I think most will agree that not nearly all human behavior can be legislated. It is for that reason that many laws are written in a very broad sense, almost like the cliche 'what is illegal? I'll know when I see it' Take that RICO law brought about to combat organized crime. So in that context: What matters more? the letter of the law, or the context and the circumstances under which something is done?

 

The founding fathers designed a country of laws and not men, meaning that the law is the law and no kings or other government officials could twist the law to their advantage. The rule of law should be above any and all judges. Where there is doubt the law should be struck down and have to be rewritten.

 

Wurd........

 

I think that you missed the point I was trying to discus. In no way am I implying or advocating anyone to be above any law or that it should be twisted in favor of someone bacause of any clout they may have.

Here is an example: Some time ago, I think in California, but location is irrelevant, a man killed another man, who was, by the accounts given, "terrorizing" the neighborhood, threatening everyone, and so one. Repeated reports to the police did not solve the problem, not because the police did not care or want to, but as it is in so many instances, under the cicumstances there was liitle they could do under the law. So when one day the guy showed ut at his front door, with what I remember verbal threats, the guy just could not take it anymore and shot him. He was charged with second degree murder. I do not know the outcome ot the trial.
So, if you take the law in its strictes sense, the guy killed a man, which would make him guilty. Now if you take in consideration the circumstances, why was a life taken, who was killed and so one, it can be an entirely different matter. I am sorry I do not recall the specifics of the threats, that made the killing in my opinion warranted, but I can tell you that it made one of the news documentaries, Prime Time or something like that. It was one of those "the bad guy had it coming." But the law is the law, and one should not take it into their own hands, that is if one follows the 'letter' of the law.

I just also want to say that in no way am I advocating vigilanteism, taking the law into ones hands, lawlesness, or any such bad behavior. Merely want to discus those rare instances that somehow fall outside the box.

 

The courts have the right to determine how to interpet the laws as they apply on a case by case basis, at least that is the way it is suppossed to work.
They use two primary concepts in doing this. The first is termed "Strict Interpretation"- the traffic code is enforced this way......not stopping at the red light is not stopping at the red light, no if, ands or buts....the law is enforced exactly as written.
The second is termed " Legislative Intent"- what did the writers of the law intend for the law to accomplish....this area obviously leaves a lot of room for argument... what consitutes "justifiable homicide... insider trading....slander?

In the case you talk about, what was the shooters mental state at the time? Did he beleive he was in immediate danger, or did he just get sick and tired of dealing with the guy and loose his temper? Theres a lot that would come into play in a situation like that.

 

Thanks Chris.

I do not know what the shooters frame of mind was at the time, I do not think anybody can truly know, yet it is a major factor. For whatever it is worth, the man was not young, was a decent, hard working, never any problems withthe law, not in any way arrogant, simply put a GOOD guy.

The reason I brought up the issue is that more and more we see events that end up in courts, that due to the complexness of our lives and society, do not simply fit the mold anymore. Just wanted to see how others feel about it. No right or wrong sought here just "hey this is the way I see it"

 

The courts interpereting the law leads to legislating from the bench. Now you have a country of men and not laws. Courts should only enforce the letter of the law.