Imagine two incidents when a person is at home and they hear someone outside their house. In the first incident, they grab a knife and head outside. In the second incident, they grab an air rifle and go outside. In the first incident, they see two taggers running away and chase them. In the second incident, they see two men dressed in black running away and chase them. Both incidents see the weapon used and one of the people who were attempting to escape killed.
Which do you agree with?
a) The property owner has every right to defend their property. Anyone sneaking around on someone else’s property is asking for trouble. The property owner should not be punished – it’s the intruder’s fault they’re dead, the property owner was only expressing “his frustration over the issue“.
b) In the first example to killing is OK but not in the second one. The ‘McVicar defence’ only applies to cases when it’s a Pakeha business owner killing a kid who can be dismissed as ‘underclass’. Not when a suspected drug dealer kills someone who turns out to be a cop.
c) Any killing is a terrible act. Killing can only be justified in exceptional circumstances. Using a potentially deadly weapon against someone merely for infringing on your property is illegal and immoral, and deserves to be punished.
If you answered a you should consider voting for ACT (“the Liberal Party”). If you answered b) you’re a racist bigot, you should join the Sensible Sentencing Trust, maybe you can find out who their major backers really are. If you answered c) congratulations, you’re a decent human being.