Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I can see your point in that you're not allowed to just shoot ANY person who breaks and enters. example, broad daylight...guy crawls through the window.....you say FREEZE or GET THE F' OUT!!!!, however, as others have said, if its dark out and theres someone poking around my living room or coming down the hallway they get one chance to stop when I say so. If they don't then i'm pulling the trigger. My wife and kids are worth more than the life of a thief.
|
the details of the article, as has been stated, involve a man
shot in the back with a shotgun.
additionally, i'm not so naiive just say "wing him", but the law draws the line at a viable threat to your life, including
your duty to flee. these aren't just beliefs, they're written laws. additionally, anyone shot in the back from across a room does not constitute a reasonable threat to your life.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nowthen
and another question is, do criminals *deserve* the protection of the law? in my mind, you get the protection of civilized society, only when you toe the line and are part of that society. a criminal is not, he has made a decision to drop out of that society and prey upon its members. therefore, if a person is not conforming to the law, and enters my house against the law, surely he is forfeiting the protection of the law?
but, i guess thats to much of a deep question for this thread. rightly or wrongly, i will not take chance with my family. somebody in my house, they get it. anybody else is free to take the action they feel is correct....
|
Criminals do indeed deserve the protection of civilized society, for the simple fact that a true measure of society is how it treats those in the margins, whether they be the homeless and destitute or the hardened criminals. I'm a staunch advocate of the death penalty, when it is applied by the courts. I'm also an advocate of the 2nd Amendment. What I'm
not and advocate of is vigilante justice. The whole reason we have a legal process is to protect the rights of
all, and one does not forfeit their rights until they have been found guilty of a crime under the eyes of the law. Even then, with the majority of all crimes, criminals loose their right to free movement (imprisonment),
not their right to life. The entire reason there lies differences, delineations, and demarcations among the various forms of criminal acts is to have the
punishment fit the crime. Even a convicted felon does
not forfeit their right to appeal their sentence. Guaranteeing the absolute rights of all is the only true way to have the repression of
none.
As a final addendum, at the point a criminal (someone who breaks the law) forfeits their protection under society, the maxim would posit anyone who has: jaywalked, broken the speed limit, turned without signalling, changed lanes in an intersection, consumed alcohol underaged, provided alcohol to underaged people, consumed marijuana or any other illicit drugs, smoked cigarettes prior to being 18, or comitted any number of federal, state and local statute violations (including in New York City not facing the doors of an elevator and standing with one's hands at one's sides)--all those things and more, that logical maxim would say we
all would have forfeited the protection of society. Hell, by that maxim, no one would be guaranteed a (relatively) fair and impartial trial, the right to an attorney, or any of the other basic rights (including privacy) that we are all guaranteed.