Subject:
|
Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:42:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
689 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
>
> > > I know from previous posts that you embrace the idea of personal
> > > responsibility, so I confess that I'm puzzled at the apparent shift.
> >
> > Well in this case "personal responsibility" falls on the person that breaks
> > into someone elses home and winds up dead for it.
>
> That's where I believe you're making an unsubstantiated leap. Even within the
> bounds of this discussion, you appear unwilling to consider any response other
> than "kill the intruder/it's his own fault" when other options truly are
> available to you.
Actually I did here: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=21697
>
> > The fact that the person was killed by the homeowner (who in my view is only
> > defending their lives from the possibility of attack by intruder) does not
> > mean the homeowner is responsible for that person breaking into their home
> > and dying.
>
> This, too, is an improper logical shift. The intruder is responsible for
> breaking into your home; *you* are responsible for killing him. You may or may
> not be *justified* in killing him, but you are still responsible for doing it.
>
> > The only one responsible is the person that risked their life by breaking
> > into the home of someone else. This is a case of the law not equalling what
> > is morally right.
>
> But you must recognize that you're still committing the fallacy of "the false
> dilemma" by asserting, in effect, that the only options are "let the intruder do
> whatever he wants to me and my property" and "kill the intruder."
> By what logic do you claim the authority to act as judge/jury/executioner
> simply on the basis that someone has entered your home? Here are a few
> possibilities worth considering:
>
> 1. The "intruder" is mentally incompetent and has entered your home
> inadvertently
> 2. The "intruder" is your daughter's boyfriend who is sneaking out of the house
> after a late-night visit *authorized* by your daughter
> 3. The "intruder" is your daughter who has sneaked down to the kitchen for a
> glass of water during the night
> 4. The "intruder," in desperation, has sought refuge from an attacker by
> entering your home. In the heat of the moment she had no time to knock and wait
> for you to answer, which surely would have allowed her attacker to reach her
> 5. The "intruder" has entered your house in error while intending to visit a
> friend who owns a similar home (granted, we're assuming that your door was
> unlocked)
> 6. The "intruder" thought that you were a politician who had usurped his
> rights, and he broke into your home to perform what he considered to be
> appropriate retaliation
> 7. The "intruder" is a Canadian liberal who likes "THe West Wing" too much.
>
> Okay, I'll give you #7.
>
> In any case, these are obviously hypothetical examples, but none of them is
> really infeasible, is it? And the fact that I can readily present alternatives
> to "he broke in with the intent to kill/rob me" demonstrates that you are not
> justified in assuming outright that your conclusion is correct or that you are
> free of responsibility for making that choice. If you're willing/able to take
> the time to identify your daughter, then why are you unwilling to pursue other
> courses besides "shoot him and kick him in the head"?
Ok now I think I am starting to see where you guys are coming from. I realize I
may have come off a little "hard set" too. I would not be shooting at noises, as
most of your example seem to suggest. I would take the time to identify an
intruder. We can safely assume no family members or known friends would be
injured. If an intruder has a weapon they are dead. If they are unarmed I would
incapacitate them by a kick in the head or whatever and make darn sure they
would not pull a weapon. If someone was smashing through the house and ran, I
would stop them, whether that means shooting them in the leg or whatever and
then commence to incapacitating them. Either way if they were innocent of intent
to do harm they would not likely suffer any permanent injury. However in the
unlikely event that they did suffer permanent injury it is my opinion that it is
their own fault for breaking into my house. People should be taught that
breaking into anothers home is a potentially life threating endeavour. Perhaps
most of you think I would be over-reacting but frankly my life and the lives of
my loved ones comes first inside my own home.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
