Although I wouldn't want to underestimate the level of violence this family was subjected to or prejudge the response of the jailed man in this or similar instances, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Proportional response should mean sufficient force to incapacite the the intruder. If in the process the perpetrator dies from an unexpected or unforseeable complication arising from such a proprtional response by the victim then this is grounds for leniency. However an attempt to go beyond incapacitation to actually a full red blooded attempt to kill the assailant is something that has to be weighed very carefully by a court of law for mitigating circumstances.
This is why we have laws and courts and legal systems; otherwise each person would be free to meet out his/her idea of justice to all and sundry without accounting to anyone but themselves

American culture is still completely caught up with its frontier myths of summary justice and rights gun ownership and this complicates the matter by tacitly encouraging vigillante style reactions that bypass the legal process and the rule of law. If America truly feels that the right to kill any person that intrudes on ones property whatever the circumstances or level of personal threat, then why does your legal system not reflect this? Could it be because the majority of people in the states actually feel this would be wrong?


Regards

Alan

Last edited by alan S.; 12/20/09 06:07 PM.