- Joined
- Jul 9, 2008
- Messages
- 30,277
- Reaction score
- 17,796
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
But he poo pooed the vileness of destroying property. He would still be an apologist for these riots.
Wish I could find the link to one of the recent riots were every store was looted - but one. The convenience store "owned by Koreans." They were standing visibly holding shotguns refusing to flee from or abandon their store.
Maybe, but the riots work against the "Dream" he had of racial equality.But he poo pooed the vileness of destroying property. He would still be an apologist for these riots.
Depends on the State, not all have the same interpretations of right to kill over property law. Now being in harms way is another matter, but one could argue going to a store with your family during a riot is not exactly for the best intentions.
See, this is where theory and practice sometimes diverge.
In theory, yes, you are correct.
In practice? Good luck finding a jury willing to convict a man under the circumstances outlined in OP.
The man would walk in all 50 states
The police pull out, eliminating all police protection and essentially eliminating the rule of law.
Looters are breaking into a store owner's store. Insurance will not cover the lose. If the owner loses his inventory, he and his family become homeless, bankrupt and completely financially ruined. His wife will no longer be able to continue cancer treatment, for which lose of inventory is a death sentence for her. Daughter will have to drop out of college. The family will be on the street begging for food until food stamps are given and they find a homeless shelter.
Can the store owner use deadly force (such as a firearm) to protect his merchandise? Or he is required to lose everything he has, all efforts lost, future obliterated, watch his wife die, and his child's education ruined?
What do you say?