philip,
You gave a pretty dramatic portrayal there.. I'll tell you what I believe and this may or may not change how you see it.
philip964 wrote:
Some people in America (I include prosecutors in this ) have a belief that, death or injury by a citizen is not the appropriate punishment for a crime. That the life of a criminal is important. Important enough to save from harm while they are committing their crime.
Consider this: What if you catch someone stealing beer out of your garage? Could be a 14 year old kid or an 18 year old adult. Are you willing to cause death or injury to stop that crime? I'm not. Legally, there might be defense from prosecution there, but it's not worth it to me.
Does this mean you can have all the free beer you want out of my garage? Sure. If you can get past the fence, the German Shepherd, and the security cameras. I won't shoot you for stealing beer with my gun. I might or might not stop you by other means.
philip964 wrote:
Stopping a crime is not worth the life or injury of a criminal. A criminal's life is too important.
Here's where we get a little wonky. I've got some respect for life, even for the life of a criminal. Some more than others. Kids, especially, do stupid stuff, myself included. It's not my job to figure out which people are good and which people are bad.
However, it's not that I consider a "criminal's life" too important. It's simply that I'm selfish and consider
my life too important.
I'm too important to be put on trial in front of the media. My family is too important to have our financial resources exhausted by the legal system. I personally am too important to be put in front of a jury that just might decide, regardless of the law, that shooting someone for stealing something isn't an action that they're willing to excuse.
philip964 wrote:
Citizens have no right to stop a crime in progress, even if it is against them. They must wait for the police and (if they are alive) go through the proper legal channels to seek redress.
These Americans believe that criminals have rights, those rights must be upheld. The rights of an honest citizen is secondary. Criminals have a right to be rehabilitated by society, no matter their crime.
To me, this explains this and other similar incidents that have recently occurred.
Fortunately this is still not the case in Texas, yet.
I've seen various cases in Texas where people are prosecuted for stopping or attempting to stop a crime in progress. Again, it's not that I think it's unjust to stop a crime against someone else's property, it's just that it incurs too much personal risk.
No one really believes that the rights of a criminal dominate the rights of honest citizens. That may be the way things fall due to our legal system or some of the fears that I bring up above.
Texas has the dealth penalty. Factually, these are criminals that the justice system isn't trying to rehabilitate. As such, not all have the right to rehabilitation regardless of crime.. Besides, does anyone really think our criminal justice system rehabilitates anyone?
I do get the point that you're trying to make. I can just tell you that it's our legal system that has responsibility in root cause. It's not just a "liberal" or backwards thinking society.