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: 5716981" data-attributes="member: 8835">I was joking about actually chasing the robbers, BTW. But if you want to see your stuff again and the bad guys caught, shooting is your only option.  The cops aren't too effective at recovering stolen loot unless the bad guys are really sloppy AND they get lucky.My read of the <a href="http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html" target="_blank">2007 castle law</a>, doesn't seem to show the "and defense of another" clause.  It sure is a wordy little SOB.  if lawyers were programmers, I'd be spanking them for unreadable code if they worked for me.Anyway, I'm not wholly sure you're seeing my point.  I do not dispute your interpretation of the law.  So you saying "the law says you can't do that." isn't in dispute, and therefore doesn't need repeating yet again.I dispute the quality of the law.  I think criminals have minimal rights as an enemy combatant in a war zone, and that civillians can do no wrong until their actions in combat are reviewed by the police. (you can't capture and torture the combatant, nor hunt down and kill someone you think is a criminal, that's outside your rights and intrudes on the police and CIA's duty to be thorough and follow protocols).But at the crime event itself, you ARE fully entitled to be judge, jury and executioner because you have the full undisputed facts of the case in front of you.  In a home invasion crime, the bad guy is right there, illegally in your house.  There is no dispute on is this the correct suspect for the crime.  There's no misremembering events or what he looked like, or bungled fingerprint evidence.If the bad guy gets away, you'll be lucky to get him in the system again and recognized as the actual man who entered your home.Is this a harsh penalty for criminals?  Sure.  But there's 7 billion people on the planet, we can afford to break a few eggs.  Of all the people to discriminate against, bad guys caught in the act of committing a dangerous crime are the most perfectest candidate ever to select for population control.Contrast that to the death penalty for convicted criminals, where their actual guilt is in question, that's a very real concern.I have less concern of a mistake that if you shoot a guy in your house, or who you catch breaking in, or trying to rob somebody, that you have made a mistake and got the wrong guy (barring you being a lousy shot).I also expect, as with ever police shooting, an investigation of your actions.  The cops should be able to find evidence at the scene confirming there was a crime in progress.  Obviously, somebody could try to use this interpretation to commit a murder.  But murder already happens, and it already gets covered up by bad guys.  There's already a law for murdering somebody, and a process for uncovering it.Another wrinkle in the system as I see it, is the concept of capturing the criminal.  As I understand it, you can't detain someone (like a shoplifter).  And in a home invasion, in the micro-seconds of you making contact with the enemy, you should probably confirm target and fire, rather than wait for them to react.If you could lawfully detain a criminal, then that too is preferred (less blood on the floor to clean up).  But that's a risky proposition.</blockquote>

Verification