[quote]People repeat this mantra all the time but many fail to realize this is a concept that applies within legal proceedings and does not necessarily apply elsewhere.
Example: You witness a man breaking into your home, raping and killing your wife and daughter while you lay on the floor tied up in duct tape. The man leaves your house. You get loose from bonds and grab a shotgun and find him one hour later breaking into a neighbor’s car to steal it. You aim for his upper torso. Pull the trigger. His body instantly becomes several pieces.
Should a fireplug come along and say, “Uh. So, guilty until proven innocent then? I’m not saying that he didn’t do it, but still” or should a fireplug say, “Hot Damn, now that’s what I’m talkin’ 'bout”?[/quote]
Well, in that case a fireplug would probably say, “That’s some fucked up shit, but good job buddy.” Well, in those kinds of situations violent action is totally appropriate. As I have not read the article and wasn’t there asserting that the hunter acted inappropriately would be a little hard to support.
What I was reacting to was the sense gathered from the other posters assuming that he was guilty and therefore mob justice is warranted. Sure, detain a suspected criminal but why assume, especially when you were not privy to any information that he is guilty.
Why do innocent people run? It happens all the time.