The Moral-Legislative Issue of Property Defense

The Captain raises a moral-issue question in the era of Antifa/BLM/RevCom.  The question is implied in this excerpt from his essay.

...There are two states in America where one can legitimately defend property with deadly force, Texas and Missouri.  And in Missouri, because of Soros-backed protecutors, the McCloskeys cannot even go into their own yard carrying guns without being dragged into court.  So regardless of how the law reads, a prosecutor can change everything.

The labyrinth laws of self defense in America and the dice throw of prosecutorial discretion have made it to where the typical American can do nothing to stop this destruction to even their own private property.  Antifa/BLM knows this, and has leveraged these laws in their favor.

American laws concerning self defense and defense of private property were written for men and women who no longer exist.  They are an artifact of a simpler time, a time when men believed in the difference between right and wrong, and usually acted in a manner worthy of being called men.  As John Adams remarked, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the governance of any other.”...

Defending property with near-lethal or lethal force has been disfavored in American jurisprudence and legislation.  But in the last 90 days the situation in the country has changed.  Leaving aside the Captain's complaint that the rules were written for 'men and women who no longer exist,' there is also the reality that in Kenosha, Madison, Portland, and Seattle the police reaction has been inadequate to say the least.  Whether that is due to lack of numbers or lack of will on the part of political management is irrelevant.  The question remains:  What should be allowed in defense of property?

That's a moral question, of course, as is the question of self-defense; in moral theology, one is allowed to use any force necessary if life or grave bodily harm is at stake.  Those conditions also govern using lethal force in defense of others.  In some states, one is obliged to run away from imminent serious danger (if possible); in others, the "Castle doctrine" negates that obligation.  

But defense of property with lethal force is not legal in Wisconsin, although sub-lethal force, to the degree necessary, is currently allowed unless it would cause 'great bodily harm.'

What can we learn from Thomas Aquinas on the topic of private property?  Here are the five salient take-aways from Aquinas' teachings on private property:

1. God designed creation to support life, especially human life.  

2. Private property engenders good stewardship.

3. Private ownership supports order in society.

4. Private property helps maintain peace in communities.

 5. Private property benefits the community.

Based on those, Catholic moral theology allows the use of deadly force for defense of property.

...It is lawful to defend one’s material goods even at the expense of the aggressor’s life; for neither justice nor charity require that one should sacrifice possessions, even though they be of less value than human life in order to preserve the life of a man who wantonly exposes it in order to do an injustice.... the property which may be defended at the expense of the aggressor’s life must be of considerable value; for charity forbids that in order to protect ourselves from a trivial loss we should deprive our neighbor of his life. Thefts or robberies, however, of small values are to be considered not in their individual, but in their cumulative, aspect. A thief may be slain in the act of carrying away stolen property provided that it cannot be recovered from him by any other means: if, for example, he can be made to abandon his spoil through fright, then it would not be lawful to shoot him. If he has carried the goods away to safety he cannot then be killed in order to recover them; but the owner may endeavor to take them from him, and if the thief resists with violence he may be killed in self-defense. 

 Thus we can ask the Legislature to explicitly amend WI Stat. 949.39.  The current interpretation is this:

 (1)    A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person’s property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one’s property.

As the Captain observed, deadly force is expressly outlawed no matter the gravity of the 'unlawful interference' here.  But in many cases, both in and out of Wisconsin, the property was the sole source of income for the owner and that owner's family.  Thus Wisconsin law and moral teaching are contradictory, given the principles of St. Thomas and the teaching of the Church.

The Legislature can and should design the law to reflect moral law by establishing a framework analogous to the "grave bodily harm/death" wording in self-defense laws.  There is no reason for the Legislature to dally here, either, as it is likely that more riots and property-destruction are coming over the next few years.