Amusing, and illustrates precisely the false logic used to undermine gun-control. The question is not, would the dead woman be alive if she'd had a gun (my own view is that 80% of the time, she probably wouldn't have had time to pull the gun and shoot it), but, was the dead man really a rapist?
Furthermore, if the maximum penalty for rape is (say) lifetime in prison, what gives a woman the right to summarily execute men she is afraid of, or over-possessive fathers the right to murder kids whom they suspect of taking advantage of their innocent daughters?
Everyone should have a right to defend themselves from an attacker!
When love beckons to you, follow him,Though his ways are hard and steep. And when his wings enfold you yield to him, Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound thee
KAHLIL GIBRAN, The Prophet
True. But the right to use lethal force can only be granted in very limited circumstances. It must be limited to circumstances where the killer can show s/he was facing certain death him/herself. Otherwise, if s/he would rather kill than take the chance, then s/he deserves everything the judiciary can throw at him/her.
So what you're saying is that the only possible reason to kill someone is because you are absolutely positive they are going to kill you? That's absurd! Until they actually fire the weapon there's no possible way to know your attacker's intentions. Is that man coming at you with a knife to kill you? Or just to cut your face up? Or maybe just to frighten you? How can you know until the knife is buried in your chest?
No, in the US, at least, everyone has the right to defend himself and his property at all times, even if it means the death of an attacker. There are limits, certainly, but a general rule of thumb is that the criminal is responsible for all actions occurring during the commission of a crime. The victim, or a good Samaritan coming to the victim's aid, cannot be held liable if the criminal is killed.
And the threat of violence is enough. There is no possible way to expect a victim to accept rapes, beatings, serious injuries, anything short of death, without defending herself to the max. And one thing is certain: a dead rapist is never going to be a repeat offender.
And for the record, any convicted rapist, or home invader, or mugger, is likely to leave prison long before the emotional damage done to his victims has passed. Those who survive, at least.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
No, not absolutely positive and if I used those words (I don't think I did) then I withdraw them. Reasonably certain is, I believe, the criterion most legal systems apply. Consider post 121 above. Suppose man walks towards me in a manner I consider threatening, openly wearing a gun in a holster. How is that different from the man with the knife you describe? Am I entitled to kill DuncanO'Neill in case he wants to shoot me, or should I wait until I am sure he intends to? He might simply be exercising his right to bear arms, and have an unfortunate look in his eye.
I am not trying to take away the right of self defence, I am trying to place limits around it so that the intended victim can protect him/herself without committing a worse act than the attacker. I perceive that to be a very real danger, and I read a desire for just that in your posts and those of others.
I agree that a dead rapist is never going to be a repeat offender:that's a trite truism. But a dead passer-by is never going to be able to do anything ever again, is s/he? Ever! That's why anyone who contemplates using "ultimate force" under any circumstances must accept the consequences of his/her actions, and if that force is misapplied, that person must pay a very heavy penalty indeed ... the same penalty as any other murderer would face.
(I believe murder would be the appropriate charge, rather than a lesser one of (say) manslaughter, because anyone who carries a weapon knows it is a lethal instrument, designed to kill and with no other purpose. They must realise that if it is used, death is likely to result: killing is clearly within that person's contemplation before the event.)
Reasonable certainty is certainly ... reasonable. I have no argument with that. But who gets to define "reasonable"? The intended victim (turned killer) or the criminal's family?
A holstered weapon, while it might make you uncomfortable, would not in and of itself be threatening. It will make you more aware of the person, though, which isn't a bad thing either. The man with the knife I described was in fact threatening. My scenario was intended to imply that he was displaying the knife in a threatening, aggressive manner, such as pointed at you, or slashing in your direction. I would consider that to be threatening, with reasonable certainty.Consider post 121 above. Suppose man walks towards me in a manner I consider threatening, openly wearing a gun in a holster. How is that different from the man with the knife you describe?
Fortunately, the look in someone's eye cannot be considered grounds for self defense. Unless he actually draws his weapon, or strikes you even without the weapon, his actions cannot be considered threatening. Unnerving perhaps, but not threatening.Am I entitled to kill DuncanO'Neill in case he wants to shoot me, or should I wait until I am sure he intends to? He might simply be exercising his right to bear arms, and have an unfortunate look in his eye.
