I like the 'Castle Doctrine.'
Each time I read a story like this it leaves me scratching my head.
“I hear some people, some being police officers, some being Crown attorneys, some being ordinary people, say we don’t want vigilantism, to which I can only give an emphatic pardon me?” Mr. Burlew said. “When you’re under attack, it’s not a vigilante act. Vigilantism talks about vengeance and retribution. This is about saving your life and saving your property."
How is it vigilantism to protect one's property and life? And what the heck does using "reasonable" force even mean in the heat of the moment?
Squat.
Sometimes at night, I think about what I would do if someone tried to come in to my house. If I were to protect my family using what the state refers to as "excessive force," it would be me explaining myself to the cops.
Patently absurd.
To me it can't get any clearer or simpler: Enter another man's house unlawfully be prepared for the consequences. And that's where the law should end and begin. See how fast "home invasions" disappear. You think for one second punks wouldn't think twice knowing citizens are ready to fight back and with the law on their side?
Anyway. This guy shouldn't spend one day in jail. I don't buy the vigilante crap. He's not going out into society looking for trouble.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.