Subtitled: Memphis Moonbats Moan
"Under Tennessee's self-defense statute, a person in a home is justified in using force, sometimes deadly, to stop an intruder because there is a presumption that the assailant is intent on harming anyone inside the house.
We don't disagree. But the proposed law is unnecessary and there's a bigger public issue involved. First, district attorneys general have prosecutorial discretion whether to charge or not charge someone in an alleged self-defense incident, and state law gives people the right to protect themselves if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death or bodily harm.
Second, when a law encourages people to use deadly force in a public arena, is that really for the public good? Bullets can't differentiate between a criminal and an innocent bystander. What happens if someone is shot while approaching a vehicle to seek help or to tell the driver her gas tank cover is open? Do we, as a society, want laws on the books that make people judge, jury and executioner?"
HELLS YES we want 'em! And but of course bullets are discriminating. How else could you account for the fact that out of the MILLIONS of encounters yearly between criminals and an armed populace there don't seem to be very many innocent bystanders mowed down? WE are not the police who arrive in strength and pepper the neighborhood with spray and pray because we don't gotta pay.
And listen, loons; anyone who commits a violent criminal act surrenders his or right to appear before any other judge, jury or executioner besides the armed civilian who is getting the job done quite nicely and thank you very much.
Grow some stones. We're here, we hold our lives dear, and are known to pack some whoop-ass gear.
Get over it.
No comments:
Post a Comment