🚀 go-pugleaf

>So now you stand behind the principle that murdering (and that is the
>legal definition of such an act) a 12 year old is valid in order to
>insure that he does not steal another $250 television.  Nice.  This is

There is a famous court case (Garner vs Tennessee, if I remember correctly)
that involved police officers that had shot a juvenile burglar who was
fleeing with a TV set.  They shot him because they did not believe that they
could catch him on foot.  The result of the court case was a change in
police procedure: since then cops are not supposed to use deadly force to
recover property.  While that case doesn't specifically apply to civilians
it did change what was acceptable use of force on a national scale.

The primary finding was that no piece of inanimate property was worth
more than a human life, and that principle can be easily applied to
civilian situations.  Certainly it's an emotional appeal that will be
very effective in a jury trial even if state laws may allow use of
deadly force to protect property in some situations.  

Karl