|
Gonth, come on man. You have to see why the law can not protect using lethal force on criminals after they've stopped endangering lives. The fact of the matter is that armed robbery is not a capital offense and as long as it stops at there I doubt many people think that it should be. But by okaying citizens to gun down armed robbers once its clear that they aren't threatening others any more is essentially the same as passing a death sentence on them. As for the 'whose to say... tomorrow' argument, I think you have to see how the law can not be about possible future crimes. At the point that citizens are allowed use lethal force against criminals after the crime then at what point does that green light to kill them end? There are plenty of similar questions that could be asked. Now I think it's good for people to have the attitude about this that you do, but as a matter of law I would hope we could agree that it couldn't be that couldn't fly.
__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751
|