- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
Can someone answer a simple question: Why is it that a person must either agree with the requirement to know with certainty the thoughts and intents of an intruder as well as his/her capability of causing harm in addition to positively identifying that person ( I guess 'I don't know who the f**k it is' in the event of an complete stranger invading one's home isn't good enough)or else is presumed to be advocating doing magazine dumps on shadows, sounds, imaginary apparitions, or one's own children?
After that, why is it not reasonable to start with the belief that an unauthorized person who has entered one's home through means which generally fall under the umbrella of 'breaking and entering' is most likely there for nefarious purposes?
Seriously, why are some of you assuming that anyone who doesn't conduct a full interview and acquire a signed affidavit of intent to engage in illegal/harmful activities in lieu of clairvoyant powers indicating the same have to be a trigger-happy moron?
After that, why is it not reasonable to start with the belief that an unauthorized person who has entered one's home through means which generally fall under the umbrella of 'breaking and entering' is most likely there for nefarious purposes?
Seriously, why are some of you assuming that anyone who doesn't conduct a full interview and acquire a signed affidavit of intent to engage in illegal/harmful activities in lieu of clairvoyant powers indicating the same have to be a trigger-happy moron?