When decent citizens fail to receive adequate protection from governmental agencies, and when they have no reasonable expectation that the scum of society will be properly punished for their crimes, they will be tempted to take the law into their own hands. Liberals need to think about this. The American Thinker offers commentary on the Jerome Ersland case.
My thought: Ersland was fully justified in shooting the ski-masked punk who was attempting armed robbery. But after he had felled the thug, and he was lying unconscious on the floor, Ersland was not justified morally in 'finishing him off.' But that is very easy for me to say, sitting here in comfort and safety in my philosopher's retreat, having no need to face an increasingingly violent public as a pharmacy worker or convenience store attendant. If had been in Ersland's position I would have been tempted to do what he did. Why let a malefactor live who will most likely come gunning for you later? Why let the worthless piece of human detritus live to commit further crimes, especially when the likelihood of his being properly segregated from the rest of us is low? Why not send a signal to the criminal element that there is no percentage in armed robbery? And for that matter, why not send a signal to the contemptible liberals who will excuse and defend any miscreant while showing no concern for the decent citizens who pay the bills?
Recent Comments