Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris T
From the news item you linked to:
So, let's unpack that a little (you may need to read the full article, I don't want to copy and paste the entre thing here).
|
You don't know the back story. There could have been a crime spree there recently, could have got burgled themselves. I will admit I didn't realise it was a nearby vacant house, I thought it was their own house. It might well be, people do own more than one house, especially out here.
That said there there are 2 points:
1. US law clearly states that the use of deadly force is authorised to (quote) "stop a forcible felony in progress against a human" (i.e. you can't shoot someone for raping your dog). However a forcible felony is a felony (serious crime) that includes violence. Armed robbery is most certainly included in the list of recognised forcible felonys. He was well within the law to do what he did. The law also clearly states, that you cannot use deadly force (even if you shoot to injure, that is classed as deadly force) to prevent a criminal escaping. Only law enforcement can. If the man was shot running away then they cops would have to press charges. The man must have been shot and then ran. Still, I don't suppose the burgulars will come back.
2. Should he have done anything at all? Yes, because of the good samaritan law he had to do something. Whilst he did what not many would have done, it was still legal. It would have acheived the desired result, burglars want an easy life too, not gun battles at every house they go to.
Scastle: If you use a gun in self defence, you are responsible for it. I mean that in the sense you have to accept the conseqences and outcomes. Noone is forced to pull a gun on anyone. It isn't, despite current media perception, the automatic response.
Noone is forced to use a gun like that, it is solely the person's choice, and therefore, their responsibility.
I don't advocate this person's actions, or that person's actions. If banning guns actually stopped criminals using them, even though I don't think that would affect crime levels, I think shooters would support it. But since it doesn't, and we have stats to prove that, it seems unnecessarily punitive. Think of how many criminals commit gun crime. Then think about how many people, every day, that have a gun, that doesn't.
Criminals will always have guns. For self defence, the homeowner, should have
the option to meet the threat equally.
Join CF
You are here: 
