Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:09:02 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Mind boggling force

Note that I do not attribute Carl's views to all Christians.

>From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
>
>Politicos,
>   I've been silent for too long, some may think not long enough (Jimbo),
>and this issue is one issue that boggles my mind.  If someone is in your
>house and the person is there to steal, rape, or kill, I think that a
>citizen has the right to stop the person from carrying out the illegal
>activities.

Let's be clear about this. Carl is not talking about legal rights.
He is talking about moral rights. So we know that not all Christians
share his view, because some Christians believe we have no moral
rights (except the right to love god).

>THis would include deadly force.  How is a homeowner to know
>that the person breaking in to steal is not also going to rape thier
>spouse?

Note that Carl has offered the right to use deadly force only
to homeowners. Kerry K, you now qualify. Jimbo, you don't. Sorry.
Actually, Kerry might not qualify, since she knows that an intruder
in her house is not going to rape her spouse.

How is a homeowner to know? Got me. How do I know that Carl does
not plan to steal my favorite t-shirt, the one that Dave gave me?
I guess I don't. So perhaps I have the right to use deadly force
against Carl, if only I can find him.

>Should one wait until the spouse is mounted, violated, or the
>person is done?

Generally speaking, as a LEGAL matter, before using deadly force
one must wait until a reasonable person would conclude that s/he
is in imminent personal danger. Also, one must reasonably believe
that one cannot escape. I don't know whether some extension of
self-defense applies when one's spouse is in danger; my gut feeling
is that it does.

>How does a homeowner know that the burglar isn't high on
>drugs and just trying to stop them would be impossible short of killing
>the burglar?

Has the homeowner tried calling the police? What exactly do drugs
have to do with anything?

>   The current laws may be leagal, but they are not moral.

In case there was any question of what kinds of rights Carl is
talking about. (And let's play along and pretend that Carl actually
knows what the current laws are.)

>This issue
>is another example of people trying to remove the responsibility for
>wrong doing from the wrong doers.

What? How is THAT the issue? Carl raises this issue often when
it seems to have nothing to do with the question at hand.
The issue is whether a person is justified in using DEADLY force
to respond to various kinds of threats. Presumably, all of us
agree that SOME kinds of threats are NOT appropriately resoponded
to by deadly force. If someone cuts me off in the fast lane of
I 95, I shouldn't be legally permitted to blow her head off.
(How do I know she doesn't intend to splash acid all over my
children? My poor, defenseless, children? I don't have time
to make this judgement, and I'm probably very angry....)

>Even more silly is the issue that
>criminals can sue a homeowner if they trip on a rug.  This is absurd!

Indeed. So glad you raised it. We rely on Carl to raise the silliest
issues that anyone can think of. Let's appoint him Czar of the Absurd
(unless brni wants the job).

>Is
>this the type of justice that the average person wants? No!  But it is the
>justice given to us by Liberals who want to coddle the criminals.

Good job, Carl. We haven't had anyone accuse "Liberals" of coddling
since Jay left. Now, I assume, in his tradition, you will refuse
to provide any evidence that "Liberals" are guilty of the crime
of which you would convict them. God bless America. Or help us.

>To all
>those Liberals I write, "If a criminal comes in and rapes your spouse, or
>you, and leaves and slips on the floor and breaks their arm and sues the
>hell out of you, don't complain.  Just make excuses for the poor bastard."

To all those Carls I write: "If someone accuses all Christians of
holding some idiotic view, don't complain. Just accept the generalization
without evidence."

Way to go, Carl. Without someone to reinforce our stereotypes, they
might tend to succumb to pressure from reality.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU