Quote:
Originally Posted by Gonth
One interesting note, and something I hope will spur vigorous arguments, is that robbery and burglary are on the list of acceptable reasons to kill a criminal. In these two cases the criminal does not neccessarily, in my mind, have to be threatening anyone with harm. I personally still think they should be fair game, but I can also see how people might consider that over the limit of acceptibility.
|
"Fair game" is a hunting term. Sort of points to your position on this thing...
The law doesn't say you can kill someone robbing your house. It says you have the right to use force including deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself from someone in the act of committing one of the listed crimes.
I'm for this law as it's written, but I'm worried about how it will be interpreted by the lay public. This law is not an invitation to vigilantism. This law does not declare open season on human beings. I hope that the courts will interpret this law strictly--and put people who casually kill criminals behind bars where they deserve to be.