Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
I have never minded being in a minority, but I do not accept that minority views are inherently dubious, and I reject the idea that they should not be acted upon because they are minority views, in the same way that I reject the notion that, because the majority supports a particular policy, that policy is necessarily right.
While being in the majority doesn't make one automatically right, being in the minority doesn't either. However, in our societies what is "right" is more often determined by the majority. Allowing the minority to decide what is right is tantamount to a dictatorship.

Regarding the booby-trapped car, the fact that there are other ways to prevent it being stolen makes the deliberate choice to install a booby-trap an act of pre-meditated murder, if the thief is killed thereby - and, for all I know, one of attempted murder if he survives. It can never be legitimate to attempt to prevent a crime by the unlawful killing of the perpetrator. That's what.
Governments and industries will frequently protect their properties with high-voltage fences, sometimes lethally high. The only reason these are considered acceptable is because they post warnings. So could you accept the idea of protecting your own property by such a system, one which might not be lethal but could be, as long as warnings are posted?

What is more, in this example, the destruction of the car while the thief is being killed demonstrates that the motive is to kill rather than to stop theft.
Not necessarily. You're assuming the trap is designed to kill after the theft, but I can conceive of a thief being injured while stealing the car and, perhaps, passing out while driving away, causing the destruction.

I do not think it is appropriate to compare acts of war (which are not crimes) with criminal acts.
Tell that to the War Crimes Tribunals. Criminal acts during war happen all the time. Usually only the losers are punished for them, though.

Meanwhile, I think you will find that most national armies are under rules of conduct that prohibit them from using lethal force where there is a chance that innocent non-combatants will be harmed, unless they are themselves under immediate threat.
A rather idealistic view. Think of Dresden, or London during the blitz, or Hiroshima, or Nanking. All acts of war which were AIMED at civilians, not at military targets.

Speculative jamming in order to detonate bombs and kill their manufacturers breaches that rule in that the effects on others cannot be assessed and the immediate threat to the troops is not present.
So you're saying that only immediate threats should be acted upon? Or should we accept the methods of most police organizations and only act AFTER the fact? Can we not make a reasonable determination of a threat and act to prevent that threat, as early as possible?

(Detonating a bomb while the bomber is planting the device might be justifiable if there is no danger to others, but, serendipity aside, if you know when and where a bomber is going to be, you can intercept him before he plants it, at which time it might be unnecessary to kill him.)
Personally, I'll go with shooting the SOB while he's still making the bomb. Or is that too soon? After all, manufacturing a bomb is not an immediate threat, is it?