Kleanbore, I make every effort in my capacity to increase my awareness of the law, and it's implications in this state (At least as much as I can be reasonably expected to, as a non-scholar in that subject). At no point would I ever intentionally break any law, or advocate doing so. I will, however, keep an eye out for that document.
Fairness has as much to do with the way things work, as precedent has to do with the way things *should* work. Which is to say, Zilch. Occasionally there are intersections, but it has more to do with chance than any kind of dependable pattern.
In regards to:
I appreciate this sentiment entirely, but I view it as an ongoing question as opposed to a statement of current effectiveness or a set of options. Do not consider me an absolutist. The legal system, while hardly perfect, has a decent record of sorting these things out. Yes I do recognize the slippery slope of justifying the killing of one human being by another in anything but what is obvious defense of life.
Let's be perfectly honest, without the clear details on exactly what happened, or even just as much as the prosecutor has at his disposal, we are pissing in the wind by speculating on how justified this was. Sheets could have left his apartment and drawn a bead on the thief's head with the full intention of killing that man, armed or not. However, I don't think that speculation is worth the bandwidth used to transmit it, as I cannot prove it. Thus I think the law should give the benefit of the doubt to Sheets who was in the midst of responding to criminal activity being perpetrated upon him by others. I'm sure the prosecutor could have potentially won the case in our adversarial system. I think mostly that I do not agree with the lean that prosecutorial discretion takes in many of these cases. I prefer to err on the side of allowing the guilty to go free, as I can't stand the thought of people behind bars who do not belong there. Because of this, I tend to desire laws that prevent the improper use of prosecutorial discretion.
I would prefer that our laws leaned more in the direction of giving the victim the benefit of the doubt. Not every unethical action, even those with extremely unfortunate consequences, deserve legal punishment. Especially when a person is forced into making a snap decision that may or may not lead to an unethical action.
Again, I hope that I would thread the needle more carefully than this man. I am almost sure of it. I doubt very much that my moral compass would ever place me in his position. I do not think however, that the law has any place turning him into a felon because I would not have done as he did.
Fairness has as much to do with the way things work, as precedent has to do with the way things *should* work. Which is to say, Zilch. Occasionally there are intersections, but it has more to do with chance than any kind of dependable pattern.
In regards to:
I appreciate this sentiment entirely, but I view it as an ongoing question as opposed to a statement of current effectiveness or a set of options. Do not consider me an absolutist. The legal system, while hardly perfect, has a decent record of sorting these things out. Yes I do recognize the slippery slope of justifying the killing of one human being by another in anything but what is obvious defense of life.
Let's be perfectly honest, without the clear details on exactly what happened, or even just as much as the prosecutor has at his disposal, we are pissing in the wind by speculating on how justified this was. Sheets could have left his apartment and drawn a bead on the thief's head with the full intention of killing that man, armed or not. However, I don't think that speculation is worth the bandwidth used to transmit it, as I cannot prove it. Thus I think the law should give the benefit of the doubt to Sheets who was in the midst of responding to criminal activity being perpetrated upon him by others. I'm sure the prosecutor could have potentially won the case in our adversarial system. I think mostly that I do not agree with the lean that prosecutorial discretion takes in many of these cases. I prefer to err on the side of allowing the guilty to go free, as I can't stand the thought of people behind bars who do not belong there. Because of this, I tend to desire laws that prevent the improper use of prosecutorial discretion.
I would prefer that our laws leaned more in the direction of giving the victim the benefit of the doubt. Not every unethical action, even those with extremely unfortunate consequences, deserve legal punishment. Especially when a person is forced into making a snap decision that may or may not lead to an unethical action.
Again, I hope that I would thread the needle more carefully than this man. I am almost sure of it. I doubt very much that my moral compass would ever place me in his position. I do not think however, that the law has any place turning him into a felon because I would not have done as he did.
Last edited:
