no that is about the opposite of what i said (or meant to say) As i re-read this I still don't see how you get that out of my statment.
I was commenting on previous posts where there is a constant drone of "You think they are a thief" I believe that the law does not protect you for shooting someone you simply suspect of theft.
Given that our legal system presumes innocence (that is to say, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty), that means that this law is not workable as it stands. Because people are always only suspected of a crime until proven guilty under the law.
It only protects you if the person is known to be a theif.
And how can they be known to be a thief before they're even tried for theft? Given that the Constitution guarantees the right of a person to be tried in a court for both criminal and civil affairs, and the legal presumption of innocence, this law is very probably unconstitutional, since it allows a person to legally murder
another person over a matter of theft before the person is even apprehended, never mind tried.
You better be dam sure you are shooting a guilty person.
In my opinion, even if the person you shot and killed did steal something from you, you're still guilty of murder, and you still deserve to be punished for it - not let off the hook because you shot a thief.
to the people who support the property is more important than life argument, why do armored car companies have armed personnel. It is only property, if someone attempts to steal it you should simply turn it over and odds are that you wont be killed. Especially if we make a standard practice of not resisting. A 3,000,000 armored car robbery from xyz bank is probably akin to 30 dollar radio theft is to me.
[sarcasm] I propose we disarm armored car personnel and make a general statement to the press that we will not ever use deadly force to protect cash shipments. This will insure that no thiefs are killed robbing them of their right to life??????[/sarcasm]
Can it with the strawmen, epidemic. We aren't talking about armored car companies, nor are we talking about grand theft. We're talking about petty theft - stealing something that's not very valuable (usually, less than $500). So, it doesn't matter if you consider robbing $3 million from a bank to be the same as stealing a $30 radio - the fact of the matter is that we don't define theft based on how much money someone has. We define it based on the value of what is being stolen.
Petty theft is a misdemeanor, but murder (even when it's in defense of something) is always a felony. So your argument is that it's okay for someone to commit a felony - and be let off the hook for it, no less - in defense of something that would at best result in a misdemeanor criminal charge against that person.