I don't intend to imply any such desire myself. I would be quite content to go through life without having to deal with such a situation. But just because an attacker isn't armed doesn't mean he can't, or won't, kill you. Self defense means protecting yourself, as much as is necessary. Naturally, if someone attacks you and you shoot him in the arm and he then runs away, continuing to fire on him until he's dead would be criminal. But shooting him until he stops attacking is justified.I am not trying to take away the right of self defence, I am trying to place limits around it so that the intended victim can protect him/herself without committing a worse act than the attacker. I perceive that to be a very real danger, and I read a desire for just that in your posts and those of others.
I agree with you. Even in the act of self defense we have to be held responsible for our actions. That's why I think mandatory training, real training not just lip service, should be a requirement. And why I think any shooting, whether self defense or not, should be fully investigated.But a dead passer-by is never going to be able to do anything ever again, is s/he? Ever! That's why anyone who contemplates using "ultimate force" under any circumstances must accept the consequences of his/her actions, and if that force is misapplied, that person must pay a very heavy penalty indeed ... the same penalty as any other murderer would face.
And again, I disagree. While any weapon can be lethal, even a baseball bat, carrying that weapon does not necessary show a desire or willingness to kill. It only shows a desire for self defense. If threatening my attacker with the weapon suffices in driving him off, I'd be quite happy not to have fired a shot. Bullets cost money, you know!(I believe murder would be the appropriate charge, rather than a lesser one of (say) manslaughter, because anyone who carries a weapon knows it is a lethal instrument, designed to kill and with no other purpose. They must realise that if it is used, death is likely to result: killing is clearly within that person's contemplation before the event.)
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The COURTS decide, obviously. I'm sure US judges have examined this question quite thoroughly, and I expect they have reached conclusions similar to British judges. I believe it involves deciding whether an ordinary person of normal fortitude would aprehend death in similar circumstances. Of course, we rely upon the sitting judge to make that decision. Fortunatley, they are trained to do so.
I agree your knife man is more threatening than my gun carrier, who would probably not make me fear for my life. But there is a line to be drawn, and I believe it must be drawn earlier than you appear to.
How many Americans do go through life that way? I know that the vast majority of Brits do, in an apparrently much more violent country.I would be quite content to go through life without having to deal with such a situation.
That is why the law follows the doctrine of proportionate force. And it is why I deplore and despise the American authorites' encouragement (for that's what it is) to use lethal force as a first resort and to protect property (see den's post above).But just because an attacker isn't armed doesn't mean he can't, or won't, kill you. Self defense means protecting yourself, as much as is necessary. Naturally, if someone attacks you and you shoot him in the arm and he then runs away, continuing to fire on him until he's dead would be criminal. But shooting him until he stops attacking is justified.
Carrying a weapon if you know the chances of being attacked are high (greater than even, I suggest) could be argued for - but so could avoiding the situation completely. But carrying a lethal weapon against the remote chance (less than even) is much harder to justify, especially when avoiding the situation is still an option. That's not truly self-defence, it's suppressed agression. It's saying, "If you do anything to upset me, I'm going to kill you"
(If the weapon is concealed, the carrier's attitude is the same, but no warning is given.)
The law on the use of lethal force is quite clear. "In the United States, a civilian may legally use deadly force when it is considered justifiable homicide, that is to say when the civilian feels their own life, or the lives of their family or those around them are in legitimate and imminent danger."
To require a person to prove that had they not taken action would have been killed it tantamount to being asked to prove a negative.
Most all of the following I got from Wikki:
Its just FYI.
In the United States, carrying a concealed weapon (CCW, also known as concealed carry) is the legal authorization for private citizens to carry a handgun or other weapons in public in a concealed manner, either on the person or in close proximity to the person. The choice of permitted weapons depends on the state; some states restrict the weapons to a single handgun, whereas others permit multiple handguns or martial arts weapons to be carried.
Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) is a more generalized term. Various states give different terms for licenses or permits to carry a concealed firearm, such as a Concealed Handgun License/Permit (CHL/CHP), Concealed (Defensive/Deadly) Weapon Permit/License (CDWL/CWP/CWL), Concealed Carry Permit/License (CCP/CCL), License To Carry (Firearms) (LTC/LTCF), Carry of Concealed Deadly Weapon license (CCDW), and similar, with at least one exception, Tennessee, which issues a "Handgun Carry Permit," since state law does not require a person with a permit to carry the handgun concealed.
Although the current trend towards adopting concealed carry laws has been met with opposition, no state which has adopted a "Shall-Issue" concealed carry law has reversed its decision. As of February 2008[update], 48 US states allow some form of concealed carry (though 9 of them have discretionary "may-issue" policies, a few of these being effectively "no-issue" in practice) and all but 6 provide for some variant on non-concealed "open-carry". The states of Wisconsin, Illinois and the District of Columbia do not have any form of concealed-carry licensing; Wisconsin allows for open carry in most situations, while Illinois only allows it in rural areas subject to county restriction. The District of Columbia had a blanket ban on ownership, possession and carry of handguns in its jurisdiction which began in 1976; this was struck down June 26, 2008 by the United States Supreme Court.
Some states require concealed carry applicants to participate in a training course, which includes a classroom at a minimum. Depending on the state, a practical component during which the attendee shoots the weapon for the purpose of demonstrating safety and proficiency, may be required. Such courses are often completed in one to two days. The classroom topics typically include firearm mechanics and terminology, concealed carry legislation and limitations, liability issues, carry methods and safety, home defense, methods for managing and defusing confrontational situations, and practice of gun handling techniques without firing the weapon.
Most required CCW training courses devote a considerable amount of time to liability issues. Even when self-defense is justified there can be serious civil liabilities related to self-defense. For example, if innocent bystanders are hurt or killed there could be both civil and criminal liabilities even if the use of deadly force was completely justified. Some states also technically allow an assailant who is shot by a gun owner to bring civil action. However, a majority of states who allow concealed or open carry forbid suits being brought in such cases, either by barring lawsuits for damages resulting from a criminal act on the part of the plaintiff, or by granting the gun owner immunity from such a civil suit if it is found that he or she was justified in shooting.
Therefore, while state laws vary, generally use of deadly force is recommended as a last resort, when life or limb is endangered, when escape or retreat are foreclosed, and warnings are given but ignored. However, increased passage of "Castle Doctrine" laws allow persons who own firearms and/or carry them concealed to also use them to protect property, and/or to use them without first attempting to retreat.
During the range portion of the course the applicant typically learns and demonstrates safe handling and operation of a firearm and accurate shooting from common self-defense distances. Some states require a certain proficiency to receive a passing grade, whereas other states (e.g., Florida) technically require only a single-shot be fired to demonstrate handgun handling proficiency. Some states (e.g., Florida) recognize the safety and use-of-force training given to military personnel as acceptable. Such states will allow a military ID for active persons or DD214 for legally discharged persons in lieu of formal civilian training certification. Active and retired law enforcement officers are also generally exempt from qualification requirements, due to a federal statute permitting retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons in the United States.
"Opt-out" carry prohibition laws have been hotly contested. Opponents claim these statutes are not helpful in reducing criminal carry of firearms, as only lawfully-carrying individuals will disarm when on the property. It is also in fact harmful to otherwise lawfully-carrying individuals, as concealed-carry licensees who do not notice the sign are immediately in violation of a law, with a possible consequence of the revocation of their ability to carry concealed or to others who may decide to leave the firearm locked in their vehicle, increasing the chance that it will be stolen.
Opponents also point to recent school, mall, church and other public shootings in areas where the owner or State has prohibited concealed carry as evidence that criminals are in fact drawn to posted places, as the population of such a place is likely to be less armed than a place in which concealed carry is allowed.
When love beckons to you, follow him,Though his ways are hard and steep. And when his wings enfold you yield to him, Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound thee
KAHLIL GIBRAN, The Prophet
Thank-you, den. I accept the facts you have set out above. My only comment is in response to the section I have quoted, but it applies to the whole post.
In a sentence, the CCW laws are to me an incitement to violence as a first resort, not a last resort, and if that is the attitude of the authorities, then all of the "liability issues" are probably focused on avoiding penalties if you kill by mistake.
