose my original post was incorrect. The thief's life is never worth less than my laptop. But the thief's life, to me, is worth less than my own life. Society would most likely agree with my assessment of value. A productive, peaceful citizen is better than a harmful citizen, which is why we have self defense laws, for those specific situations where I am forced to choose between my life and his life (although I don't know how I would make such a choice, I'm certainly not qualified to defend against a criminal who is armed with a knife...)
I don't believe that I should ever have to be responsible for another person's tendency towards violence. It may be unwise to fail to account for such tendencies, but to be legally responsible for them is wrong. Had this situation turned violent, the woman and her neighbor would be no more responsible for that unfortunate outcome than a rape victim is to be blamed for wearing revealing clothes (again, perhaps an unwise decision, but certainly a legal and moral one).
They then have the power to avoid all harm (in both directions), they can even stop and tell you how their family is starving, etc., so you can give them a bag of food and they can return your laptop.
Moreover if they pulled a weapon on you in return I think you'd be warranted in killing them.
>I don't want people doing things like that in Toronto
You want to protect thieves so that they can continue to steal without any risk?
