Posted on 10/24/2003 12:53:53 AM PDT by archy
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:13:10 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A man was beating a 16-year-old girl with a pipe Wednesday morning on Detroit's west side.
Suddenly, the man was dead, shot several times by a passenger in a passing car.
Police are looking for the driver of the car and the gunman, who might not be a criminal suspect, but a much rarer species -- a drive-by vigilante.
(Excerpt) Read more at freep.com ...
Police said they do not have a description of the two men.
Good for the witnesses! It sounds like the shooter had enough common sense to keep the hell away from the police. I sure would have.
OK, I'm just guessing here, but I think "these guys" would say the same thing, that a girl was being violently assaulted.
And they put a stop to it.
Don't call, guys, just reload!
The pipe wielding thug is deader than hell, seems pretty justified to me. Leave the shooter alone! Blackbird.
I'll bet the people being beaten with the pipes knew exactly why they were being beaten.
And the beatees know exactly who shot the beater.
I'm betting there's a whole lot of bad people in this story. This isn't the calvary to the rescue. This is just gang stuff.
The shooter in this case should walk into the nearest police station, hold is head up high, and say “I shot the sonofabitch, and I’d do it again”, then let the jury decide, as provided in our constitution. No matter what the jury says, however, the shooter can hold his head high knowing that his actions were moral, if not necessarily legal. Morality does not always equal legality.
(That being said: if I were a witness to this shooting, and I knew the identity of the shooter, and I knew that his motive for killing the attacker was pure, his name would go with me to my grave. Unless a person is called as a witness in a case at law, no law — statutory, moral, or otherwise — says that anybody has to tell anyone else anything.)
Conclusion: A moral person realizes that without due process of law, our society cannot exist; therefore, it is incumbent upon all citizens to respect the law — even it it costs them personally to do so.
Then again, I understand the police desire to review each incident and not let it get out of hand. However, this is not 40 years ago, and today turning yourself into our increasingly liberalized police force over something like this is risky.
Not necessarily. This could be a killing by either a police death squad, with the followup rantings and fulminations a smokescreen behind which the shooters can slip off, put their uniforms back on, and get back to work.
Or similarly, it coul;d easily have been a couple of off-duty detectives or feds, fed up with doing nothing, and who determined that this time, the creep wouldn't get away with it in front of 'em. The number and variety of fed and state badgetoters working around Detroit is fairly staggering, and I'd hardly be surprised if one of their teams did the job and then chose not to bother with the DPD paperwork, not trusting their brass any more than the rest of us do.
If firearms were outlawed would turning them in be the moral thing to do?
I assume no such thing, and I have been in court lately — just yesterday, in fact. (I lost.)
I realize that justice and law are not necessarily the same thing. My point is that a moral man should have no secrets in matters of this kind. If a moral person shoots someone, he should be willing to stand behind his actions in public. Yes, the possibility exists that a jury will find his actions criminal, but being willing to accept that risk is part of what being a hero is all about. A hero does not skulk about in the shadows; he throws back his cloak to reveal his sword hand and boldly says, ”This was the hand that killed the beast. Condemn it if you can!”
Since all authority is given by God, the Christian is called upon to obey all those in authority and the laws which they enforce [Romans 13:1-7].In our case, the law says that homicide can only be justified through due process of law. By refusing to submit himself to due process, the shooter in this case is disparaging the authority of the law — an immoral and un-Christian act.
No, because in so doing one would be violating a higher law: the Natural Law, which requires people to take whatever steps are necessary for the defense of self and family. God requires each person to defend himself, his family, and the lives of innocent people; we are required to render unto Caesar our obedience, but only when doing so does not require us to obey God. Any law that contradicts the Natural Law is not a law at all and need not be obeyed.
However, we are required by God to respect Caesar’s law, even when we do not obey it. The Apostles preached openly, and submitted themselves to the dubious justice of the Roman Empire when they were arrested for doing so. The law required the Martyrs to burn a pinch of incense to the false god of Nero; they refused to do so, and willingly faced the consequences in the Coliseum. Using your example: If firearms were outlawed, the moral thing to do would be to refuse to do so, risk possible arrest, and, if charged before a court of law , to plead “no contest”.
Legitimate law must be respected, even if it costs us personally. Without respect for law, our society will disintegrate. A hero does not hide from the law; he does what he must, then lets Caesar judge his doings.
"I'm always glad when assholes and bullets meet."
(It's a wonder they let him on the City Council)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.