“The justice system isn’t really there to protect citizens from criminals. It’s there to protect criminals from citizens. And within limits that’s a good thing, but when you create a state of nature, you get a state of nature. And in the state of nature people absolutely do kill to protect their property from marauders.”
So the more lawless Democrats make places, it becomes more likely that ordinary people are going to take the law BACK into their own hands.
Always remember: we deputize the enforcement of law to the agents of the State. But should those agents, or their masters, refuse to enforce, maintain or protect the law, We The People have every right to take over that responsibility.
Life, liberty and property: they’re ours, and we are going to keep them. It’s a perfectly natural act, as Glenn says.
And if the the agents of the State — politicians, governors, district attorneys or the police — don’t much care for that eventuality, screw them.
My step father’s ( The Patent Lawyer) advice was, If you ever have to shoot an intruder, Wait until he’s at least 1/2 way in the house before you fire. If not, at least drag the body more than half way in before the police arrive.
” drag the body more than half way in before the police arrive.”
That’s funny, but I wouldn’t do it. They would probably be able to tell.
Yes, they probably would be able to tell — But would they care enough to make it a big deal? or would they rather just close the case? Depends on small town police or big city bureaucracy.
The key to this advice is the source. A patent attorney, not a criminal defense attorney.
As Will Rogers said once, there is nothing more ignorant than an educated man outside the subject of his education. And lawyers, once they are out of law school, are more narrowly specialized than medical specialists.
If you do drag thee body in, at the minimum, you could be facing charges of interfering with a crime scene unless you’re very well-connected. Even in Texas. In many places, you could be looking at manslaughter or murder charges. That is terrible advice.
Can you say tampering with evidence?
Yes, the police will be able to tell, and they will consider that a confession that you 1) killed when it wasn’t legally justified, and 2) KNEW it wasn’t legally justified.
I hear this all the time, and it is ALWAYS one of the more stupid ideas on the planed. No, no, no.
A story I heard from a retired cop: A Detroit store was burglarized again and again, until the shopkeeper finally put a cot in the back room and slept there with a shotgun by his side. When he called the police, the back door was broken and two career criminals were dead just inside. One was shot in the back, but that was OK; you need to choose your companions carefully, since when your buddy chooses to charge at a man with a shotgun, that shotgun isn’t going to discriminate and it’s too late to turn and run. Two criminal careers ended, and both looked like self-defense.
But then this cop stepped out the door for a look. There were bloodstains 10 feet down the alley, and drag marks from there to the door. The first one was self-defense, but chasing the other one down the alley and shooting him in the back is definitely murder. It was just too blatant to overlook. This being the 1960’s or 70’s, it was quite possible to be convicted of murder and out on parole in 5 to 10 years, but the shopkeeper was certainly going to do at least 5 years.
The retired cop sounded quite sorry that the shopkeeper had not been able to do a better clean up in the alley.
Can you say “tampering with evidence?”
Yes, the police will be able to tell, and they will consider that a confession that you 1) killed when it wasn’t legally justified, and 2) KNEW it wasn’t legally justified.
I hear this all the time, and it is ALWAYS one of the more stupid ideas on the planed. No, no, no.
we should treat property crime as something that we can prevent through the use of deadly force.
In order to buy something, you had to use your time to earn money in order to purchase the item. That time represents your life and our life on earth is finite. Stealing an item that you bought with your earned money represents time of your life used to earn money for the item. That is a part of your life that is stolen when the object is stolen. Sure items can be replaced but in order to replace the item, you have to spend another part of your life to earn enough to replace the item. That time spent replacing the item should be spent pursuing earnings to spend on other items.
Criminals obviously do not fear the police, prosecutors, judges, corrections officers, other prisoners, the parole system etc so if we expect criminals to stop committing crimes, we must make them fear the citizenry.
JQ
JQ
The key to delegation of power to agents, which is what the Constitution of the United States does, and the constitutions of the various states, is that the power to act remains in the principal (the people, in this case) even as it is delegated to the agent.
Off topic here (what else is new?), I think the fault with Constitutional law, as interpreted by the nine old politician/lawyers, is that a new subject of law has been invented instead of treating the Constitution as a contract and interpreting it under the precepts of Contract Law and Agency Law. The politician/lawyers would be more conservative in their pronouncements if they had the same precedential effect on ordinary people’s contracts as they do on the acts of the powerful top levels of government.
From that article:
(a friend of the shot criminal): “It was a car! All he had to do is call the police. … You don’t shoot someone out in the street over a car.”
==========
That person already believes they will not get shot simply for stealing a car. That idea must change and it will only do so when MORE stealing criminals get shot. Laws do not create morality but shooters can change their minds.