Quote:
Originally Posted by buggyone
So, as I understand it, Katz and CMANN would kill someone to protect a valuable piece of property even if their life was not threatened. An unarmed burglar breaks into your home and takes Grandma's diamond ring she brought to the US in 1919. The burglar makes noise on the way out of the house; you hear him and grab the .44 Magnum pistol; spot the open jewelry box; see the burglar outside the house going to his car; you raise the .44 Magnum and cap a few rounds into him as he is entering his car.
Right or wrong?
|
Buzzer goes off, you do not pass go, you do not collect $200, go directly to jail. Your life is not in danger therefore you have no right to take his life.
Now if he turns and points something at you, points whatever, and you think it is a firearm and you shoot him in the chest, pat on the back, community service ribbon, hero of the day award.
There is a thing called the "reasonable man rule." To be PC it should be called the "rreasonable person rule" so that we cover the ladies also.
Now if you catch him coming into your house, after breaking a window or door down and cap "he's butt" then you most likely are in the clear, as again in the "reasonable man rule" you really didn't have any idea what his intentions were or are and he most certainly is not an invited guest.
Do some research on the 10 Commandments and the one that states:
"Thou shall not kill" is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew. The actual translation is:
"Thou shall not murder."
Really a big difference in meaning. It is a God given right to protect your life and those of your loved ones or neighbors from getting maimed or murdered. Therefore, if your life or your loved ones are not in danger and you "cap his a**" have fun living on the state dime for a few years.