|
To me, there is absolutely no question here. The owners are 100% in the right to have done what they did, and furthermore, had this been the U.S. and had they had a shotgun, they would have been 100% in the right to put this guy on the receiving end of it. I do also believe the law would be entirely on their side (although the presence of the other customer might complicate things). Claiming that they encouraged him to steal by showing him jewelry and that they encouraged him to beat them by locking him in seems a lot like claiming someone deserved to be raped becuase of the way she was dressed, and neither argument is going to fly with me. Sure, they could have avoided the trouble, but I feel they should be under no obligation to do so and have no responsibility for someone else's behavior. I'm sure people can imagine what I think of the insanity defense.
__________________
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln
|