What does "training" include? Target practice? What about how to avoid confrontation?
Here is an example of the requirements to secure a CCW permit, selected at random.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5710000101.htm
If you wish to check out others then you need to use this site.
http://www.carryconcealed.net/
Just in the spirit of fair play; State Department Locations:
Attorney General
123 West Washington Ave.
PO Box 7857
Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857
Phone: 608-266-1221 Fax: 608-267-2779
Permit Costs & Info:
N/A
Click Here for CCW Permit Form
Open Carry Information:
Wisconsin is an open carry state. They have complete state preemption for firearms laws. However, you may not openly carry a firearm in a vehicle. http://opencarry.org/ Facts for my state.
Additonally:
The "turn the other cheek'/ satyagahra method of dealing with those who would harm us is unfortunatly only as effective as the compassion of the aggressor permits.
Which is probabely why actual statistics from the DOJ involving the resistance or a lack there of during the commission of a violent crime reflect that, one who resists with a gun is far more likely to survive an encounter unscathed compared to other forms of resistance by a ratio of 4 to 1 (martial arts, other types of weapons etc) or no-resistance at all by a ration of 2 to 1.
In other words, resistance with a gun has the best chance of survival over any other means.
When love beckons to you, follow him,Though his ways are hard and steep. And when his wings enfold you yield to him, Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound thee
KAHLIL GIBRAN, The Prophet
Good job, denuseri! A lot of good information.
This is something I've been saying for a long time. Nice to know that there are statistics to back me up. I'll have to check up on them.resistance with a gun has the best chance of survival over any other means.
This reinforces my comments about criminals being less active when they know there is a risk of armed resistance.Opponents also point to recent school, mall, church and other public shootings in areas where the owner or State has prohibited concealed carry as evidence that criminals are in fact drawn to posted places, as the population of such a place is likely to be less armed than a place in which concealed carry is allowed.
Thanks for the info!
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
It seems obvious that people who fear another person is armed will be less inclined to attack. The stats will prove nothing but the obvious. However, you surely want to move away from the Gun Law of the old frontiers, where the survivor was right and the dead man was in the wrong, don't you.
Only recently, I discovered that the UK is more violent than USA or South Africa. Yet there is no real demand here for the right to carry guns or other weapons in public, and if there were a referendum, I bet a pound to a penny that the vote would be against. In fact, it is against the law to carry any offensive weapon in public.
OK, we might get hit with a bat, or knifed, but we perceive the danger is far less here than American scaremongers such as the NRA whine about over there.
Last edited by MMI; 07-13-2010 at 05:29 PM.
No, of course not. As I have said, ALL such incidents must be investigated as crimes. But imprisoning the surviving victim for defending himself, even lethally, is not the answer, either.
What is considered an "offensive" weapon? A knife? What about a sword? Or a cricket bat?In fact, it is against the law to carry any offensive weapon in public.
And yet, by your own admission the crime rate in the UK is higher than here in the US. And some things I've read suggest that the incidence of gun crimes in the UK have been rising steadily since the gun ban went into effect. Can you confirm or deny this?OK, we might get hit with a bat, or knifed, but we perceive the danger is far less here than American scaremongers such as the NRA whine about over there.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
You know the first time I went to Japan and interacted with the people there. like anywhere else they asked where I came from. When I told them they would immediately put there hands up one behind the other with the lead hand index finger point out away from. they then swung this configuration back and forth accompanied by the vocalization rat-ta-tat-tat-tat. Giving the implication that they understood that drive-by machine-gunnings continued to occur in Chicago in spite of the fact that it was 1969.
You present the same kind of misunderstanding with comments like;
- you surely want to move away from the Gun Law of the old frontiers,
- perceive the danger is far less here than American scaremongers such as the NRA whine about over there.
Even the old frontiers were not as wild as is believed. And the NRA is not scaremongering. NRA Mission: To protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and to promote safe, responsible, and competent use of firearms.
Founded: In 1871, by a group of Union veterans of the American Civil War. The first NRA president was Ambrose Burnside; the eighth, Ulysses S. Grant. I was actually surprised to see that the organization is that old!
Thank's Thorne!
Just some tidbits I picked up after surviving a violent crime myself and deciding to get and maintain my own concealed carry lisence.
