In situations like these, the authority to shoot looters should be given to property owners, under very narrow circumstances.
If they are busting out your windows and stealing your shit, and the police isn't responding, then they should be fair game.
It would only take a couple of shots for them to clear out of your store. It would only take a handful of dead looters before the riots stopped entirely.
When the police fail to do their job, citizens must have the authority to do their job for them.
Moat states only allow you to shoot to protect your life, not your property. Texas is the only one I know of that allows the defense of property with lethal force.
This is what worries me about Kyle's case. We already do have the authority to shoot looters on our property, in most states. In his situation he was defending someone else's property, and put himself into the situation. A patriot for sure, but I don't know if the court with their decades of anti-2a precedent will see it that way.
Hopefully his new lawyers can get it dropped though.
A clause or law that's triggered by something NOT in the control of political puppets, that deputizes all citizens in good standing to defend life liberty and property of their cities towns and neighborhoods.
In situations like these, the authority to shoot looters should be given to property owners, under very narrow circumstances.
If they are busting out your windows and stealing your shit, and the police isn't responding, then they should be fair game.
It would only take a couple of shots for them to clear out of your store. It would only take a handful of dead looters before the riots stopped entirely.
When the police fail to do their job, citizens must have the authority to do their job for them.
That's already the case in most states
Moat states only allow you to shoot to protect your life, not your property. Texas is the only one I know of that allows the defense of property with lethal force.
This is what worries me about Kyle's case. We already do have the authority to shoot looters on our property, in most states. In his situation he was defending someone else's property, and put himself into the situation. A patriot for sure, but I don't know if the court with their decades of anti-2a precedent will see it that way.
Hopefully his new lawyers can get it dropped though.
A clause or law that's triggered by something NOT in the control of political puppets, that deputizes all citizens in good standing to defend life liberty and property of their cities towns and neighborhoods.