Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5716101" data-attributes="member: 8835">I look at it as the safety net.  In America, in every case, the law is also on trial.  Is it just, is it applicable.Applying a law without context means more people get charged with crimes than society would accept.In virtually all societies across all time, the robber is always a bad guy from the perspective of the group the grandma belongs to.  Societies may disagree with her response (using violence), but generally, she's the innocent to be protected.There are few societies which would brand the grandma as a bad guy.  Which is what strict application of the law would do (because she would be a felon).Additionally, there seems to be legal precedent that breaking the law due to another person breaking the law is defensible.Case in point, my wife was riding in a car to school with a friend.  Apparently, in this town, north/south streets have right of way over cross streets (I never knew that).  They crossed the street and got hit by a speeding truck.  The cop wrote my wife's friend a ticket.They went to court and won because the truck was speeding.  Had he not been speeding, the distance he was from the car when it entered the intersection would have been sufficient and thus no accident would have resulted.Not the exact same thing, but the point is, the law allows for "if X crime had not happened Y crime would not have happened, therefore the person causing X is at fault and Y is not really a crime."So, in grandma's case, she pursued the bad guy around a corner.  BFD.  She did not wantonly endanger bystanders and the action was part of her initial reaction to defend herself and her property.  If the bad guy had never tried to rob her, she never would have been in physical or legal peril.I'm sure real lawyers could clarify and correct this observation.</blockquote>

Verification