Let the punishment fit the crime.
If you subscribe to Biblical pronciples remember the thief in the night could be struck and killed most likely based on the idea you couldn’t tell if he was armed no could you see well enough to be sure of your blow.
shooting s thief(burglar) who is down and no longer a threat in a well-lit situation is different.Execution or coup-de-grace shots are not part of normal self-defense training,nor is bragging about it afterwards.
THe two burglars were in the wrong and if the old man was threatened then he had the right to defend himself,but not perform an execution.That act made him as bad as them.Well,that and not calling the police and probably entertaining some thought of hiding the bodies.The old man KNEW he went too far.
I think Sfictional herrif Taylor of Mayberry and plenty of real peace officers would be very concerned with anyone advocating killing two people and hiding the act.No jackboots needed.
You have a warped idea of freedom.Freedom doesn’t mean killing and hiding evidence with impunity anymore than it means robbing someone’s home with impunity.
OK. Being as we had a functioning society when we hanged horse thieves, rustlers, footpads, card cheaters, robbers, thieves, and burglars, I agree that death is appropriate for these two burglars.
If you subscribe to Biblical principles...
OK. I'll go with Thou Shalt Not Steal, Thou Shalt Not Covet, and thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness, and I agree that Smith should administer the punishment.
Shooting s thief(burglar) who is down and no longer a threat in a well-lit situation is different.Execution or coup-de-grace shots are not part of normal self-defense training,nor is bragging about it afterwards.
I never asserted such, I only assert that your liberal definition of "no longer a threat" is betting someone else's life on your opinion.
The two burglars were in the wrong and if the old man was threatened then he had the right to defend himself,...
Well, we do agree on something. Suppose we consider at this point what would have happened if the two burglars had just decided to NOT got to Smith's home and steal his stuff?
How many people would Smith have killed? How angry would Smith have become? How many families would have destroyed? How many people on either side would be so offended?
Now consider the same questions if the two had decided NOT to commit their first burglary. Who had the power here, and who had the responsibility?
I think (the) fictional Sheriff Taylor of Mayberry...
That's the best thing about fiction, it allows ya to commit False Witness from a non existent platform of moral superiority.
No jackboots needed.
However, that's exactly what you will get. It's a standard socialist tactic of coddling and protecting criminals to con the public to trade freedom for security, and the socialists deliver control instead of security to the useful idiots who give them power.
Freedom doesn’t mean killing and hiding evidence with impunity anymore than it means robbing someone’s home with impunity.
I never said that, you did.
You have a warped idea of freedom.
And there is the setup for the act of false witness.