Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
I'm not in favour of "deadly violence" to defend property.
Just "enough violence" to protect stuff.
The "WHO" in your world view who get to use "enough violence" to "protect stuff" that is not their own are any random person? Am I reading you correctly? And if "enough violence" to stop it requires "deadly violence" you are saying that is ok?
Using my example above, you have a heated rivalry in football, as many are. After a very controversial loss, hundreds of fans of the losing team flood the field, and in a rage start to tear down the end zone uprights.
The police cordon the area but do not try to stop the mob.
Citizens in the crowd, many armed legally, and supporters of the home team, see this as an outrage. They think they won fair and square and don't want their uprights damaged.
There is nothing short of starting to to shoot that will stop this property damage.
Are you saying that average citizens should and would be justified in opening fire on those trying to pull down the uprights??
I am curious what limitations you would put on this citizen police force since they are acting not just as cop but as judge and jury in most instances.