On September 16 2009 14:24 Saddened Izzy wrote: But i'm saying you loose the right to claim self defense because you put yourself into that situation and you were the only one armed.
How is that so fucking hard to wrap your head around. He put himself in danger even more by going to the robber instead of waiting it out in another room one with a lock hopefully. He took justice into his own hands and it resulted in him killing a man, you never have the right to take justice into your own hands and confront criminals and punished criminals and expect that you should be left free. That to me is never right.
Read what Nazgul says he is a much better typer then I am and i agree with what he says it is more or less what i'm tiring to get across.
Dude, do you realize NOBODY in this thread is behind you? Nazgul isn't saying this isn't self-defense.
"you never have the right to take justice into your own hands and confront criminals"
Um, yes you do. You have no idea what you're talking about.
You know, if this burglar was some young student who committed a few offences here and there, I would feel bad for him dying because he could have just been troubled and had a whole life ahead of him to turn things around. Sure, the way the situation was handled is questionable, but when someone is 49 years old and has committed 29 offenses in the past, I say good riddence to bad rubbish. I don't know what's worse; that tax payers would have to pay for this man's meals and internet acccess in jail again or that this guy had another 30 years left to potentially add to the gene pool.
On September 16 2009 13:54 keV. wrote: Well that is the wrong way to look at it. The thief could have easily surrendered. Lunging at a terrified nerd cost him his life.
You guys all assume that confrontation immediately always puts you in danger, in fact, it can be quite the opposite. The man was ready to see what was going on having previously been robbed a substantial amount (2 laptops and a playstation? cmon), of course you can say "Omfg he should have just hid in a corner, because if he confronts the man hes putting himself in danger and obviously intending to kill him!11". No, he couldn't have had any intention of killing the man, he was only interested in attempting to secure his belongings and get the man to leave. The fact that the man attempted to attack him justifies self defense, as if the attack had succeed in perhaps disarming him he would be in immediate mortal danger. It's so easy to argue he could have done something different, so therefore what he did was wrong and he should be charged. You just assume that when he walked down the stairs with his sword, he knew that the thief was unarmed, and not a threat. Perhaps he confronted the thief to confirm his suspicions that he was being robbed, and then forced into a situation in which he would have to defend himself.
Killing is wrong in many circumstances, but this is one of those times when it is necessary.
On September 16 2009 14:30 Masamune wrote: You know, if this burglar was some young student who committed a few offences here and there, I would feel bad for him dying because he could have just been troubled and had a whole life ahead of him to turn things around. Sure, the way the situation was handled is questionable, but when someone is 49 years old and has committed 29 offenses in the past, I say good riddence to bad rubbish. I don't know what's worse; that tax payers would have to pay for this man's meals and internet acccess in jail again or that this guy had another 30 years left to potentially add to the gene pool.
I don't want to agree or disagree on your first statements. I just want to say for the discussion of the morality you can't assume any of this. What's right and what's wrong and even what's in the middle is all done without having any information on who this person is. It could be a kid 16 years old forced to do this by his father. It could be a pregnant mother illegal and jobless desperately trying to provide for her future kid. It could be a grandfather whos grand-child is without health care and will die without funding.
I think there are a couple things we should all be able to agree on..
1) The SAFEST way to handle a burglar in your house is to call the police on lock the door to whatever room you are in until the police arrive. There's basically no arguing with the fact that confrontation is more dangerous than no confrontation.
2) You absolutely have a RIGHT to confront somebody in your house armed or not armed. Of course you are putting your life at risk but to say that you don't have the right to move freely in your own home because there is an intruder inside is ridiculous.
I think the problem that makes the debate in this thread so absurd is that there are a few crazys on both sides that are disagreeing with these 2 points that I think should be obvious basis to start from before complicating the matter further.
On September 16 2009 14:30 Masamune wrote: You know, if this burglar was some young student who committed a few offences here and there, I would feel bad for him dying because he could have just been troubled and had a whole life ahead of him to turn things around. Sure, the way the situation was handled is questionable, but when someone is 49 years old and has committed 29 offenses in the past, I say good riddence to bad rubbish. I don't know what's worse; that tax payers would have to pay for this man's meals and internet acccess in jail again or that this guy had another 30 years left to potentially add to the gene pool.
