“See? Violence does not solve anything…unless it is us stealing your stuff and setting fires to your property which you should not defend because life is important, well our lives, fuck you.”
That is not gonna work, Skippy.
By Miguel.GFZ
Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.
3 thoughts on “Official immunity document for rioting”
Comments are closed.
Justice for Floyd.
Let’s see. Fired officers? Check Charges filed against the cops? Check
Random looting, violence, destruction? Check.
Seems like justice has been served. What more does he want?
I had an online conversation with someone about this recently.
Their statements:
—
Breaking in where you are and the threat of starting fire where you are, seems to meet the ‘test’ for acceptable use lethal force. No problem with that. You are under direct threat.
Destroying your livelihood hasn’t been part of the law, except in the circumstance I mentioned. Should it be?
Folks are confounding being under threat in a business from simple theft. If you are in the building and folks break in different from being outside your store and shooting people.
There is also the long term social impact of using lethal force with abandon as in the burning of the precinct.
Folks don’t like to think about such.
—
my reply:
—
As a matter of fact, yes. I wholly reject the concept and notion that I (or anyone else) can be made “whole” from even a simple theft. I have SACRIFICED to achieve what I have and what I am. My time, my money, my LIFE, has been spent doing to obtain that which defines my quality of my life. The removal of any portion of such can never truly be replaced or repaired, as even in the most simplistic terms a portion of my invaluable and irreplaceable time on this planet is lost. I do not have a spare moment to sacrifice to the false altar of “you can be made whole.” “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his actions with his life.” — Robert. A. Heinlein. So if someone(s) choose to endanger my livelihood, which is an extension of my LIFE’S WORK, then yes I feel they should suffer potentially the ultimate consequences of their choice.
So in the direct answer to the question that you posed “Should it be?” A more profound and emphatic YES I cannot express.
With regards to your consideration of “long term social impact” consideration, I would like to comment that the opposite of lethal force has been used in the past decade, and I see the situation as getting exponentially worse each time one of these events occurs. So yes, I have thought about such.
Should lethal force be legal in defense of property? I agree, yes it should be, as indeed it was in times past.
FWIW, in NH the law is quite explicit that lethal force is justified to prevent arson. That is specifically called out in the section talking about “premises” — it doesn’t just mean arson that directly threatens human life. (https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/2015/title-lxii/chapter-627/section-627-7/)