Actually Texas is among the states which do allow the use of deadly force to
protect personal property. Partly that stems from an Old West code that
recognized that theft of certain personal property - a horse, etc. - was
tantamount to endangering the victim's life as well, by leaving him stranded
in a hostile environment.
Modern logic - which statistics bear out - is that criminal behavior is too
unpredictable to assume that they will be content to take one's property and
not one's life. It is an unfortunate trait of the American criminal that he
is all to willing to kill without provocation. One reason is because of the
status it earns him when he is eventually caught and imprisoned - if he's
killed on the outside, he's less likely to need to kill on the inside to
prove himself.
If anything can be legitimately criticized about the American system, it is
not the 2nd Amendment, but an increasingly corporatized prison system that
needs a steady diet of warm bodies - especially non-white bodies - readily
fed to it by a corrupt justice system.
Whoo! Talk about inviting digression.
Lex
===
From: Wm Biesele <biesele@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:46:54 -0600
It's not just a pacifist that should do that, it's the law. The use of
deadly force
is covered under some very specific laws and precedents none of which
allow deadly force to protect personal property...
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|