4 Comments to 'Different views on the same tragedy'
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Different views on the same tragedy'.
:: Trackbacks/Pingbacks ::
No Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Different views on the same tragedy
Posted By katie allison granju
Although all the details from the investigation aren’t known yet, preliminary info from the Morgan County Sheriff’s Department indicates that the pregnant woman shot and killed yesterday lost her life while driving a getaway car in an attempted heist of the shooter’s radiator. He shot at the car as it drove off his property, hitting the woman and killing her. She was eight months pregnant, and her unborn child also died. In the car with her were several men, one apparently her boyfriend, and perhaps most disturbing, her 14 month old baby.
The shooter is being charged with two counts of murder, and an interesting discussion is underway in the comment section below the story at WBIR.com.
While the level of discourse isn’t tremendously high, it’s fascinating to see how different people can look at teh same tragedy and see entirely different storylines. To perhaps most of the commenters, the woman was a common thief and the man was protecting his property, as he had a right to do. To these folks, the woman might as well have shot herself.
To others, the shooter used wildly excessive force in what was essentially a petty theft, leaving a woman and a baby dead, and another baby without a mother.
What are your thoughts on this sad and difficult incident?
Feb 12th, 2008
Well, sure, she shouldn’t have put herself and her babies at risk to steal a radiator. But is a radiator really worth a human life? Does anyone have the right to kill someone over the loss of property? Isn’t that just a little disproportionate? He wasn’t shooting to defend himself. There’s nothing that will convince me that such an action was warranted on his part.
“Does anyone have the right to kill someone over the loss of property?” Ever heard of the castle doctrine? Some states apparently think that, yes, defending one’s property is within the acceptable limits of the law. I’m not sure this guy would even be charged here in Texas.
That being said, castle doctrine of not, I believe the responsibility lies with the woman for endangering herself and her children. This is tragic, but she is not a victim here. If anything, her negligence made her children into victims.
I don’t know the exact wordings of the various states’ “castle doctrines,” but I believe the basic premise is that if someone is in your house (uninvited of course) you can presume you are in grave danger and use deadly force. I don’t think shooting at a car driving away qualifies. I suppose that is assuming the people in the car weren’t shooting back.
While I personally don’t think I could shoot a fleeing thief over minor property, I also don’t think I could convict someone for doing so.
Some ask “is a radiator worth a human life?”, but it’s not the radiator, it’s the principle of the whole thing: Your property represents money, which represents time and sweat. Your life is made of time and sweat. Are you going to stand by and watch people steal pieces of your life? Where do you draw the line? $5? $50? $50,000? How much theft can you condone?
Now, suppose the shooter had stood by and called the cops instead. Remember that all calling 911 does is bring a gun to the scene, just on someone else’s hip. And say that the police tried to arrest her, and she resisted and was killed. Is she not just as dead, still over the theft of a radiator? Is it okay because it was your delegated employee that shot her, rather than yourself?