|
As far as I can tell he is using lethal force to protect his property, not his life. If he handed over what the thieves wanted he wouldnt be shot. He has made a judgment that he considers his property to be worth killing to protect. The law in the US allows him to make such a choice - but for the original conversation - if we are going to talk about this the ONLY conversation I can imagine is a moral one... unless we are to talk about the fact he's a good shot?
I make my comment about "trophies" in the light of the perspective taken by other people making comments in this discussion. There are two comments which I specifically find incredible and unacceptable - 1, that the fact he has taken 5 lives is "awesome", and 2 - to speculate on the "saving to the tax payer" of thieves being shot down rather than having to be kept in prison.
There is a debate which I at least can comprehend as to whether this individual should have the right to kill the men he has to protect his property. It is incomphrensible to me that anyone should consider 5 killings to be something to be proud of or consider as an achievment worthy of merit. This is a terrible weight. For whatever reason you end a life, and whether you have the right or not, there is still blood on your hands and on your soul; even someone who has no choice but to kill or be killed.
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."
The Gospel of Thomas
|