I don't want to agree or disagree on your first statements. I just want to say for the discussion of the morality you can't assume any of this. What's right and what's wrong and even what's in the middle is all done without having any information on who this person is. It could be a kid 16 years old forced to do this by his father. It could be a pregnant mother illegal and jobless desperately trying to provide for her future kid. It could be a grandfather whos grand-child is without health care and will die without funding.
Its morally wrong but should he be punished, NO! And I don't see why you would need to kill to get money, you steal to get money.
On September 16 2009 14:36 BlackJack wrote: I think there are a couple things we should all be able to agree on..
1) The SAFEST way to handle a burglar in your house is to call the police on lock the door to whatever room you are in until the police arrive. There's basically no arguing with the fact that confrontation is more dangerous than no confrontation.
2) You absolutely have a RIGHT to confront somebody in your house armed or not armed. Of course you are putting your life at risk but to say that you don't have the right to move freely in your own home because there is an intruder inside is ridiculous.
I think the problem that makes the debate in this thread so absurd is that there are a few crazys on both sides that are disagreeing with these 2 points that I think should be obvious basis to start from before complicating the matter further.
On September 16 2009 14:24 Saddened Izzy wrote: But i'm saying you loose the right to claim self defense because you put yourself into that situation and you were the only one armed.
How is that so fucking hard to wrap your head around. He put himself in danger even more by going to the robber instead of waiting it out in another room one with a lock hopefully. He took justice into his own hands and it resulted in him killing a man, you never have the right to take justice into your own hands and confront criminals and punished criminals and expect that you should be left free. That to me is never right.
Read what Nazgul says he is a much better typer then I am and i agree with what he says it is more or less what i'm tiring to get across.
Dude, do you realize NOBODY in this thread is behind you? Nazgul isn't saying this isn't self-defense.
"you never have the right to take justice into your own hands and confront criminals"
Um, yes you do. You have no idea what you're talking about.
you never have the right to take justice into your own hands and confront criminals and punished criminals and expect that you should be left free.
You have the right to confront criminals yes You do not have the right to confront criminals and to be exempt from the law
Take the whole sentence. I can say I hate jews, not. and you can mis quote me and say i hate jews it must be what i meant.
I have to say I agree with nazgul and the other guy, who says that killing someone for robbing you can never be justified,
Anyways, I still have to wonder, why did the guy bring a samurai sword, he could probably have brought club or someting similar. But by bringing a sword (he knows) there is a much higher chance that if he confronts (which i obviously will) him, that he might kill the guy, even from just one cut/stab. I really think that he should be procecuted for it, because noone should ever be allowed to kill someone for trying to steal some of you stuff. I mean how can you even think that taking someones life for stealing is right? A burglar just isn't a killer.
However if you choose to bring a sword so stop a burgelar, you are purposely trying to engage in a confrontation - And again with a fucking sword - What is the guy thinking? You have some intend of really hurting/killing (same can be said for a gun) the guy, likewise you you brought a golfclub or something like that. Even though I diffently think that you should be allowed to use some kind of weapon to defend yourself with though, but if you use a weapon made for killing, then you deserve some fucking jailtime - Why should you be allowed to take someone elses life, because of some stuff he took, and he never had the intend to hurt you.
On September 16 2009 14:33 Phayze wrote: You guys all assume that confrontation immediately always puts you in danger, in fact, it can be quite the opposite. The man was ready to see what was going on having previously been robbed a substantial amount (2 laptops and a playstation? cmon), of course you can say "Omfg he should have just hid in a corner, because if he confronts the man hes putting himself in danger and obviously intending to kill him!11". No, he couldn't have had any intention of killing the man, he was only interested in attempting to secure his belongings and get the man to leave. The fact that the man attempted to attack him justifies self defense, as if the attack had succeed in perhaps disarming him he would be in immediate mortal danger. It's so easy to argue he could have done something different, so therefore what he did was wrong and he should be charged. You just assume that when he walked down the stairs with his sword, he knew that the thief was unarmed, and not a threat. Perhaps he confronted the thief to confirm his suspicions that he was being robbed, and then forced into a situation in which he would have to defend himself.
