Originally Posted by Titan
The reactions here are reasonable and understandable. I even agree with them on some level. However, I think people need to remember that the "rights" at play are yours, not just the criminals. The very fact pattern we are talking about shows how quickly a person can find themselves on the wrong side of the line. As a quick hypothetical, lets say that the farmer swung his hatchet, as he did, and hit the guy, as he did. However, what if the guy died from that one swing. It has happened from punches so it is at least foreseeable as possible from a hatchet.
From most of the comments here it seems we all agree that killing the thief would be excessive in just about anyone's eyes. Now the farmer is charged with, at least, manslaughter. He likely gets convicted. In Pylon's world he is stripped of his rights. That means he does not even get to make his self-defence argument. He is sent straight to jail with true violent offenders, of which he is now one. As much sympathy as he might get in CP, he is not likely getting a lot of sympathy in a max prison. His life is destroyed.
However, in the system we have he at least gets to hire a lawyer and make his case. This sucks and I would contribute to his defence fund but in the end, he killed a guy for no sufficiently good reason. Maybe he is exonerated, maybe not.
If he wants to avoid this fate then he does what he should have done. Call the police and wait for them. Does that suck? Yes. Does it ensure he does not put himself and his wife in imminent danger? Yes. Does it mean waiting far too long for the police to arrive? Probably. Does it mean possibly losing some of his stuff? Assuredly. That is the price you pay to live in a civilized society that has uncivilized people in it.
We are also glossing over the concept of reasonable force. What would a reasonable person do in the same circumstances? You walk in your bedroom and a rapist has your wife with a knife to her throat, you can kill him. You walk into your living room and a thief has your stereo can you kill him? Of course not, at least in Canada. That thief drops the stereo and has a knife, can you shoot him? No. He lunges at you with the knife, now you can shoot him. A guy walks on your lawn, can you hit him with a hatchet? No. He walks on your lawn and hits your wife with a hammer, hatchet away. Shoot him? Probably, if he continues his attack. In the back if he runs away? Maybe, but hope you get a good jury.
At the end of the day, as fata'ed as the system may seem, it protects all of us. It allows us to defend ourselves in court and be assured of a fair trial and an appeal process. It allows us the comfort of knowing the power of the state can't be turned against us without demonstrable evidence and justifiable reason. It means we are innocent until PROVEN guilty. That right is afforded to all of us. The scumbags and the internet tough guys and the guys just trying to do the right thing. It protects us all. This is why vigilantism is wrong. This is what the law is there to protect against. That farmer ASSUMED the guy in the car broke into the house. At that point all the guy did was try to get away from what appeared to be a really pissed off farmer, a reasonable reaction. To add another variable, what if the driver of the car was a friend of the actual thief. What if the thief told him it was his Grandpa's house and he was just dropping something off. Farmer pulls into the driveway and sees the kid sitting there. Kid panics and tries to drive away, hits the farmers car and the farmer hatchets him.
Who is right there? It is this situation that makes the law we have the proper one. It is trying to draw a balance in a very difficult scenario. And for those that are going to call me a pu55y, maybe you should go and get Balfour Der's card now and put it in your wallet because you will need it.
|