Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21
It's actually even more restrictive than that. Actually, only in very few states can you actually shoot someone solely on the basis that they have broken into your house. The reasoning is that the right to property is inferior to the right to life. Therefore, (and I know this seems F'd up) a very large majority of states would find that the intruder's right to life supersedes your right to protect your property.
|
Actually, that doesn't sound as screwed up as you think. Going by the assumption that the right to life wins over right of property, then it makes perfect sense. One great example is the guy that the LA police cornered on the freeway today. The police could have easily shot the guy to death for committing a crime, but instead, they took every precaution to ensure that not only would innocent citizens be safe, but that the cops would be relatively safe and that the guy running from the police would be unharmed.
Of course I don't know how it all turned out, but you don't shoot somebody for stealing something from you.