When love beckons to you, follow him,Though his ways are hard and steep. And when his wings enfold you yield to him, Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound thee
KAHLIL GIBRAN, The Prophet
I cannot give conclusive facts, and have no time to do the research. Perhaps someone else is better able to provide unbiased data for us. In yellow would be nice.
I did find this, from the Gun Control Network (I mistyped that as "Gin Control ... a whole other debate!) - which obviously has an agenda to pursue:
Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0
If we can't prevent gun crime, then perhaps gun control will reduce suicides and accidental deaths.
I could not help noticing the banner over its home page, which quoted Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology - University of Ottawa when he was giving evidence to the Cullen Inquiry in 1996: "Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".
I also came across the following random snippets:
Gun crime in London has doubled recently.
Most shootings involve young people and are for petty reasons (and are termed "respect" shootings).
Most gun crime takes place in poorer districts and is committed by less well-off people who have become disconnected from society
Most gun victims have convictions or are known to the police
Where a violent crime takes place and one or other of the people involved - victim or attacker - has a gun, death is likely to result.
Someone shot in the heart has a 20% chance of survival: someone knifed in the heart has a 70% chance of survival
In Britain anything that is capable of being used as a weapon, will be treated as a weapon, if the circumstances indicate that it will be used as such. Thus, a milkman carrying a bottle, or a mother carrying an umbrella is unlikely to be charged, but aggressive and posturing youths outside a pub on a Friday night carrying the same items are highly likely to be arrested.
Except you aren't advocating gun controls. You're looking for gun bans! A different subject altogether.
The key word in that quote is should. I wonder if that's true? From what you've been saying about the crime rates in England rising I tend to think that it's not."Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".
Despite a total ban on civilian gun ownership. Gee, why am I not surprised?I also came across the following random snippets:
Gun crime in London has doubled recently.
This isn't surprising either, given the modern "macho" culture perpetuated on the TV and movies.Most shootings involve young people and are for petty reasons (and are termed "respect" shootings).
Pretty common wherever you go. Those who don't have much tend to want more. And some will take it however they can.Most gun crime takes place in poorer districts and is committed by less well-off people who have become disconnected from society
This one surprised me at first, but after thinking about it, here in the US I think most gun crimes are gang and/or drug related, so it does make some sense.Most gun victims have convictions or are known to the police
Not surprising. Guns are intended to kill, not to wound.Where a violent crime takes place and one or other of the people involved - victim or attacker - has a gun, death is likely to result.
If you give the knife a good twist before yanking it out, it should cut down those odds considerably.Someone shot in the heart has a 20% chance of survival: someone knifed in the heart has a 70% chance of survival![]()
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I just looked at the numbers for 2008. In that year there were 14,180 murders and non-negligent homicides. Of these 67% or 9,500 were a result of firearms. There is even a problem with that term as that includes anything that throws a bullet, rifle, shotgun, whatever. This produces a rate of 3.08 per 100,000 (9,500/308,000,000 = X/100,000). That is down 30% from your 2001 figure.
However if I use my source to check your numbers the results are different. 2001 is 8664/307000000 = X/100000 or 2.82 per 100,000 meaning an increase of 9%.
Kind of hard for me to evaluate effectively but I can agree to an increase in crime for what I believe is the London Metro area. This site does show a substantial increase in personal crime.
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ia/atlas.html
Does not get very much more specific than that except that sexual crimes is a separate entry.
MPs May Be Forced To Vote On Death Penalty
MPs could be forced into a landmark vote on the restoration of the death penalty because of a new e-petitions scheme.
Commons leader Sir George Young has already said they should not ignore voters and shy away from debating the issue.
Sir George warned it would damage democracy to ignore strong opinions among members of the public "or pretend that their views do not exist".
He spoke out ahead of the publication of the first submissions to the new e-petitions scheme, which could see the most popular appeals discussed in Parliament.
Among the most prominent is one calling for legislation allowing child killers and those who murder on-duty police officers to face execution.
It has been presented by Paul Staines, who writes the libertarian Guido Fawkes blog, and has already been backed by several MPs.
If it is signed by the required 100,000 supporters or more, then the cross-party Backbench Business Committee will decide whether it will be debated.
