According to " Invoking 'Castle Doctrine,' Mont. Man Plead Not Guilty in Teen's Death.", exchanging student from Germany was shot deadly while he were in houseowner garage. the alarm rang in dark garage, he shot in the dark to protect his family.
After reading this news, I would agree that the houseowner is not wrong because he wanted to protect himself and his members from a robber in his place, but in this case, a robber was shot in private space are allowed. In my mind, it is unacceptable to kill a robber because it is too cruel to the robber others that might be your friends. How could it be a better choice? If I were a member of the home, I would call on the police or security guards first before facing strangers who come to my home without permission. while waiting some help, to limit the strangers space is be more safer to everyone, if it is possible. However, it is time to counter with a stranger, to make sure that where he/she are and make a loud noise by shooting gun to the wall or hitting something by strong wooden stick to make them fear and get away.
In order to protect this problem, checking voids--doors, windows in your residence that can initially make sure for safety. Another idea is having medium sized dogs to watch over your area as well. So you can know any invaders your place when the dogs bark them.
However, in this case, German teenager broke the law of trespassing, he did like a thief. It also relevent for him to got some punishment justified by law though he was just a exchange student but not killing him.
__________,
Reference
I had not heard of this case until Poom's blog post brought it to my attention. As with many articles, it's interesting because it shows a conflict between competing principles that many of us might hold. In this case, between the idea that we do have a right to protect ourselves, our property and our family, and the idea that killing other human beings is not to be done without very good reason.
ReplyDeleteI am inclined to think that people do have a right to actively defend themselves when under attack (always? when attacked by their own government?), but that they must take reasonable steps to use a minimum of force necessary: you can't shoot children who have wondered onto your property because they are lost.
The problem is in clarifying what that adjective reasonable means. And this is where reasons are needed to help us get close to a useful understanding.
I think that Markus Kaarma should be charged with manslaughter, not with murder, because he does seem to have killed without planning to do so. But as Poom suggests, and as her source makes clear, he had other options short of shooting what was only a noise that had not been established as any serious threat at all to himself, his property or his family. Panicking with a gun in your hand is not an excuse to shoot people, even if those people have already illegally entered your property.
So many interesting topics, each with its own set of interesting issues to discuss.
Delete