[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by rivaridger1

Exactly where is the line to be drawn ? What " Crime " deserves what reaction ? Remember we are addressing crime and deliberate conscious acts. Suppose an unarmed 250 pound man and walks up to 110 pound senior lady and say "Give me your purse ". Is it an over reaction if she is armed and shoots that individual ? He is unarmed and simply directed her to hand over her purse. What if you come home some night and burglars are carrying out your big screen and they ignore your direction to cease that activity ? Instead of your big screen, what if it is something you have worked hard all your life to obtain and it can not be replaced ? Please explain when any " criminal " appears to be " reaching for something " why you should not react accordingly. Please also explain why there is a difference in this circumstance between a shoplifter, mugger, rapist, arsonist, murderer, racketeer, etc. If the answer is, there should be no reaction to a " non-violent " crime, do not all " nonviolent crimes " have the potential to turn violent when the criminal is confronted ? Is the answer to never confront anyone committing a non-violent crime ? What a wonderful society we would enjoy in that event.

Sorry, but I agree with those who view it as an over-reaction. A good yardstick might be this: Would a police officer shoot and kill a diaper thief??? Would a police officer shoot and kill your big screen TV thief???? I don't think so.