Re: The Saga Of Joe Horn: Texas Man Cleared In Shotgun Shootings

On Jul 17, 9:56=A0pm, "Ed Stasiak" <estas...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Tiglath
> >> Ed Stasiak
>
> >> I don't have any problem with this at all, the criminals
> >> were committing a pretty serious offence and refused
> >> to stop and wait for the cops to arrest them when
> >> Joe Horn pointed a shotgun at them.
>
> > Would you shoot to kill in the back thieves who were running
> > away with your laptop if they refused to stop?
>
> I wouldn't, because I wouldn't want to get in trouble with the
> law but that's my point, I _shouldn't_ be in trouble with the
> law if it is proven that the criminals were stealing my laptop
> when I shot them.
>
> I worked damm hard for my stuff and the legal system should
> bend over backwards to protect law abiding, tax paying citizens
> who are protecting their property (and possibly their life).
>
> Otherwise, we'll end up like the UK;

This sounds like the fallacy of the excluded middle, it's either like
wild Texas, or utterly stupid UK.

THERE IS a middle where to strike a balance.

I strongly disagree that people should have the right to use deadly
force to protect non-vital property.

That's what insurance companies are for if you can't bear taking some
property loss in stride.

Have you ever killed anyone?   If you ever are free to exercise the
right you desire and are unlucky enough to kill someone to preserve
some replaceable property and you are not charged, do not assume you
will be penalty free.

If you've been in war and killed lots of people it may be different,
the scar tissue is already there.