To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 21695
21694  |  21696
Subject: 
Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:20:46 GMT
Viewed: 
555 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
   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

Well in that specific case I would probably shoot the guy in the leg, kick him in the head a couple time to make good and sure he is unconscious, tie him up, and call the police. If that is illegal then I now know why the crime rate is so high in this country.

   -- 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.

Well in my opinion the in last 3 possibilities 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.

Well my position is to not give someone the benefit of the doubt when they have broken into my property.

   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.

I am still baffeled at the ‘logic’ of punishing someone for defending thier own property/lives.

-Mike Petrucelli



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote: <snip> (...) And I am baffeled at the 'logic' of taking a life over a television set. Dave K (21 years ago, 25-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
  Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
 
(...) Doh! Straw man! No one is punishing anyone for "defending their own property/lives." Instead, people are being forced to accept the consequences of their actions when they choose to kill someone. Unless there is no way to defend yourself short (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
 
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 (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR