I am not convinced this is true in the sense that I take your specific meaning, so pardon me if I mistake you.
When a clear pattern of violation emerges, I fully support unequivocal action against the perpetrators in preemption of the next occurrence.
I do recall many years ago a sound bite on local news, probably NYC, where they reported that a court held that preemptive strikes were in fact within the envelope of personal prerogative where a reasonable suspicion existed that a latent threat was present.
If a man passing me on the street hits me and runs away, repeating the same five nights in a row, I believe I am well within my right to shoot the ghost from his carcass on the sixth when I see him approaching. This goes trebly for anyone in "government". If the man was the victim of a systemic conspiracy by the "authorities" (
) in question, all else equal I would almost certainly acquit. By all accounts, he was precisely that. Is it your contention that because he theoretically had the option to move to another town or state that he should have done that first? If so, I would have to say "bollocks". Is there no limit to harassment beyond which one holds the right to take such action against the tormentor? Would it be your contention that, other avenues of redress having failed, that a man is then faced with the obligation to endure further torment? These appear to be the implications of your statement, if indeed what you are asserting is that he acted not in defense of self or property. Is one's peace not his property? Seriously - what are you saying here?
Connect With Us