I recently had a debate with a liberal over the merits of shooting home intruders. The context was the 80-year-old California man who shot robbers as they were fleeing his home. During this incident, the intruders - a man and a woman - beat the man, causing a couple broken bones and other injuries. However, once he grabbed his gun, they fled. He shot them anyway. The liberal argued that 1. home intrusion/theft should not be met by force unless the intruder breaks in at a time during which the homeowner is obviously home (which met his definition of force), and 2. if the burglars flee, they are no longer a threat and therefore force should not be used against them (even in the case of having beaten the man). I argued that any home intrusion can and should be met by force as the intruder is the aggressor and is violating/intruding upon your private property. Fleeing the home does not negate that act of aggression, so long as they are on your property. Thoughts?
Posted on: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:00:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015