Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
Then, by that logic, a person must be expected to lay down his life before parting with a penny's worth of property, because what you are saying is that property, no matter what it is worth, has greater value than life. That is precisely what I despise about laws and philosophies such as you have quoted.
No, I'm not. I distinguish between the value of innocent life and that of a criminal engaged in the commission of a crime. I don't expect anyone to sacrifice their own life defending property - whether fighting crime or fires - but I'm more than happy to see criminals' actions backfire on them badly.

No-one is a criminal until convicted, and until then, everyone has the same rights. If a person injures himself in the commission of a crime, that is one thing, but if he is unlawfully injured, that is entirely another.
No, by definition you are a criminal when you are committing a crime, whether you are convicted of it or not - and the core of our disagreement lies in the line above: you apparently distinguish between a criminal injuring himself and another person causing that injury, while I distinguish between that criminal and innocent bystanders or victims. If you steal a car, crash it and die, does it matter whether you crashed it because you were high or drunk, the car was faulty or it had been booby-trapped as a Darwinian security measure?