Killing is wrong in many circumstances, but this is one of those times when it is necessary.
I'm not making any accusations of right or wrong. I'm just saying from a basic self-preservation point of view (which is the only thing that would matter to me in this situation - the safety of myself and anyone else I'm living with) confronting the intruder is not prudent, period.
On September 16 2009 14:39 MadNeSs wrote: I have to say I agree with nazgul and the other guy, who says that killing someone for robbing you can never be justified,
Anyways, I still have to wonder, why did the guy bring a samurai sword, he could probably have brought club or someting similar. But by bringing a sword (he knows) there is a much higher chance that if he confronts (which i obviously will) him, that he might kill the guy, even from just one cut/stab. I really think that he should be procecuted for it, because noone should ever be allowed to kill someone for trying to steal some of you stuff. I mean how can you even think that taking someones life for stealing is right? A burglar just isn't a killer.
However if you choose to bring a sword so stop a burgelar, you are purposely trying to engage in a confrontation - And again with a fucking sword - What is the guy thinking? You have some intend of really hurting/killing (same can be said for a gun) the guy, likewise you you brought a golfclub or something like that. Even though I diffently think that you should be allowed to use some kind of weapon to defend yourself with though, but if you use a weapon made for killing, then you deserve some fucking jailtime - Why should you be allowed to take someone elses life, because of some stuff he took, and he never had the intend to hurt you.
Again, your missing the point.
1) The SAFEST way to handle a burglar in your house is to call the police on lock the door to whatever room you are in until the police arrive. There's basically no arguing with the fact that confrontation is more dangerous than no confrontation.
2) You absolutely have a RIGHT to confront somebody in your house armed or not armed. Of course you are putting your life at risk but to say that you don't have the right to move freely in your own home because there is an intruder inside is ridiculous.
THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT 3) He killed because he was attacked at, not because his property was taken away.
Remember, the point we're arguing is whether he should be punished and I say HELL NO!
On September 16 2009 14:38 Saddened Izzy wrote: you never have the right to take justice into your own hands and confront criminals and punished criminals and expect that you should be left free.
You have the right to confront criminals yes You do not have the right to confront criminals and to be exempt from the law
Take the whole sentence. I can say I hate jews, not. and you can mis quote me and say i hate jews it must be what i meant.
Haha, complete nonsense. Do you honestly think you are driving an actual argument?
Yes, men, we can conclude that this man has lost his mind.
On September 16 2009 14:24 Saddened Izzy wrote: But i'm saying you loose the right to claim self defense because you put yourself into that situation and you were the only one armed.
How is that so fucking hard to wrap your head around. He put himself in danger even more by going to the robber instead of waiting it out in another room one with a lock hopefully. He took justice into his own hands and it resulted in him killing a man, you never have the right to take justice into your own hands and confront criminals and punished criminals and expect that you should be left free. That to me is never right.
Read what Nazgul says he is a much better typer then I am and i agree with what he says it is more or less what i'm tiring to get across.
Dude, do you realize NOBODY in this thread is behind you? Nazgul isn't saying this isn't self-defense.
"you never have the right to take justice into your own hands and confront criminals"
Um, yes you do. You have no idea what you're talking about.
you never have the right to take justice into your own hands and confront criminals and punished criminals and expect that you should be left free.
You have the right to confront criminals yes You do not have the right to confront criminals and to be exempt from the law
Take the whole sentence. I can say I hate jews, not. and you can mis quote me and say i hate jews it must be what i meant.
Haha, complete nonsense. Do you honestly think you are driving an actual argument?
