Quote:
|
Originally Posted by erol
I can not be bothered to cite case from the USA. My point is that with such a law in lace there WOULD be mistakes and that means the death of an innocent person - in order to protect your property. Guess your possesions are worth that. There are inumerable cases from the US where people have mistakenly shot people in their homes that they thought were robbers but actually turned out to be spouses,children, friends or someother innocent.
|
You can't be bothered to cite a case because there is none. I have never read any report of a man inviting someone onto his property so he can kill that person. Your argument is flawed.
Your second point, the accidents point, is valid. Accidents do happen. However, separate the two issues at hand. One is
allowing people unlimited self defense, and the second is
actually doing something. Just because I can jump of a bridge does not imply I will do it. I firmly believe in restraint. If you can injure a thief instead of killing him, that is better. However, you should not feel intimidated by society from defending yourself. You should not have to live in fear that if you shoot the thief because he was carrying a big knife that you will be sent to 10 years imprisonment.
I myself will not blindly shoot at anyone on my property, and except for one or two psychopaths, I doubt anyone will. If I find someone snooping in my house at 2am in my daughter's room, however, I can't promise not to fatally injure that person, and when I do that, I do NOT WANT to have to choose between protecting my family or going to jail for 10 years.