re: #145 palomino

I have no quibble with him using deadly force to protect his family from burglars, unless he knew they were unarmed and then killed them execution style for fun. But nothing like that is the case, right? So I’ve got no objection to what he did.

The only problem I have is the rationalizing of the shootings due to the fact that these weren’t good guys. Whether the had committed nonviolent, or even violent crimes, in the past is immaterial. A person shooting a burglar has no way of knowing the guy’s rap sheet. It doesn’t come into play at all in assessing the shooting. The young man wasn’t empowered to shoot them because of any previous crimes they’d committed. He was empowered solely due to the moment he found himself in.

Fine, then we are on the same page, because I was not trying to rationalize his actions in that way. I only brought up the criminal records of the burglars as a way of saying that the young man who shot them can hopefully be less effected knowing that the men he shot were crooks. They didn’t deserve to die, but they had done many wrongs before he crossed their path.

Finding out the men you shot were thugs may not make the physiological pain of having shot them any less, but it at least avoids the additional pain of having shot a decent person.

Heading upstairs. Thank you, BTW, for the good conversation on this one.