Reply #107: We disagree on definition

[one-eyed fat man]

You seem determined to to paint the death of a criminal who is killed while committing a robbery as vigilantism. That I consider the death of such an individual at the hands of his erstwhile victim a net benefit to society must irk you. Did you miss the link posted up thread? We are not talking about hotheads getting into a shoot-out out over dim-witted driving. Although, that has been the relentless cry of a certain segment, the facts have not borne this out.

The editors of the Toledo Blade were lamenting that a string of hold-up men had been shot DURING THE HOLDUP (and on camera) by various convenience store clerks. They posit that the hold up men carrying guns didn't deserve being shot as robbery is not a capital offense.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=304555&mesg_id=304555

"Self-defense gun use is a somewhat nebulous concept. Criminals, for example, often claim that they carry gun for protection and use them during crimes in self-defense because they feel threatened by the victim."

That is the considered wisdom of Dr. David Hemenway, from page 77 of his book, Private Guns, Public Health

It would appear you agree. It would seem the naked guy standing at the foot of your daughter's bed at 2AM only has the gun in case you object over strenuously to his obvious adoration. That otherwise peaceful and productive citizens MUST submit to the predations of those cretins who resort to criminality is incomprehensible to me. A criminal, killed during the commsiion of a crime with legal justification is a good outcome. As successful crime or a dead victim is a bad outcome.

I don't break into peoples' houses, I don't assault them, I don't steal, nor am I a lawyer. I don't look for trouble and prefer it would avoid me. BUT, that being said, if forced to, I would defend myself to the fullest extent the law allows.