Dennis Prager's Moral Clarity
So you will now say - I hear the voice of an ACLU member - Dennis, do you think that this guy should have shot these people spray painting grafiti on his shop. To which my answer is yes. I do. No to kill. Not to kill. But if he shot them in the legs or in the arms I would have considered the man one of the great advancers of civilization in my time. And that is what divides left from right. Because anybody on the left hearing this would think that this is barbaric whereas I consider not stopping these people in any way that is necessary to be barbaric.Dennis Prager, on his radio show (hour 3, around 8:41 in).
via Andrew Sullivan
Labels: Dennis Prager
posted by Peter L. Winkler | 4:02 PM
5 Comments:
Great for Prager. Not that I think they should be shot and killed. But if these people who ruin property that isn't theirs knew there was a possible drastic consequence for their actions, they'd think twice before doing it.
Let's also shoot people who run red lights and stop signs. If they knew there could be drastic consequences, maybe they'd obey the law. Therefore, let's impose capitol punishment for littering and jaywalking, too.
There are three central axioms of our legal system that Prager wants to violate.
1. The punishment is commensurate to the crime.
2. Vigilantism is illegal. We entrust law enforcemen to the police and criminal justice system, not the individual.
3. You cannot kill someone to defend property, only to defend your life or that of another.
So...what you're saying is that you wouldn't ever try and stop someone from say, keying your car? What about running off with your car by pushing you out of the way? Would you fight back? In some states, Texas at least, you can defend your property with deadly force. Do you think it's wrong period to do so, or only where the law says it's wrong?
"So...what you're saying is that you wouldn't ever try and stop someone from say, keying your car?"
No. Please don't put words in my mouth. Under current law, people have the ight to use certain measures to defnd their property, but deadly force isn't one, exept perhaps in Texas.
I can't really give you a fast answer on whether I beleve someone should be allowed to use deadly force to protect their property. It's something I need to mull over more.
Okay, Peter. I wasn't really putting words in your mouth, thus the question marks. I certainly respect you for wanting to consider the question more. I think we all should think about things in a much deeper way. By the way, thanks for responding and letting me comment on your blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home