4
Great article!
What do you guys think? Did Davis overreact?
I love this:
"I think those high school kids shouldn't have been on his property," Lynch said. "But in this country, life is valued over property, and if someone is fleeing your property or on your property but not threatening you, you're not allowed to just shoot them."We will talk about rhetorical fallacies later, but this is a big one. His argument is that while the "kids shouldn't have been on his property", he should not have shot them because "life is valued over property." He is applying his argument to one side only. It is reported in the article that Davis (the shooter) said,
"In a situation like that, you assume the worst-case scenario if you're going to protect your family from a possible home invasion and murder."The Judge who made the top statement has redirected the intent from "protecting . . . family" to protecting property. Certainly shooting teens is a bad thing (apparently shooting a "pretty blonde high school cheerleader" is especially heinous; note the pathetic introduction and epithet), but was he unstable and shooting at whatever moved, or protecting his family? Was the amount of violence warranted? What do you guys think? Print this post
Boo Radley strikes again. RECLUSES UNITE!
In all seriousness, I'd be a lot happier if the kids had just left trails of urine behind them (or even a couple of ruptured eardrums, or bullet shattered fingers, teeth, etc.) instead of their mobility, but they walked into this one. To me, this headline may as well read "Teens Slap Grizzly Bear with Polish Sausage. America mourns deaths."
Life, of course, ranks higher than property in the hierarchy of natural rights but I honestly can't bring myself to care, here. Again, the headline might as well read "Juveniles walk into wood chipper."
Briefly: The guy had legal and moral right to fire. Unfortunately, he missed. Unfortunately, some teenie-boppers walked into his misfirings. Further, what danger does the man pose to anyone? Before provocation, it seems that his very existence could be argued.
I very much enjoy Saxon's comment.
I don't think he should have shot the kids, but as Saxon said, I don't care.
Aheh. First off, what were those kids doing on his property anyway? In any case, yes, life is much more important than land.
I also enjoyed and agree with Saxon's entertaining [nevertheless true] comment.
Yes, life is definitely more important than land and the man probably should have thought himself through before he shot at the teenagers. However, by law, the man had every right to shoot at them, and the teenagers should have realized this in the first place. This is why I think the grizzly bear analogy fits this perfectly. Those were stupid kids doing who knows what on someone's land, and it would teach them a good life lesson if they got killed . Ok, it would teach other people a good life lesson.
Post a Comment