[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Keith No, "the vast majority of the crimes associated with this law do not carry the death penalty" but ultimately, since all laws are enforced at gunpoint, any crime can be escalated by a police officer to deadly force.

Completely incorrect. If a cop thinks you look suspicious and stops to talk to you and you place the cop in fear of immediate harm (attacking the cop and/or pulling out a gun for example), it's a completely new unrelated offense. You're not being executed period, and you're really not being killed because you looked suspicious. Saying so is a completely dishonest misrepresentation.

If a police officer attempts to stop you for jaywalking, and you run, the officer can pursue you. If you end up caught and fight him while he's trying to restrain you, he CAN shoot you.

No a police officer cannot legally shoot you for simply resisting arrest.

You may want nothing more than to be left alone, but, the escalation of the "crime" of jaywalking, could end up in your death.

Then maybe you shouldn't place a cop in fear of their life. Get this, most of them won't actually shoot you for anything less.

No one here is saying that they want to kill a kid for TPing their house.

Good and I'm not saying you do. I just don't think it should be perfectly legal for the piece of sh*t who doesn't share our view.

All they're saying is that, if they confront someone in such a situation, and things escalate for whatever reason, that the doubt should go to the person who was defending their property and their rights.

If someone escalates things to the point that you are in fear of your life, why does this not apply under previous self defense law / statutes? Why do you need a law that states that you don't need to fear for your life, only that someone be on your property and be in the process of committing, at minimum, criminal mischief or that they may be about to commit criminal mischief?

Or, if we could draw a parallel, I would be more justified in shooting a kid who has violated my property in the dark, if I perceived a threat, than a highly trained, professional law enforcement officer has in tasering a 20-something speeder, in the back, in broad daylight on the side of a busy highway.

You see, I have no problem with you exercising your right to defend yourself should you feel threatened in the dark. My problem is crafting an overly vague law that eliminates the need for such fear. That's fundamentally why it's no longer about self defense and is an excessive defense of property rights at the cost of human life. I am a strong proponent of equitable force. Harming one's property simply does not warrant lethal force.

No one has yet to explain why criminal mischief should be met with lethal force. Every attempt at an example used relates to a situation where something escalates or they feel threatened. Both of these are already covered as self defense.