Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg
I as a non American find it utterly exaggerated and antiquated, to be given the right in using deadly force to protect land or tangible, movable property.
Was there ever a case in which someone used his gun, to prevent another from stealing his land? I would call this war...
Also the commensurability of shooting someone to dead because he has stolen something doesn´t fit.
To protect yourself against mortal danger, is a right I could agree with. Also as jthig32 posted, if someone tries to get in your house trying to steal something or whatever (resp. runs to your direction despite you warning him), I could agree with a shooting too.
In my opinion, this law shouldn´t be for allowing the people to play a police officer, it should only be for protecting your life against offenders.
|
I think for the most part you and I and Dalm agree on most points.
However, the law has to be drawn up to allow for any circumstance in which a person legitimately needs to defend himself.
You err on the side of giving a homeowner too much leeway, rather than running the risk of convicting someone who was legitimately defending himself.
Then you trust the majority of citizens to not push the law to the very limit, which I think this particular person did.