Again, the point is to know how things really are. You don’t do that by assuming things. So don’t assume that X is a sadist. Don’t assume that’s he’s totally innocent either. He shot a guy. He may be a sadistic bastard. Or may have done so to save his own life.
Daniel seems to always be arguing against proportionality, which is, IMO nonsense. So, again, the idea that being aggressed gives you carte blanche to retaliate by killing people is a joke.
nevermind, I miss read the OP where he kills the criminal the next day, that is almost certainly excessive use of violence. I read it all as one fluid action, where this was all taking place in his home in a relativly short time frame. My bad, should have read the thread more carefully before posting.
I still say that it would be near impossible to prove me as malicously murdering an agressive intruder on my property, and that during the break in the home owner can not be held accountable for much rational action.
Since it’s not a practical business model.
It’s more likely that they’ll be kicked out from any place they try to live, their assets will be frozen etc.
Maybe if their restitution was X years of slavery, or if certain protection agencies pay a private prison system to keep them incarcerated to protect their customers.
I’d say it’d simply be easier, cheaper and more effective to watch certain individuals who are suspect, as I said, it’d be even easier than that to contract with road or community owners banning certian individuals (another point for manorialism, by the way).