From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am afraid that my view of this is probably going to appear over-simplistic
to some of you.
My opinion is that you should always treat others as you yourself would wish
to be treated.
The corollary to this being, for example, that if person/persons break into
your house they have abrogated any "rights" that they may have and should be
met with the maximum force at your disposal.
The reasons are simple:
1. I will not permit anyone to interfere with me or members of my family
without our consent. I have no intention of consenting to be mugged, raped,
robbed or vandalised, and as I cannot have foreknowledge of an invaders
intent I must assume a worst case scenario.
2. I will, if I can, stop the invader cold. If I don't then they may repeat
the offence, potentially to attack and kill another innocent person. I do
not want that on my conscience, and I would be failing in my social duty
[crime prevention].
3. The State cannot possibly protect me within the timescale of such an
event, so I must choose between fighting or submitting [see 1.]. If I do not
immediately deploy maximum effort for maximum surprise then tactically I put
myself at a disadvantage. When the question is potentially life or death
then I am not playing Marquis of Queensbury rules. It is not a game.
4. If the invader(s) escapes, unrecognised, he/they may try for retribution
later. I am not willing to let my family be targets for such an event, and
must therefore eliminate the possibility if it is within my power to do so.
I realise that my view may put me at odds with the law, but if I do not
survive the encounter then that will be academic. If I do survive but my
family are hurt in some way because I did not act sufficiently aggressively
to terminate the encounter then I will suffer more than any punishment that
the law can hand out.
Regards
Steve
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
