Gosh I bet you would win a game of twister!
Look,the old man BRAGGED about shooting the burglars when they were down;and he had time to drag the man out of sight and wait to ambush the young woman.Yes,ambush is exactly the right word for waiting concealed and then shooting when the other person comes into sight.Yet he had no time to call the police?
I would not want that old man as my neighbor;his actions and words will convict him.
BY the way,the Nazis had a functioning society;I prefer a more enlightened one.
Ever read or see Les Miserables ? I suppose you think the man life should have been forfeit for stealing a loaf of bread ?
Oh yes, one Biblical commandment :Thou Shalt Not Murder(at least I have it on authoriy that was the original Aramic-not thou shalt not kill.)
The homeowner appears to have gone beyond defense to murder.We shall see what the law makes of it.
“Yes,ambush is exactly the right word for waiting concealed and then shooting when the other person comes into sight”
Someone who breaks into my home and gets killed has been ambushed? You lost me right there.
Your problem is I didn't let YOU select the Biblical passages applied or the person(s) they would be applied to.
Look,the old man BRAGGED about shooting the burglars when they were down;and he had time to drag the man out of sight...
I never said he didn't.
...and wait to ambush the young woman.Yes,ambush is exactly the right word for waiting concealed and then shooting when the other person comes into sight.
"Ambush", see there you go again using inflammatory rhetoric from a non existent platform of moral superiority. Smith's action could be described as maintaining a tactical advantage, ambush is a term commonly used to describe surprising innocent persons with an attack. Using "ambush" is a device to transfer the perception of innocence onto a serial burglar and druggie criminal, While demonizing and criminalizing a homeowner, in his own home, and disallowing the possibility that Smith was legitimately in fear of his life, otherwise afraid, angry, or unsure he cold best multiple home invaders in combat.
Maintaining tactical advantage is neutral in all these areas and allows that Smith has rights IN HIS OWN HOME.
End of part one, stand by.
Yet he had no time to call the police?
YOU assert that Smith was required to call police in the middle of combat with home invaders, the Constitution does not. If you are so concerned with informing the police, why did you not require it of the burglars, as well? Also I will note here that you did not answer my question to you regarding the results of this incident if the burglars had decided NOT to burgle Smith's home.
I would not want that old man as my neighbor,...
Is that because you fear him waiting in HIS basement for you to break into HIS home and come down HIS stairs, or because you fear he will repeatedly break into your home and steal your stuff to finance his drug habit? I notice you don't seem to be so concerned with druggie burglar neighbors.
...his actions and words will convict him.
Quite likely, in a socialist/statist tyranny, unless a couple of informed jurors are accidentally impaneled.
By the way, the Nazis had a functioning society;I prefer a more enlightened one.
You seem to agree with the Nazi legal system, when applying it to Smith.
Ever read or see Les Miserables ? I suppose you think the man's life should have been forfeit for stealing a loaf of bread ?
Ah, yes, fiction again, where the criminal can be gloriously good and evoke the sympathy of all over that evil rich guy who had the temerity to rise at two AM and bake bread.
I realize you prefer an enlightened society where Jean Valjean shows up the second day to take the bread he is entitled to, and the third day when he is followed by Juan Valjaun, and Wilford Valwilford, and Horst Valhorst, and Yuri Valyuri, and Jamal Valjamal, ect, all entitled to the baker's bread for free, and entitled to invade his shop and use the force they are entitled to use against the baker.
When you cite fiction, I am entitled (ooh, I like that!) to extrapolate fiction. Of course we both know that this is fiction, and no society has descended into mass starvation and death from the imposition of socialist entitlements, and the enlightened concept that private property is evil and no one should be allowed to have any, or keep for themselves anything they produce if there is a person in need.
...one Biblical commandment :Thou Shalt Not Murder...
I stipulate that the Lord God has laid down specific meaning to all his Commandments. I believe that your use of the English translation is correct, and therefore, I agree.
To expand, "murder" is not synonymous with "kill", murder is forbidden, killing is not.
When citing scripture you can often find passages with conditions that permit or even seem to command some acts. ( Exodus 22:2-3: If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.)
You have accused Smith of murder, and scripture seems to permit him to kill.
Moreover, scripture seems to command that those acting in fear of God will not allow retribution by persons or even the State.
If you disagree with scripture, why?
Is it the manner of killing? The fact that the burglar was female? A hundred pounds? That Smith is unattractive and the burglar is cute? That Smith is 63 or 64? That 18 year olds should get a pass?
How about we let the burglars go if they promise to get off drugs and promise not to come back and murder Smith in his sleep? Finally, I do not know if Smith murdered the burglars (I do agree that he has acknowledged killing them), nor am I the one to make that judgment.