Given a conflict between a criminal who is willfully attempting to violate another person's rights, to deprive someone of his rightful property or to unjustly cause harm to another; I think the balance should be strongly in the victim's favor with regard to how much force the victim is allowed to use to defend himself and his property. It's not to much that property is more valuable than anyone's life, as it is that the right of an intended victim not to have his property stolen or his person harmed is greater than the criminal's right to steal that property or harm that person, to a sufficient degree as to justify what would otherwise be a disproportionate use of force to prevent the crime.
It is the criminal who chose to create the situation where this conflict occurs, and I see no reason why the intended victim should be compelled to bear any adverse consequences in order to protect the criminal from bearing greater adverse consequences.
If you don't want to be shot, then it's best not to commit a crime that would give anyone a good reason to shoot you. This choice is on the criminal, not on the intended victim.
Last edited by Bob Blaylock; 06-07-13 at 05:36 PM. Reason: A man without a forklift is nothing. May the Forks be with you.
The five great lies of the
We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.
it' a good law.... it wasn't applied very well in this particular case though.
If you are stolen from, killing them as a way to stop the theft and for no other reason is too far.
If you pick a fight and get your ass kicked (Zimmerman), killing them is too far.