Prosecutor won't charge man who shot burglary suspect with bow and arrow

[Bill Mattocks]

You had me until your comment of, "If none of that matters to you, then knock yourself out". What you have basically said is more power to you to do catch a bad guy, but if a person uses deadly force, then they don't care about the things you listed. And if they do use deadly force, then they didn't "spare a brain cell."

Didn't say that or anything like it.

What I said was that if the idea that you might make a mistake and be held accountable for it doesn't matter to you, go for it. If you don't care if you get sued, go for it. If you are sure you're in the right, go for it. In other words, make an informed decision.

However, having read the various statements by people who firmly believe that if you don't throw yourself at every bad guy who goes sailing past, you must be in favor of letting rapists rape and murderers murder, then you probably are in need of every brain cell you can scrounge up, and this argument might be a tad too deep for such a person.

That's ridiculous, and in my opinion, rather condesending. Maybe some people will take reasonable risks to themselves in order to help a neighbor. If not, then what's the point of being a neighbor. You're just the guy who lives next door.

Everyone has to decide for themselves. It's reasonable to also consider that people who take action run risks themselves, and doing so doesn't make them uncaring, evil, cowardly, or less than men. And if that sounds condescending, perhaps it's because the hoots of yahoos who think every criminal must be shot directly in the *** with an arrow or you just must want criminals to get away and the bad to guy to win begin to tick me off after awhile.

Don't get me wrong, I get your point: think about the consequences of your actions. I even agree with it. But the way you put it just makes everyone out who does it to be a fool.

Everyone who takes action is not a fool. Everyone who urges action regardless of the consequences is, in my opinion, a fool. If you use your brain and decide that the risks are worth it to you, that sounds like an informed and intelligent decision. If you decide that the risks are not as important as your doing something for society, that sounds like an informed decision too. If you scoff at the idea that sometimes it's not the smartest idea to shoot an arrow into the *** of a guy running away from committing a crime because damn it, bad guys must always be chased, then IMHO and only IMHO, that person is a bit of a thickie.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Didn't say that or anything like it.

What I said was that if the idea that you might make a mistake and be held accountable for it doesn't matter to you, go for it. If you don't care if you get sued, go for it. If you are sure you're in the right, go for it. In other words, make an informed decision.

That's my whole point. It's not whether it matters to a person or not. It's about whether the risks of letting the person get away outweigh the risk of personal liability.

If I do something to catch a bad guy, it's because I believe that in the grand scheme of things, the risk of letting the person go outweigh any risk that I may incur by being sued. To think that it wouldn't matter to me is ridiculous.

However, having read the various statements by people who firmly believe that if you don't throw yourself at every bad guy who goes sailing past, you must be in favor of letting rapists rape and murderers murder, then you probably are in need of every brain cell you can scrounge up, and this argument might be a tad too deep for such a person.

Everyone has to decide for themselves. It's reasonable to also consider that people who take action run risks themselves, and doing so doesn't make them uncaring, evil, cowardly, or less than men. And if that sounds condescending, perhaps it's because the hoots of yahoos who think every criminal must be shot directly in the *** with an arrow or you just must want criminals to get away and the bad to guy to win begin to tick me off after awhile.

Everyone who takes action is not a fool. Everyone who urges action regardless of the consequences is, in my opinion, a fool. If you use your brain and decide that the risks are worth it to you, that sounds like an informed and intelligent decision. If you decide that the risks are not as important as your doing something for society, that sounds like an informed decision too. If you scoff at the idea that sometimes it's not the smartest idea to shoot an arrow into the *** of a guy running away from committing a crime because damn it, bad guys must always be chased, then IMHO and only IMHO, that person is a bit of a thickie.

[/quote]

If you had merely stated you opinion like that last paragraph, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But you have continued to insist that those things won't matter to anyone who does try to apprehend someone. Once again, it's not a matter of not caring, but of weighing risks, as you said last.