Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
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.
|
There is such a lack of logic in the above post that I am not sure if the author is being serious or not. I will have to select the most glaring error, as the overall theme of the above post is simply too fictional to be addressed.
The statement that "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." The author in this statement is implying that because the watch store owner survived, he was merely protecting his property. However the problem in using this logic, is that the only way the store owner could have been considered to be protecting his life, would have been to be killed by the criminals. For example, let's say one of the robbers entered the store, immediately shot the owner in the hand or foot, and then proceded to demand money or goods. Using the aforementioned logic, the store owner should still comply with the robber, after all the benevolence of the robber is assumed to be true and the store owner has only suffered non-life threatening wounds. Obviously such thinking is intensely erroneous.