Is it considered self defense to kill someone who steals from you?

What if the person stealing from you is your ex wife, and she is trying to steal your house, 1/2 your wealth, and your kids in a divorce settlement? Shouldnt it be considered self defense?

No.

What? No user. Killing her just presents more of a problem into your reality. That's dumb.

Yes, you can kill someone robbing your house I'm pretty sure

No, that would not count because our laws are biased towards women

If Ugg went into Grug's cave to steal his rocks and Grug brained him with his club, I wouldn't reslly blame Grug.

These questions always depend on the situation, there is no straight forward answer.

Yes

But if someone attacks you and you kill them its considered self defense. You dont think its an attack for a woman to try to steal things from you that dont belong to her?

I wish I had read the contract too.

No, she's merely using the gynocentric court system to perform the actual theft.

Depends on how they're stealing from you.
Mazlow's Hierarchy of Needs says life trumps safety. WHen your property is illegally seized, your safety is threatened. When your property is illegally seized in a way that could cause you death (intended or not) your life is threatened.
Therefore, a thief proves themselves a threat to the safety of all but not the lives of all and should thereby should not be killed. However, if a thief is violent and threatens the lives of all, they must be killed before they end the life of someone productive.

You need to somehow prove they dont belong to her before initiating violence.
So you fucked up and picked a bad roastie. No way you're going to smoke her and get away with it. But you CAN vanish before she puts the alimony on your ass.

Not an immediate physical attack, no. You would have to handle something like that with a very good lawyer, seeing as the justice system doesn't favor males in those situations - regardless of their race.

you got to think outside the box ameromutt
now when the bitch comes to you and says
"oh i want a divorce user" ... you say no no no honey we can patch this back together, i have this fantastic idea... our second honeymoon, this time it will be perfect

fly to rome, visit paris, then suggest a quick trip to see the pyramids (you always wanted a photograph there didnt you baby)

once ypou got the ho in egypt and on the back of a camel headed into the desert, thats when you trade her to some greasy arab who cant even speak english
you can ussually get about 10 to 100 dollars depending on her age/looks

go back to cairo, tell police she run off with some arab!!!
tell kids "your mother was a whore who ran off with some muzzie"

What if the husband kills himself because his x wife stole his house his wealth and his kids?
In this case, she threatened his life.

Friendly reminder, it's not Russia that's currently subverting and undermining America. It's China with the help of the Democrats.

yeah the jews have nothing to do with it

No because in that instance the husband chose to end his own life due to despair caused by lack of safety but was in no way threatened physically.
If for instance Chad seduced my wife and gave her a thunderous pounding, he would not be guilty of murder if I chose to respond by painting the walls with my brains.

Life as in the biological state.

Daily reminder that if you get a divorce you are a failure of a man and nobody should ever take you seriously about anything

At common law, the fleeing felon rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight. Force may be used by the victim, bystanders, or police officers.

Youre kind of splitting hairs.

Are you talking moralistically or legalistically?

I feel like you are mixing the two in your question. On the one hand you talk about property that is yours, which refers to legal ownership. On the other hand, it seems like you are talking about a moral or ethical theft by your ex wife. That is assuming that she has gone through the courts to get a hold of the property you are talking about and isn't just walking in and stealing it. Clarify nigger.

God bless Mexico...

I don't think so, the method matters.
If someone kicks in your door at night, it's reasonable to assume they're willling to kill and therefore should be killed (if they're willing to kill once, they might do it again, plus they're the initiator)
However, if someone is going through your car while you're in your house, you shouldn't kill them since they've in no way displayed a willingness to threaten your life.

>ex wife
Should only happen in case of adultery, which is punishable by death.

natural law gives man the right to kill any woman and chinks aren't even human; they are a insectoid species it would seem

Im not even married. I just literally do believe that to steal millions of dollars that you dont deserve a penny of, to steal a house that you dont deserve a swuare foot of, and to steal children that you dont deserve to even have contact with.... I think if you commit all these sins then you really, like seriously, dont deserve to live.

At a moral level I agree with the point you're trying to make. The current system is fairly fucked. You'd have to have zero compassion to see why a system like this originally came about - women having to put up with getting their shit slapped by some fat drunk psuedo-nigger husband and having nowhere to go. But it has clearly gone too far the other way, or at least clever people have learned to abuse the system.

Legally though, it isn't 'stealing' millions of dollars etc since the property would be awarded to the bloodsucking partner through a court order which is - usually - done legally.

It's probably just nitpicking, but in future if you are making similar arguments to friends and others make sure not to mix legal and moral terminology because it just gives people ways to derail what is actually a really good and important point that you're making.

Lastly, killing people over this is not a sensible solution. It just makes you come across as nuts. Try and focus on the sensible key point of the system not being fair - or too open to abuse- as it stands. No need to talk about punishing people for following the rules, despite the rules being fucked.

It was made because women couldn't work so they dedicated their lives to getting married and being a housewife.

If someone divorced them at whatever age they're used goods and can't get a job and will probably die. That's why.

However women can work now and be independent enough to keep themselves off the streets so it needs to be done with.

Although you can use force to protect belongings, you cannot use lethal force. Lethal force is only justified when protecting yourself or another from grievous bodily harm or death.

I think that the laws surrounding property division after divorce were made for many reasons. The historic dependence of the wife on the income of the husband is definitely one. I suppose the reason I listed was derivative of what you said in that it listed a specific situation - an abusive relationship - where that dependence of the wife on the husband perpetuated the scenario of abuse.

I rekon the laws still exist as recognition of there still being many relationships where one partner provides through full-time work and the other partner manages the home. Even to this day, in managing the home one partner facilitates the other partner to devote their time to full-time employment. So the divorce settlement aims to put both parties in a position whereby the marriage had never happened. To do this the courts will follow a thought process along the lines of 'party A (house manager) could have devoted the time spent managing the house to building their own finance and therefore deserves compensation from party B (full-time worker) who would not have been able to work as much/successfully without the help of party A and therefore should make some compensate party A'.

I think the system makes sense, it is just prone to abuse in that many women actually do shit all around the house but can still claim as though they are domestic goddesses. Further it encourages women to be predatory, in that the more they push their man to work the more they will get when the marriage fails. Finally, it makes a marriage failure financially inconsequential for half of the marriage - which has had clear and disastrous effects on divorce rates in our society.

That's US law faggot.

>Mazlow's Hierarchy of Needs
Mazlow also said sex was on par with air, food, shelter, and water.

>That's US law faggot.

Only in what Sup Forums would called the "based" states (which are actually the trash states). The real states - the ones that prop this country up - don't have the uncivilized and subhuman policy that you can shoot a fleeing man in the back.

You're the idiot that signed a marriage contract. Marriage contracts don't have strict rules, they are all up to government and courtroom whims.

Yes it is probably unfair but it is not stealing, it's perfectly legal for her to take half your stuff.

It is, but not for the individual but for the species.
Reproduction is vital for the continued existence of your genes.

(((democrats)))+Chinks

It SHOULD be absolutely legal...