|
You know, killing is definitely wrong, and I don't think anyone here is arguing against that notion. Sure, it's absolutely necessary to protect your own life or the life of another, but that doesn't make it right- it makes it legally acceptable.
I don't think anyone here truly "wants" to kill someone just for taking a laptop. I think the heart of the matter is that when confronting someone in your home, it's near impossible to leave any margin for error. It's not like when several police officers come across a suspect, ordering them to put down their weapon, with real training to help with the reality of the confrontation. In the home, you're not going to stand there like a lump yelling "put your hands in the air"- one movement you don't like, and it's history.
We (most of us) are not professionals in capturing and securing an individual, let alone one who may or may not be armed. Our only recourse is to use our best judgment to err on the side of personal safety, and not on the side of the scumbag who is trying to steal your property and likely will kill you, instead, if given even a second's hesitation.
My major point here is this: both "sides" are fighting over whether or not someone's life is worth a television set or a DVD player. I don't think it's as simple as "what's mine is mine", I think it's really more about the inability to take chances when someone has penetrated the safety of your home. They already intend to steal things, there's no way of knowing what else they had in mind, or what they're capable of when confronted. We need only look as far and as simple as nature to see exactly what happens when you corner an animal. The only responsible and sane course of action is to do what you need to do to ensure your safety and the safety of your loved ones. If that means pulling the trigger because they're in your house and there's no way of knowing what they want, then you pull the trigger.
|