Bob Schmall wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Bob Schmall wrote:

(snip)
This isn't an eye for an eye--this is a life for an eye, and that's
not
right. The guy deserved a trial and conviction within a legal
system,
not
execution by a $8 an hour civilian. When we start allowing vigilante
justice we are well down the road to barbarism.

This is realism. He stole.

As decided by what jury of his peers? What court adjudicated?

He through his own stupidity managed to get himself killed before it got
to
trial.

He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended,
he resisted, and thus risked application of force. When force is
applied
then death is a possible outcome. He took the chance, what happened
after
that was on his head.

Nope. What was on his head what the suspected commission of a crime.
Since
when do people suspected of a crime lose their right to live?

It is not a matter of "right to live". If the guards had gone after him
with heavy machine guns or something you might have a reasonable point,
but
they did not, they caught him, held him down, and he managed to die while
they were doing it. This comes under the heading of "**** happens".

Wonderful. "He managed to die" and "**** happens." Try this defense in a
court of law anywhere, with any judge and any jury.
The accused does not lose his rights upon apprehension. The UNALIENABLE
rights cited in the Declaration of Independence include the right to life.
"Unalienable" means that they cannot be revoked or disowned.

(a) The Declaration of Independence has no force in law.
(b) Apparently something akin to that defense was accepted by the court in
the extant case.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)