Moral dilemma?

The story, FBI Imposter Shoots, Kills Two Sex Offenders, was the inspiration behind today's Quick Poll at LarsLarson.com. (left side) The conversation prompted some interesting phone calls and a discussion at my workplace.

On the quick poll I chose the "No. Performed a public service" answer. This means that if you told me right now that you knew who the killer was I would not inform the police of that information.

Let me go a step further. If the killer was caught and I was on the jury then I would not be able to find him guilty. Not because I believe in vigilante justice, not because of the defendants skin color, and not because he had a rough childhood so it's not his fault. I would find the defendant not guilty within the law. Let me explain:

We, as Americans and individuals, have an obligation to protect ourselves, families, and innocent life. This obligation comes from God but our laws recognize this need as well and provide for justified killing in self-defense or the defense of others.

Government can't and does not protect the individual. It isn't even their mandate. Government is to provide for public safety. If someone breaks into your house with the intent to kill you, unless you are armed and prepared to defend yourself, then he will kill you. Government's job is to then respond by locking him up to protect the general public.

Rarely do the police prevent crimes, they simply respond to and solve crimes. This is one of the main reasons for the second amendment.

Now, we have a government that refuses to even provide for the general public safety. The legislature refused to pass Jessica's Law that would have provided for increased jail time for sexual predators who victimize children under the age of 12.

So sexual predators are released into society even though there is a HUGE probability that they will offend again. At this point your family's safety is jeopardized. There is a threat. But just like with any threat you must decide what the threat level is and what the proper response is.

For some, it may mean extra vigilance. For others, they may post pictures and warnings. This man chose to neutralize the threat by killing the predators.

You may argue that the threat was not immediate or readily apparent but that is in the eye of the beholder. Those of you who would judge this man must remember that certain elements of the community think that a crack-addict who is high and behind the wheel does not constitute a threat worthy of neutralizing.

I'm betting that the father of the Florida girl, Jessica, wishes that someone had taken steps to neutralize the threat posed by the sexual predator who abused and murdered his daughter. Everyone recognized the danger but the government chose not to provide for the public safety and no private citizen provided for individual safety.

These predators are ticking time bombs, I understand why someone would choose to defuse them. In this case we will never know how many, if any, kid's innocence and their very lives were spared by the actions of this man.

Note: I am not endorsing murder or saying that all sex offenders should be killed. I am not encouraging anyone to commit any crime. The above post is simply an intellectual exercise in which I explained how I would come to a not guilty verdict in the case of a man shooting two sexual predators to death.