You have the right to defend yourself. Of course. BUT with "reasonable force".
What you guys seem to be talking about is a mixture of self defence and self-administered justice. 'These were bad CRIMINALS and deserved to die'. Personally I find the death penalty to be abhorrent when there is a judge, jury, evidence and avenues of appeal. When the death penalty is being administered on the spot by angry/disturbed individuals then I find it even more terrible.
If however you deny this and say it is just about self defence, then you cannot say that Mr.Martin didn't go too far. He had defended himself, the robbers were fleeing and were begging for their lives. At that point he was safe. But then (or probably many years earlier) he made the judgement that these people deserved to die for their crimes and executed them. No judge, no jury, no right of appeal. That is what the court decided in this case and that is the conclusion that I too reach. Such actions are, IMHO, inexcusable.
__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!
|