On September 16 2009 14:30 Masamune wrote: You know, if this burglar was some young student who committed a few offences here and there, I would feel bad for him dying because he could have just been troubled and had a whole life ahead of him to turn things around. Sure, the way the situation was handled is questionable, but when someone is 49 years old and has committed 29 offenses in the past, I say good riddence to bad rubbish. I don't know what's worse; that tax payers would have to pay for this man's meals and internet acccess in jail again or that this guy had another 30 years left to potentially add to the gene pool.
I don't want to agree or disagree on your first statements. I just want to say for the discussion of the morality you can't assume any of this. What's right and what's wrong and even what's in the middle is all done without having any information on who this person is. It could be a kid 16 years old forced to do this by his father. It could be a pregnant mother illegal and jobless desperately trying to provide for her future kid. It could be a grandfather whos grand-child is without health care and will die without funding.
Oh no, you're totally right. You can never justify killing someone in this situation or in most. I was just commenting on this story after the fact and based on what we know. I think what I was trying to convey was this was a fresh feeling...that someone got what was coming to them (I'm glad that it was someone who was nearly 50 with 29 past offenses and not some 25 year old with 5)....yeah I know that sounds bad but I lose faith in humanity day by day.
On September 16 2009 14:39 MadNeSs wrote: Even though I diffently think that you should be allowed to use some kind of weapon to defend yourself with though, but if you use a weapon made for killing, then you deserve some fucking jailtime.
Again, this is absolutely absurd thing to say. "It's okay to bring a weapon but not a weapon that is made for killing." ALL weapons are made for killing that is why they are called WEAPONS
Okay people. Just to make sure everyone is on the same page:
Few points.
1) The SAFEST way to handle a burglar in your house is to call the police on lock the door to whatever room you are in until the police arrive. There's basically no arguing with the fact that confrontation is more dangerous than no confrontation.
2) You absolutely have a RIGHT to confront somebody in your house armed or not armed. Of course you are putting your life at risk but to say that you don't have the right to move freely in your own home because there is an intruder inside is ridiculous. Its not against the law to do this too.
The question is, we all know killing is morally wrong, but should he be punished? I say no because he was being attacked and he had all the right to defend himself.
God, I know the first thing I do whenever I suspect there's an intruder in my house is to do a statistical analysis to determine how likely the intruder is to be armed and the degree of danger they pose to me, make an inventory of all the objects I have access to, and order then in a list based on their appropriateness in the average situation.
On September 16 2009 14:46 keV. wrote: Does anyone in here actually think that a 20 year old owns a katana for killing?
On some level yes, it's a symbol of power esp in those who have a fetish for Asian things. Was it the primary thing no, but was it a passing thought in his head he could kill a guy with it probably. Was it a thought when he picked it up to go investigate what was going on in the garage, i would say most definitely.
You are telling me that if you buy a sword it's not because the sword is the awesome killing weapon that is in all these lore and shit. But because it was pretty.
On September 16 2009 14:39 MadNeSs wrote: I have to say I agree with nazgul and the other guy, who says that killing someone for robbing you can never be justified,
Anyways, I still have to wonder, why did the guy bring a samurai sword, he could probably have brought club or someting similar. But by bringing a sword (he knows) there is a much higher chance that if he confronts (which i obviously will) him, that he might kill the guy, even from just one cut/stab. I really think that he should be procecuted for it, because noone should ever be allowed to kill someone for trying to steal some of you stuff. I mean how can you even think that taking someones life for stealing is right? A burglar just isn't a killer.
However if you choose to bring a sword so stop a burgelar, you are purposely trying to engage in a confrontation - And again with a fucking sword - What is the guy thinking? You have some intend of really hurting/killing (same can be said for a gun) the guy, likewise you you brought a golfclub or something like that. Even though I diffently think that you should be allowed to use some kind of weapon to defend yourself with though, but if you use a weapon made for killing, then you deserve some fucking jailtime - Why should you be allowed to take someone elses life, because of some stuff he took, and he never had the intend to hurt you.
If there is an intruder in your house, you usually don't take the time to decide whether or not the weapon you are using will be lethal or not. Yes if he took more than one swing after the guy was down, but it was one swing as the guy was lunging at him. You hear stories like this all the time the only difference here is the weapon used.
EPT
