Quote:See the story on the dad who beat the absolute hell out of the 18 year old who he caught in the act of raping his boy, (4 or 5 I think). Beat the kid absolutely senseless, face looked unrecognizeable. Police said the dad was justified in the beating. Guy could have stopped the 18 year old and simply held him til police came here too.

 

If someone comes into a place of business, or your home with the intent to rob you (or more),  in this case the guy in the original post had a gun. The person doing the robbing (or more) better be ready for some repercussions if his evil intent is foiled by the owner of the business or home.

 

Absolutely people are allowed to defend themselves.  But if you are going to allow people to also administer punishment beyond that, then where do you draw the line?  This is why we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights.  Questions of punishment are reserved to the courts, not the victims or the witnesses or the mob.  

 

Go back to the story of the man in Detroit who struck a child with his truck.  When he got out of his truck to check on the child, he was attacked by a mob and severely beaten.  They may have thought they were administering justice, too.  

 

As for a robber who comes into your business to rob you, suppose you manage to disarm him and he is on the floor on his stomach not moving.  You are holding him at gunpoint.  Can you then shoot him?  Of course not.  No more than a mob can disarm a pizza store robber, hold him down, beat him and scald him with hot soup.   At that point he is not a threat, and he should be held for the police, and the courts should decide his punishment. 

 

The difference between this country and Afghanistan is that we have constitutional rights.  We don't allow punishment without a trial. 

---