Territory considerations
Hello Rabbi,
You have argued several times in the context of territorial considerations that if a person points a gun at me and demands a shekel in exchange for not killing me, I am allowed to kill him and I do not have to give him a shekel. You explained that this is because he has invaded my territory and I am allowed to defend it even at the cost of killing him.
According to this, why is it actually forbidden to run over a protester who is blocking my road? On the surface, the things are similar – I have the ability to reclaim my territory (by running over the protester) and the protester demands that I refrain from violence and submit to his demand.
In principle, it is permitted, but only if you really gave him a warning, there is no other way to solve the problem. That’s what the police are for. Beyond that, the protester is not threatening your life, so there is no simple justification for killing him. He has no persecutory law, unlike someone who threatens me to give him a shekel. He is killed by persecutory law. Although in my opinion, it is also permissible to kill someone who invades my house to steal, if there is no other way to deal with him. I detailed this in my article on killing a thief. It is more similar. Ultimately, there are accepted norms and there are authorities that deal with such a problem.
But here we are talking about the public domain, not the territory of the individual. Isn't that a different case?
I didn't understand. The protester is preventing me from traveling on a road that I have permission to travel on. You're right that it's not like breaking into my private home, but there's still room for territorial considerations even in such a situation. By the way, even in the halacha, the dead around me in public are considered my property.
I remember you saying somewhere that the owner of the road (the public) allows protesters to demonstrate on it in this way, and therefore there is no permission to pass in such a case (something like that).
This is not a demonstration with a license. It is clear that if they have permission, there is no discussion.
You are right about the difference in the law of persecution, I accepted it.
But you wrote that even without it I have a permit (like a thief) and what you think prevents it is that there is a police force that can handle it. The police can *maybe* handle it but in practice, it is clear that it will take a lot of time (otherwise it is clear that there is no permit at all). Z”A- Even if there is treatment but it is one that is not good enough == infringes on my territory, I still need to have a permit
Very unlikely. What about someone who just dreams at a traffic light? He also delays me. There is common sense and proportionality. What's more, the owner of the road (the public) does not allow it to be cleared in this way.
You have to remember that this is not the same as a thief, because he takes something that is mine and the protestor just doesn't let me use the road (which is not really mine) passively.
Dreaming at a traffic light - not relevant to the discussion because it is accidental and therefore by definition is not considered an infringement of the territory.
Of course I use reason and proportionality - if the police arrive after two hours to clear the road, then the blocker has harmed me with two hours' wages - that's the shekel from the original example but with actual damage. And if you're already demanding reason and proportionality - what about a thief who came to steal only a shekel from me?
I don't understand the distinction between active and passive damage - what is important to our discussion is the infringement of the territory.
Regarding the owner of the road who does not allow it - and what if it is a block in no man's land?
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
