Translations:Are you allowed to use deadly force in defense of (mere) property?/22/en

1. The first mention of "bloodguiltiness" (verse 2) seems to refer to the lack of the homeowner's bloodguiltiness. To refer to a lack of bloodguiltiness on the part of a dead thief would make no sense from a case law perspective (because it would form no part of a judge's decision-making). However, the postive attribution of bloodguiltiness in verse 3, on Dr. White's account, refers to the thief, not the homeowner. In other "entangled" case laws like this (Exod. 21:18-19, Exod. 21:20-21, Exod. 21:28-29, Deut. 22:23-26), the parallel cases establish important principles which distinguish the guilt or innocence of a particular person. In the case of a thief/burglar, there is no question that he is guilty, by definition: he is labeled literally as a "thief." There is no distinction in the cases which would call this into question. However, on the more common understanding, the case distinction is clear: the homeowner has bloodguilt if he kills during the day, but not if he kills at night.