Originally Posted by TheKlawMan
I believe you said something to the effect that a homeowner shouldn't have to have some expertise to use deadly force in defense of their home. I disagree. If you are going to get a gun you should learn to use it and to use it with care for innocent bystanders.
That you feel shooting a passed out drunk is justified by the fact that he broke in to your house says much.
First, Sir, I am not your friend, so kindly do not use that term in a derogatory fashion. I don't know you and you don't know me. We are two strangers engaging in a long-distance discourse.
And you seem to keep changing the parameters of that discourse. First we were discussing Florida's "stand your ground" law. Then it somehow morphed to a homeowner defending his house against someone breaking in. And now you have again changed the parameters, so that good ole drunken Charlie is NOT breaking in -- now you have me discovering him already asleep on MY sofa and murdering him as he sleeps.
Believe me -- if Charlie or anyone else is breaking into my house, he is NOT going to sleep on my sofa. Since we don't know each other, we obviously do not know one another's religion. I'll just say for the moment that I am a Christian, and not a Roman Catholic. But I am willing to concede that Roman Catholic theologians have devoted a considerable amount of study to the purpose of trying to determine what's right and moral. If you are willing to agree to that, perhaps you'd be interested to read what the Roman Catholic catechism has to say on the subject:
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not."
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.
began this discussion by asking if others agree that it's "right" for Florida law to absolve a person who defends himself or herself from liability if an innocent third party is killed by accident. I have stated that I think this position is reasonable and logical. I also think it is moral. You are free to disagree.
But kindly don't then shift from there to having me murdering sleeping drunks. It's a common trick of politicians when they're losing the argument to shift the parameters. I think the other participants in this thread can see your tactics for what they are. If you choose NOT to defend your home against someone who is breaking in through the front door, that's perfectly fine with me. Kindly respect my right to engage in lawful self-defense, and stop changing the ground rules to fit your perceptions of what's right or wrong. If you didn't want to hear the answer, why did you ask the question?