Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:47:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Mind boggling force

> 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).

   Jamie, I may misspell a word but at least I do not use the word
   "talk" when referring to something that someone *wrote*.  I would be
   impossible for me to "talk" on this list.  As for what I wrote, I did
   not write about moral rights, I wrote about laws that are not morally
   right.  The two are completely different.

> >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.

   I did not offer this right to only homeowners, I did not feel like
   listing umpteen categories.  And how do you know that an intruder will
   not rape Kerry's spouse?  What if her spouse was a female and the male
   criminal raped her, or if it was a female criminal all the criminal
   would have to do is insert her fingers into the spouse's vagina and that
   is rape.  If Kerry's spouse is a male he could be raped by a male, or
   sexually assaulted by a female.


> 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.

   You are avoiding the issue.  The issue is criminals who are in someone's
   home.
>
> >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?

   I tried to bring out the fact that most criminals are also drug users.
   While burglarizing a home the criminal could be "high" and the only
   force that would stop the criminal would be pratically deadly force.
   Most crimes today are drug related, so it has alot to do with it.
>
> >   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.

   I was not writing about driving in the fast lane, I was writing about
   criminals in the house Jamie.  Now why do you mention this "fast lane"
   stuff when it has nothing to do with criminals in one's home?

> (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).

   I think that this issue is silly because this type of case should be
   thrown out of court.  It is sad that these cases are adjucated.  To the
   homeowner it is not silly, or trivial.  These types of cases may be
   legal, but they are not just.

> >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.

   Liberal coddling:  "He isn't responsible, its the enviroment he was
   brought up in", "We need to rehabiltate" (only applies to some cases),
   "It's the 'system' that causes them to steal", parole for violent
   criminals, furloughs for rapists (poor guy needs a break from jail),
   college education, graduate school, cable tv, and so on for criminals
   paid by tax payers, temporary insanity, everything else in the world
   caused the person to commit the bad deed except a *personal* choice
   to do so.

> >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.

  What stereotype?  My comment was directed at "Liberals who want to coddle
  criminals, did I preceede the word "Liberal" with the word "all"?  I think
  not Jamie.  You jumped to conclusions, maybe it is you who is blinded by
  stereotypes that caused you not to read my post the way it was written, but
  the way you wanted to read it.

> Jamie

Carl"ie"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU