I don’t think it does
The Tennessean thinks a shooting shines light on deadly force laws:
Jefferson Bilbrey, who worked as a clerk at Shell Market, at 197 Haywood Lane, was released on bond this week after his arrest on a charge of second-degree murder in the death of Richard Huddleston. Surveillance video shows Huddleston stealing beer and ball caps from the store moments before the shooting.
But Bilbrey, 45, violated the law by chasing Huddleston out of the store and shooting him dead March 10 as the unarmed 22-year-old tried to climb into a car near the gas pumps, police said.
Based on the description, I buy the police version. And that would not be protected under Tennessee’s pending self defense bills, which is self defense and not property defense. The rest of the Tennessean’s article has nothing to do with this shooting.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
I would not have chased him and shot him. However, I do think it should be legal to shoot thieves.
For what is theft, but murder writ small? Theft is the negation of the period of life the rightful owner of that property invested in obtaining it. It is sometimes his livelihood. Murder is the theft of life, which is immoral and illegal. Not all homicides are murder.
If murder is the theft of life, then theft of property is theft of that part of the life invested in the procurement of that property. Hence, murder writ small.
As I stated, I wouldn’t have shot him. But I cannot condemn the man who did. The thief took a risk and lost. He met someone who didn’t want to be robbed.
They should turn him loose, and they should rewrite the law if it does not allow the protection of property.
Harsh, yep. Ask yourself this. Would you shoot a man pouring gasoline on your home and trying to set it afire, even though the house had no current occupants because the family was all at the pool? In that case, I would. That would be too much life of mine to allow him to steal.
While I wouldn’t shoot him over my car, he could definitely at some point cross the line where I would. It is the victim’s choice, or it should be, to determine where that line is, once someone decides to trespass him.