Quote: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. 

I am not sure of the number, but I know there are some, where the law allows the use of deadly force if someone is breaking into your home/business/car etc., to protect yourself/family/workers in the case that the home/business/car is getting broken into to prevent rape, severe injury, or death. Quite a deterrent, or should be to bad guys, unto itself.The det

 

The story you posted about Detroit doesn't fall in line with the original story posted whatsoever.

---