|
Mr. Thomas had two realistic possibilities: kill the robbers or give up his property. If he's prohibited (either legally or morally) from killing, then he must be obligated to relinquish his property. Note that the legal system is not a reliable defender in this situation; the robbers may never be caught, and if they are they may be unable to make reparation. I'm uncomfortable with any set of rules that obligates an otherwise innocent man to give up his property simply because his robber has placed his own life in the balance.
I also agree with genuinegirly, we need more armed watchmakers. The police/government can't solve these societal problems on their own; responsible members of society need to stand up and fight these problems. I don't see the criminals as vermin, but rather as diseased. They carry and spread the disease of violence, theft, and destruction, and while it's preferable to cure them of this disease (or quarantine them), doing so requires their cooperation. If they choose not to cooperate, you can either make the unfortunate decision to end their lives, or make the unfortunate decision to let the disease spread.
__________________
And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.
|