🚀 go-pugleaf

I believe that the point that we've been trying to make doesn't compare the
value of assets with the value of a life.  We're talking (mostly) about the
right to protect yourself and those in your house.  If someone's already running
down the street with your VCR, I don't think you're gonna get a lot of sympathy
for blowing him away.  On the other hand, if they're coming in your window with
the intent to steal your VCR and don't have T-shirts on that say "I'm unarmed,
only here for the VCR" so that their intent is ambiguous, you're probably scared
and have the right to act as if your life is in danger.


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.
>
> Karl
>
>
>