🚀 go-pugleaf

Karl Rehn wrote:
> 
> >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.

I believe a home owner can use deadly force to prevent a crime in
process.  So if a armed home owner is chasing his television set,
he can do anything he need to recover his property.  As long as
the thief has the home owner's property a crime is in process,
and it appropriate to use force prevent a crime against your
property.  If being pursued by armed home owner I think a thief
as two choice, dropping the stolen property or mortal injury.

David