Sunday, October 28, 2012

A Brief Reply....

 that must seem utterly irrational to a large segment of the population Which is disappointing. I thought the outcome rather appropriate.

 My comments on the matter:

1) If someone has forcibly entered my house, they've established their disregard for the law in breaking and entering. 

2) If someone has no regard for the law regarding breaking and entering, I must consider for my family's sake that there may be no regard for the law in respect to battery, assault, or homicide. 

3) My life and the lives of others have value to me; I will not risk them on behalf of someone who has displayed malicious intent, and has chosen to place himself at risk for illegal and unethical gain at a cost to me and mine. 

4) Some people are malicious, and no amount of hand-wringing and happy thoughts changes the fact that there will always be individuals who regard other people as things to be used and thrown away. I have no regrets when these people come to a bad end, as it's a lesser evil compared to what they would go on to do to others if not stopped.

One has to wonder, what kind of dysfunctional mental process is going on where a family doesn't really mind one of their own being a chancre on society's body, but has idea that they should confront the individuals who were wronged? These are the type of people that you definitely don't want to be near when civil order isn't being actively enforced.

 H/t to Days of Our Trailers, who seems to have the same opinion on this matter.


BobG said...

My personal attitude is that when someone gets killed breaking in, it should be ruled a suicide.

GreyLocke said...

This blurb in the story.

“I could replace anything in their house. They aren’t going to replace my brother,” he said.

They shouldn't HAVE to have anything replaced. The person's brother shouldn't have been in that house PERIOD Freaking DOT. That is the issue.