Monday, February 23, 2009 10:36:18 AM
I can appreciate the idea that we should only use lethal force when our lives are in danger, but to place the onus of determining if that's legally the case on the victim is unjust.
Monday, February 23, 2009 4:37:49 AM
That law is wrong. It should be such that if you are not under attack you should not be allowed under any circumstances to fire a lethal shot. What this means is that you can prevent the burgler, like in this news piece, by shooting at his legs or something, no his chest.
Sunday, February 22, 2009 3:26:02 PM
"I believe that you should be able to defend yourself, but only if you are in in immediate danger. Meaning you must know that the burglar intends to kill you. I mean, why do you break in? To steal not to kill."
In theory, this sounds alright. But in reality, how do you honestly accomplish this? "Excuse me home invader, is your intent to kill because you are a mass murderer or high on a drug? Or to steal?" You cannot react in a stressful life or death scenario in this manner, it goes against every part of the human psyche. If someone is forcing entry into my home, they have forfeited all rights at the door and do not deserve mercy. Because that is what your suggestion is saying, that criminals deserve mercy and should be treated fairly in a life or death situation. Reality is far different from psuedo-intellectual schools of thought.