Sir George played down fears about airing the subject - which was effectively abolished as a sentence for murder in the UK in 1965.
"The site has been widely welcomed as a realistic way to revitalise public engagement in Parliament," he wrote in the Daily Mail.
"But there have been some who have been concerned by some of the subjects which could end up being debated - for example, the restoration of capital punishment.
"The last time this was debated - during the passage of the Human Rights Act in 1998 - restoration was rejected by 158 votes.
"But, if lots of people want Parliament to do something which it rejects, then it is up to MPs to explain the reasons to their constituents. What else is Parliament for?
"People have strong opinions, and it does not serve democracy well if we ignore them or pretend that their views do not exist."
Conservative MP Priti Patel said such a debate was long overdue and that she favoured restoring capital punishment "for the most serious and significant crimes" - a position echoed by party colleague Andrew Turner.
Another Tory, Philip Davies, told the newspaper he would like to see all murders punishable by death.
.................................................. ....
I can only say that my voice must have been heard.
Be well IAN 2411
Give respect to gain respect
Then, by that logic, a person must be expected to lay down his life before parting with a penny's worth of property, because what you are saying is that property, no matter what it is worth, has greater value than life. That is precisely what I despise about laws and philosophies such as you have quoted.
I cannot imagine how grand a home must be to weigh heavier than the life of a person, however mean and humble he be.
But if I'm wrong, hell - let's go and shoot some 11 year-old shop-lifters pinching sweeties. A pound of humbugs is more valuable than a couple of naughty rascals.
No-one is a criminal until convicted, and until then, everyone has the same rights. If a person injures himself in the commission of a crime, that is one thing, but if he is unlawfully injured, that is entirely another.
No, I'm not. I distinguish between the value of innocent life and that of a criminal engaged in the commission of a crime. I don't expect anyone to sacrifice their own life defending property - whether fighting crime or fires - but I'm more than happy to see criminals' actions backfire on them badly.
No, by definition you are a criminal when you are committing a crime, whether you are convicted of it or not - and the core of our disagreement lies in the line above: you apparently distinguish between a criminal injuring himself and another person causing that injury, while I distinguish between that criminal and innocent bystanders or victims. If you steal a car, crash it and die, does it matter whether you crashed it because you were high or drunk, the car was faulty or it had been booby-trapped as a Darwinian security measure?No-one is a criminal until convicted, and until then, everyone has the same rights. If a person injures himself in the commission of a crime, that is one thing, but if he is unlawfully injured, that is entirely another.
I cannot see how the dreadful law you quoted, which allows a person to execute a robber (not a killer) trying to escape with some property by shooting him in the back, enables that person (the killer) to say, the robbery backfired! The robbery would have backfired if the thief left empty-handed, or got caught up in a gun-fight, or if he shot himself by accident, but for a property-owner to shoot a man on the run, and who is no threat, is nothing less than a deliberate killing carried out in cold blood and without fear for one's own life. That law licences murder ... provided it is done at night time. Why night time? Perhaps the lawmaker realised the shamefulness of the wicked act it was legitimising. Or perhaps it is designed only to protect cowards.
Give me Sharia Law. At least an Imman has to decide the man's guilt according to some sort of process.
If you are a criminal who has not been convicted, you will not be punished, and therefore unconvicted criminals are irrelevant to this discussion. If you are convicted by due process of law, you deserve whatever the law decrees. If you have not been convicted, no-one, high or low, has the right to exact retribution. That right disappeared in the Dark Ages. Or was it the Stone Age?
To my mind, whoever framed that law was advocating Gun Law and anarchy. Maybe he was about to start a vendetta against the poor or the immigrants or something. Or maybe he was a psychopath who wanted to stay on the right side of the law.
I still cannot balance the equation Property = Life, so, in answer to your final question, yes it does matter. If I crash a stolen car and die through my own fault, or because I am drunk, that is an unfortunate accident that prevents justice running its course. If I die because the car is booby-trapped, then the owner will have murdered me. He will have contemplated a situation where an unauthorised person sits in the car and he will then have taken steps to kill that person: intention and act.
Only the obnoxious, retrograde law you have praised so highly can protect him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)