Lincolnite

By the time a person has determined whether or not their live is in danger, it may just be too late.

As for home intruders…Kill ‘em all, let God sort it out.  😊

Actually, it would be (I think) rare for someone to be prosecuted for injuring or killing someone who crashed through a front door of a home or apartment.

frothing over here

Mark Christensen introduced a controversial bill? I can’t believe it. I also can’t believe Mark McGwire did steroids.

He also doesn’t want us to succeed.

I wouldn’t feel sorry for an intruder if they got shot and killed but do we really need this bill?

make that “life is in danger…”

Give Christensen a gray t-shirt, a D by his name, and a North Omaha legislative district and he would be hailed as a hero.

oh please

What a twisted view you have.

Hahaaa ... you know it’s true!

Remember back when the right could pretend the left was the party of death?  Well two wars of choice, a severe pro torture stance, and relaxing for responsibility of taking life is now the battle cry of the right.

Could you remind me of those traditional American values once again.  Seems they were just empty catchphrases.

Each of your examples involves a confrontation with an enemy.  If you think the right grants its enemies a right to life, then please review the positions and philosophies of the right wing. 

I guess the ‘party of life/death’ distinction isn’t something I think about.  The left has their own segments of people they want to see live.  It’s unfortunate that those segments include murderers and terrorists, but that’s all water under the bridge I suppose.

How dare we give human beings basic rights?  The moral thing to do is….

... administer justice. 

There are still a few people left whose main concern after a murder or act of terrorism is to punish the perpetrator of that act, not worry about their ‘rights’.

An excellent example of traditional values there.

Otherwise known as ‘common sense’ in some circles.

Are you Jody P?

I wonder how many bills introduced by Ernie Chambers were written by lobbyists. Probably zero.

Agree with Peter.

To be judged after the fact by information that wasn’t at your obvious disposal during that critical moment is not fair or just.

In the moment: you don’t know that you can escape, and you don’t know anything about the intruder’s intent or state (rape, kill, kidnap, burgler, drunk, mistake). All you do know is that someone has violated your space, and that in a huge majority of cases such violations are with malicious intent.

Defend yourself and your property. Being passive only gives a positive reinforcement to those who haven’t been busted yet.

I’d rather be alive and wrong than dead/kidnapped/raped and wrong. If someone has violated my secure space, they’re on the wrong side of the statistics and my survival instincts, and I will react accordingly.

Frothing