I have determined through careful study that everyone who disagrees with me on this topic is a troll, who is seeking to make a funny. I can think of no other explanation for the outpouring of inflammatory, morally and logically inconsistent arguments.
I shall now laugh.
Ha ha ha.
You got me fellas, I almost believed you for a minute.
We should strive for accuracy and efficient communication in all of our publicly funded endeavors, whether or not they are controversial. The outrage may be unjustified, but perhaps the sign change is not?
By living under the protections and benefits of a society we are tacitly agreeing to do one of two things: live by its rules (as outlined in constitutional law all the way down to city ordinance), or try to change it through accepted channels. Re: The Crito, Sophocles.
This man was doing neither. The accepted legal route for dealing with criminals is apprehension, either through citizen's arrest (which does not cover lethal force) or by calling the authorities, which he did. This man accepted all the benefits of our society and then turned around and abandoned his responsibility to control his emotions in a situation when he was not protecting anyone's life.
I agree with many of the above posters, it does not matter if it was his stuff or his neighbor's, his moral responsibility was the same. However, that moral responsibility did not cover superseding the established justice system with the clear intent to kill, rather than stop, the criminals.
Would we be ok with this if it was a 16 year old 4.0 GPA student with no prior criminal record who was stealing money to pay for his sister's brain operation? In this admittedly unlikely scenario, the fact that the shooter overstepped his legal and moral rights would be a tragedy rather than a controversy. If this same do gooder kid had held someone up at knifepoint for the money, then deadly force would be warranted. As average citizens we are granted the right to use deadly force only to protect our safety, not to shoot fleeing criminals in the back.
The fact that it was not the 4.0 student who was killed is inconsequential because the shooter could not possibly have known who it was that he was so eager to kill.
Long story short, we cannot live in a society where the punishment for theft is death. As much as we might want to get revenge on those who steal our treasured and hard earned belongings, we value the freedom to make mistakes, and to forgive the very human errors of others. And if the justice system, congress, and the executive branch (military courts) all agree that killing to protect property, rather than safety, is unacceptable then we have no right to go above their decisions. To do otherwise is criminal.
The jury was wrong, both on moral and legal grounds.
Day of the Dead II: Contagium for both answers. It is a film made by Romero fans about what happens when an alien zombie contaminant gets released into a mental health facility. With its cast of shoddy actors, its offensively bad storyline, and its extremely confusing ending it wins the day for worst horror/zombie film I have ever seen (much worse than return of the living dead).
On the plus side, it is also the single goriest film I have ever seen. Hands down. Nothing has ever shown so many going from alive and well to giblets without a tasteful cut-away.
Actually, the original is a psychology of attention classic filmed in the 70's (I think) involving a girl walking through with an umbrella. It is shown to almost every intro to psych class out there. I like the message on this video though, clever use of a well known phenomenon to get a point across.
While I can certainly understand the horrified reactions of most people to the mere existence of this school, it is by all appearances a neccessary evil. The students who are placed in the care of the school are only the most severe cases of self-harming mentally handicapped individuals. Using the well established techniques of behavior modification the officials at the school intend to allow these kids to live a normal life in which they will no longer beat their faces bloody against walls and swallow glass shards (a disorder known as Pica). It is far from perfect, but in most cases admitted to the school (which has a lengthly admissions process) almost every alternative has been tried. Now I ask you: would you rather have your child subjected to a painful and in some cases cruel seeming behavior modification technique, or continue to inflict life-threatening injuries on themselves? This is not a rhetorical question, I know which side of the fence I stand on, but I would not condemn those who disagree with me.
As far as the prank goes, that is a question of effective administration (which is clearly lacking) not the viability of this school as a place for treatment.
I find myself severly underwhelmed. This essay lacks supporting evidence in a profound way, and fials to address the insightful arguments that previous thinkers have put forth on the subject in any serious way. Perhaps the book does a better job at this, but I found the level of discourse to be closer to a Chick Tract than a meaningful contribution to the way we understand human soceity.
I shall now laugh.
Ha ha ha.
You got me fellas, I almost believed you for a minute.
"In this case, 'Castle Doctrine' refers to Frank Castle"
I sincerely hope that one day people will stop acting like any violation of the law makes you an immoral scumbag.
This man was doing neither. The accepted legal route for dealing with criminals is apprehension, either through citizen's arrest (which does not cover lethal force) or by calling the authorities, which he did. This man accepted all the benefits of our society and then turned around and abandoned his responsibility to control his emotions in a situation when he was not protecting anyone's life.
I agree with many of the above posters, it does not matter if it was his stuff or his neighbor's, his moral responsibility was the same. However, that moral responsibility did not cover superseding the established justice system with the clear intent to kill, rather than stop, the criminals.
Would we be ok with this if it was a 16 year old 4.0 GPA student with no prior criminal record who was stealing money to pay for his sister's brain operation? In this admittedly unlikely scenario, the fact that the shooter overstepped his legal and moral rights would be a tragedy rather than a controversy. If this same do gooder kid had held someone up at knifepoint for the money, then deadly force would be warranted. As average citizens we are granted the right to use deadly force only to protect our safety, not to shoot fleeing criminals in the back.
The fact that it was not the 4.0 student who was killed is inconsequential because the shooter could not possibly have known who it was that he was so eager to kill.
Long story short, we cannot live in a society where the punishment for theft is death. As much as we might want to get revenge on those who steal our treasured and hard earned belongings, we value the freedom to make mistakes, and to forgive the very human errors of others. And if the justice system, congress, and the executive branch (military courts) all agree that killing to protect property, rather than safety, is unacceptable then we have no right to go above their decisions. To do otherwise is criminal.
The jury was wrong, both on moral and legal grounds.
On the plus side, it is also the single goriest film I have ever seen. Hands down. Nothing has ever shown so many going from alive and well to giblets without a tasteful cut-away.
As far as the prank goes, that is a question of effective administration (which is clearly lacking) not the viability of this school as a place for treatment.