“As a general rule, I don’t like seeing someone killed over property.”
I’ve heard that sentiment many times. I remember it being debated in law school. It’s a relatively recent view in the law, and there are many problems with it, as I see it. Some of them you have ably pointed out.
I keep thinking of what Robert Bork said: “You can’t create new rights, you can just shift existing rights around,” or words to that effect.
As soon as you say that a homeowner has no right to use deadly force to protect his property, you are also saying that a burglar or a robber has a right to steal without the risk of someone using deadly force against him. That’s just wrong. And it’s lead to some horrendous civil suits by robbers against persons protecting their property.
Once a person makes the decision to invade someone else’s castle, he should be held to have abandoned all rights, in my opinion.
Isn’t that what the ‘clean hands’ concept is all about. I know that in a civil case, a person who has committed illegalities in a matter cannot bring suit in the matter.
In a matter of fraud, the court will not hear a case where both parties have committed a fraud, and one party sues the other.
BTW, I agree with your take on it.
I think the same concept should be applied to illegal aliens.