Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
A rough parallel might be found in the application of the legal doctrine of necessity as a defense against tort liability. Under certain circumstances, the law will recognize a privilege to do something which would violate the property rights of another. But the circumstances must be extreme, and the person invoking the claim of necessity must still pay for the damage he did.
|
So how did you determine that Cothran met that criteria or did you? Cothran caused no damage. The crook beat feet when he saw the gun. But Cothran lost his job.
Since Cothran had good reason to fear robbery based on the facts of the case is he then morally justified to ignore company policy and carry?
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
|