Subject:
|
A shot in the dark
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 8 Jun 2007 15:38:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4854 times
|
| |
|
|
Part of Dave K’s post here
brought this issue to mind and resonated with a recent news story.
Here’s part of the text of a post I wrote back in 2003. I’ve isolated it here
rather than replying in-thread because I don’t want to put any participants in
that thread back on the hook for a response. They’re welcome (along with anyone
else, of course) to reply as they see fit.
| |
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
|
And
here’s the news story, sort of a cross between #2 and #3.
It’s especially poignant because it’s unclear whether Scott announced himself or
gave the supposed “intruder” a chance to surrender. I suppose we can be glad
that he didn’t kill her, but was this really the best way to go about it?
| |
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 “Serenity” too much.
Okay, I’ll give you #7.
|
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: A shot in the dark
|
| (...) Well in this case the homeowner was definatly in the wrong. There can be no doubt that he shot without any warning, (otherwise his daughter would have made herself known to him) and thus he can't claim self defence, because he wasn't being (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
