Although I am sympathetic to Mr. Knight, the question that needs to be answered is now what?
The supporters of Mr. Knight's actions (not of Mr. Knight as virutally all posters sympathize with him - the argument is in his actions) say that it is okay to shoot at someone for trying to steal your property. So it is okay if it is a quad? What about a lawnmower? A shovel? Is there a property value limit? I may sound facetious, but honestly, how can a court of law or a court of peers determine what is the correct amount to warrant being shot?
How can the individual also make that determination. . .in the moment? In a moment of rage as I suspect Mr. Knight was in (I was surely in rage when my truck was broken into), ihow s he able to determine that this theft is warranting taking a shot or two with his shotgun? Is he also able to determine, beyond all reasonable doubt, that his shotgun would only injure? What if he doesn't have a shotgun, but rather a 300? Will he just wing him? If that is the case, can all persons defending their property make the same judgement? For Pete's sake, there are postings on this board all the time about hunters taking stupid or risky shots. . .now we can say that anyone defending their property will make the "right" shot?
My point, albeit convoluted and rambling, is simply this: Laws are made to govern overall, in majority of circumstances for everyone to abide by. Taken in specific situations like Mr. Knight's, the outcome may appear to be harsh given the circumstances. Was Mr. Knight wronged? It certainly appears so. Was he within his rights to defend his property? I suspect so. Did that include firing a weapon at someone? The courts can decide. My humble opinion which is based solely on the conjecture presented above and on this board is no. Potentially killing a person for stealing a quad is not right (my personal opinion only).
Beat the tar out of him? I have no issue with that - I would help. Get the laws changed so that there is real punishment as a deterent for criminals, again I have no issue. But to shoot someone? To kill them? I don't care if he was an expert marksman. I consider myself a very good shot, but I am shaking like a leaf when I see a moose let alone a human being. What if someone was behind the criminal? What if in the rush to get away from being shot he jumped in a car and caused an accident? What if someone innocent was killed? These are the considerations that must be taken into account when deciding if it is okay to shoot someone for theft.
I too am sick of criminals getting off light, particularly young offenders. But ask yourselves "now what?". Steal a quad, get shot. Do you trust every person with a firearm, me included, to make the determination of when it is okay to shoot someone, with what firearm and under what circumstances. By supporting Mr. Knight's actions, you are saying yes. Laws cannot apply to some of the people some of the time. Some of you will say I am an wrong and that I am a bleeding heart liberal (I could not be farther from that) and that is your right. Debate is healthy and the basis for real change. I just wish some posters would consider the now what. . .
Cheers.
|