Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:55:14 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Using deadly force against dead horses

Carl has just posted an unusually long message. I will
have a hard time responding thoroughly without reproducing
huge portions of it, but I doubt the list would smile
on yet another 240 line posting, so I'm going to try.

[Now that it's done, I see that it's 144 lines. Oh well.]

From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>


  I still see a difference between the two, let me clarify myself.  All
  laws are not just, or shall I *say*, according to Jamie we can talk on
  this list, that not all laws result in just outcomes?  That might not
  really clarify this matter, how about this; when the laws are executed
  the criminals are sometimes victorious over their victims and to most
  people this is unjust.

I don't follow the second sentence. In the first sentence, Carl
means to contrast the claim that we have certain rights with the
claim that certain laws are not right. I already agreed that these
are different, but I said they are not ALL that different.

I certainly agree that some laws are unjust. One way for a law
to be unjust is for it to violate someone's rights. There are
other ways, but probably American political culture takes the
violation of rights to be the chief way that a law can be wrong.

Let me once again remind readers of Carl's original claim:

> >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.

He has now provided a gloss:

     Jamie, exxxcuuuuse me!  Hmmm.  I guess then that I should have
     written that I think that homeowners should have the legal right
     to stop intruders from conducting illegal activities in their home.

Indeed. Specifically, by killing the intruders.


    You are right, one does not KNOW if a given person is going
    to harm him/her and his/her family.  Yet, when a criminal is
    illegally in your home and wielding a weapon the chances for
    potential harm is great.  The issue is not simply about killing
    the intruder.  It is about using force to prevent an intruder from
    causing harm and if the situation warrants it killing them.  I did
    not advocate killing someone for picking up silverware.  You seem to
    think that I advocate killing a criminal in the home regardless of
    his actions.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I did think that's what you were advocating.

The claim that a homeowner, or anyone else for that matter, should
be allowed to use force if the situation warrants it is pretty
safe. The question is, which situations warrant it?

Carl adds to the scenario that the intruder is wielding a weapon.
That part wasn't in there before. Remember, I have agreed, quite
a while ago, that citizens are justified in using force, even
deadly force if that's the only kind available, to protect
their lives or their persons. Indeed, as far as I can tell,
it is currently legal to do so, under laws of self-defense.

What troubled me was the idea that someone might use deadly
force to protect his or her property. Even then, I have agreed
that it might sometimes be justifiable (though not legal, as
I understand it).

   I do not have my little fact book handy, but most crimes today are
   drug related.  The world is round Jamie but I do not have any articles
   to cite, want proof?

The shape of the earth is not in dispute. But your claims about
drug use are. I will take it that you have no evidence for the
claims. So, I take them with a grain of salt.

> 2. Please give evidence that the only way to stop a drug user
>    is with deadly force.

   I did not write that deadly force is the only way to stop a drug
   user.  What I wrote is that some drug users are so high when
   committing a crime that sometimes the only way to stop them is
   to almost kill them.

Sometimes deadly force is the only way to stop an intruder. I don't
think drug use has much of anything to do with it.

   And you ridicule me?  I must have not read the "fast lane"
   example thoroughly to pick up all the info you just gave in the
   last paragraph.  I thought you were just trying to be funny.
   Sorry for not reading so much into that "fast lane" bit Jamie.

I assumed that the point of my analogy would be obvious. Apparently
I assumed too much. In any case, it has now been explained.


  Yes I did use the word "Liberal" and I meant liberals who coddle
  criminals.  A conservative would not be soft on criminals or crime.
  By the way, few people are liberal, or conservative, on every issue.
  Most people will be a liberal on some issues and a conservative on
  others.  So maybe I should have used the word "people" instead of
  "Liberals".

I contest the claim that Liberals are softer on crime or coddle
criminals more than Conservatives do. I said that Carl was
indulging in a nasty stereotype. If he now wants to use the
word "people" instead, I have no objection. But I think it has
become unclear what point he was trying to make.

    Perhaps I should explain that my post was not my treatise on
    deadly force. It was merely a response that was off the cuff.
    Many times after thinking something through one may form different
    points of view, but I had to defend what I wrote because that
    is what Jamie attacked.

Not at all. If, after thinking it through, you have changed your
mind, you need only say so. There is certainly no need to defend
a claim you regret making, or that you no longer endorse.

Let me add that as far as I am concerned, by taking your
posting seriously enough to reply to it, to object to it,
I was paying you a compliment. Apparently you don't think so.

>I probably will continue to react and post without first giving
>an issue too much thought and I will not give up time on my home to find
>citations for Jamie.

I will probably continue to challenge claims that Carl makes
"off the cuff" especially when I think they are outrageous or
pernicious. When it emerges that he has no evidence, reasons,
or arguments (which is what he seems to mean by "citations"),
I will not be too surprised. In my opinion, claims such as
the ones that began this exchange deserve to be challenged.

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