Subject:
|
Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:16:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
530 times
|
| |
|
|
I’ve tried to stay out of this one because I am of two minds about it, but...
I just wanted to point out to Mike that morality aside, the laws in most western
countries probably do not allow you to kill someone who is fleeing just as you
are not allowed to lay unmarked traps for them while they are entering a private
place. The issue, as IIRC Kooties has already identified, is one of matching the
gravity of the offense with the crime. A related issue may be one of
uncertainty.
Scenario:
I catch a man fleeing my home. He is near the door. I have a pistol and am at
close range, yet I let the man go as he appears to have nothing with him -- to
all immediate appearances I have foiled whatever he had intended to do.
1) I later discover that the intruder has stolen something small but of great
personal or monetary value. Result: annoying but death is not justified.
2) I later discover that the intruder has damaged some things on his way in.
Result: annoying but death is not justified.
3) I later discover that the intruder has poisoned my dog to escape detection.
Result: annoying but death is not justified -- although I am tempted to say
this a grey area, the destruction or theft of chattels being a killing offense
at one time. A premium is placed on the value of living things.
4) I later discover that the intruder has raped my SO. Result: annoying as hell
but death is not justified -- although I am tempted to say this a grey area
because rape has at times been a killing offense. A premium is placed on the
value of living things, and this also seems to consider quality of future life.
5) I later discover that the intruder has killed my SO. Result: death is
justified.
I think what I am trying to point out is the uncertainty involved in behaving a
particular way with facts not in evidence -- without a fuller knowledge of the
fairness of what one may do (Edit: We could easily go straight into a
discussion of the stupidity of the war with Iraq with similarly insufficient
evidence). At the same time I note that many scenarios have grey area outcomes,
where death may have been justified depending on how one views the gravity of
the given situation.
Hypothetically:
Given modern forensics you not only have to shoot an intruder dead so that there
is only one version of the story of how it happened, but you also have to shoot
him while he is facing you and hopefully holding a weapon. According to most
jurisdictions in the U.S. it would probably be better if the intruder is
actually inside your house. If you shoot him inside your house and he falls out
a window you are probably screwed. Then again, if you dispose of the body in
such a way that it can never be found you may have restored your former
situation almost completely. If the scenario were set in a black comedy, you
would have then disposed of the body with something valuable on it such that you
then need to recover the valuable item. To futher complicate the situation a
neighbor may have seen or heard you...Etc. Etc. Etc.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
73 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
