🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7imvn4$ert@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>,
  krehn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (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
>
>


Praise God for sentient thought.  One can ackowledge the right to
defend oneself while also acknowledging that life is more precious than
a TV.  This sort of thinking is more likely to win rights than the six
pack crowd's shoot them and let God sort them out line.




--
USA FIRST - ADL    ACLU    HCI   PETA    NAACP(L)
A computer lets u make more mistakes faster than
any invention in human history with the possible
exceptions of handguns and tequila. -Ratliffe


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.