|
On September 16 2009 14:44 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 14:34 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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....yeah I know that sounds bad but I lose faith in humanity day by day.
Losing faith in humanity is cliche and trendy. Acceptance and compassion are much more productive, and harder to do.
You have to have pity for the burglar. People who do shit like that typically have pretty fucked up childhoods or untreated mental disorders. We are largely the product of how we were raised. After that period, it's pretty tough to change core things about yourself, i.e. how you see the world and how you perceive the world sees you.
|
On September 16 2009 14:42 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +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!
I just want to point out that 2 and 3 above are entirely dependent upon the laws of your jurisdiction. As I've mentioned previously in my years on these forums, in many criminal law jurisdictions there is a concept of excessive self defence; in other words, and using a crass example, in such jurisdictions it is not acceptable to shoot someone who is trying to push or punch you.
I personally don't understand any mentality that breeds acceptance of such disproportionality.
|
On September 16 2009 14:49 Saddened Izzy wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Who are you, Thomas Hobbes? Are you cynical about the human nature and that the goal in life of humans is to hurt each other?
Dude, there is something wrong with you, go see a therapist.
(therapist -> the rapist HAHAHAHAHA) (ok that joke was lame)
On September 16 2009 14:50 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 14:42 MuffinDude wrote: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! I just want to point out that 2 and 3 above are entirely dependent upon the laws of your jurisdiction. As I've mentioned previously in my years on these forums, in many criminal law jurisdictions there is a concept of excessive self defence; in other words, and using a crass example, in such jurisdictions it is not acceptable to shoot someone who is trying to push or punch you. I personally don't understand any mentality that breeds acceptance of such disproportionality.
You bring up an interesting point, and after some consideration, I have to say that, no law prohibits a person from walking in his house with a katana and if your life is threatened, self-defense is alright.
|
btw, how many people would actually call the police because they think they here someone downstair? I think most people would go and check it out.
Seems like I'm in between the killing the guy and the not do anyhing side...
|
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.
Please do realize that weapon possession in most other countries is illegal. So you absolutely do not legally have any right to approach somebody in your house with a gun. That's in America and is not outside of the U.S.
I don't think you have a right to approach someone in your house with a gun for the very simple reason that I don't believe in a right to own guns. I believe a society without civilians with firearms is much better and safer than the ones with.I suppose you have some sort of 'right' approaching with a sword, but doing so is plain retarded because:
a) he won't have a weapon and 99% chance you didn't need a sword to make him flee
b) he will have a weapon which in most cases >>> sword meaning gg you
|
sword is way overkill, I agree.
|
On September 16 2009 14:52 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +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. Please do realize that weapon possession in most other countries is illegal. So you absolutely do not legally have any right to approach somebody in your house with a gun. That's in America and is not outside of the U.S. I don't think you have a right to approach someone in your house with a gun for the very simple reason that I don't believe in a right to own guns. And I suppose you have some sort of 'right' approaching with a sword, but doing so is plain retarded because: a) he won't have a weapon and 99% chance you didn't need a sword to make him flee b) he will have a weapon which in most cases >>> sword meaning gg you
a) 99%? No, more like 50 - 50. I don't like that chance. I would prefer a sword to drive him off.
b) I'M A FCKING NINJA! I CAN DODGE BULLETS! But seriously, I feel much safer holding something I can protect myself with. This leads to an important point that he grabbed the sword because he had nothing else and I'm pretty sure holding a pencil or pen wouldn't be of any comfort.
|
Something almost everyone is ignoring is one fact, your time on earth, or your life has more than just some intangible value, you spend it working, and in return receive money. Your money, is a physical representation of your life. If you worked for something, and it was always taken from you, they are taking away your life. You have a right to defend your property, because you are trading your life for money, and that money for property.
And no this isn't a logical fallacy of the excluded middle.
|
On September 16 2009 10:06 Megalisk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 10:01 SanguineToss wrote:On September 16 2009 09:53 MamiyaOtaru wrote:
press charges why? ? Unnecessary force. Some asshole comes in to your house and tries to rob your stuff, if he saw you he wouldn't hesitate at all to hurt you, so it had to be done, and judging by his record, he should've been taken out of society a long time ago. I'm gonna get a sword when I get a house, here in Texas I don't have to worry about owning a burglar on my property :D.
HAHAHAHA I was thinking the same thing,
God Bless Texas. =D
|
So basically:
A criminal robbed from a college kid before,
and he does it again, by breaking into the garage.
The kid hears a noise, grabs a sword and goes into the garage.
Caught, the robber charges at the kid.
The kid takes one swing, and fatally wounds the robber, who would die later.
|
On September 16 2009 14:52 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +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. Please do realize that weapon possession in most other countries is illegal. So you absolutely do not legally have any right to approach somebody in your house with a gun. That's in America and is not outside of the U.S. I don't think you have a right to approach someone in your house with a gun for the very simple reason that I don't believe in a right to own guns. I believe a society without civilians with firearms is much better and safer than the ones with.I suppose you have some sort of 'right' approaching with a sword, but doing so is plain retarded because: a) he won't have a weapon and 99% chance you didn't need a sword to make him flee b) he will have a weapon which in most cases >>> sword meaning gg you
Ok well "legally armed" then. Doesn't even have to be a gun, but you definitely have a right to walk freely within your own house with anything legal in your possession that you choose to have in your possession.
@Madness that asked if a baseball bat or golf club was a weapon
Whether something is a weapon depends entirely upon how you use it. Why would you make a distinction over robbing someone with a sword and robbing someone with a large knife just because the knife can also be used to slice bread? It makes no sense. In USA, if you attack someone with a baseball bat or a shovel you will most likely be charged with assault with a deadly weapon even though they are designed to hit balls and dig holes.
|
That sums it up quite nicely.
On September 16 2009 14:59 BlackJack wrote:
Ok well "legally armed" then. Doesn't even have to be a gun, but you definitely have a right to walk freely within your own house with anything legal in your possession that you choose to have in your possession.
@Madness that asked if a baseball bat or golf club was a weapon
Whether something is a weapon depends entirely upon how you use it. Why would you make a distinction over robbing someone with a sword and robbing someone with a large knife just because the knife can also be used to slice bread? It makes no sense.
True, my high school banned yo-yo because it can be used as a weapon. Its supposed to be used to played with but depending on how someone uses it, it can be different. Same goes for the blades that I use to sharpen my pencil with. (Yea, i'm pretty old school, pencil sharpeners are so overrated. :D)
|
On September 16 2009 14:57 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
Something almost everyone is ignoring is one fact, your time on earth, or your life has more than just some intangible value, you spend it working, and in return receive money. Your money, is a physical representation of your life. If you worked for something, and it was always taken from you, they are taking away your life. You have a right to defend your property, because you are trading your life for money, and that money for property.
And no this isn't a logical fallacy of the excluded middle.
sad
Whether something is a weapon depends entirely upon how you use it. Why would you make a distinction over robbing someone with a sword and robbing someone with a large knife just because the knife can also be used to slice bread? It makes no sense. In USA, if you attack someone with a baseball bat or a shovel you will most likely be charged with assault with a deadly weapon even though they are designed to hit balls and dig holes.
Approaching someone with a baseball bat is pretty acceptable. Chances are you can take him out in a worst case scenario, without actually killing him. It's just a question of risk reward. If he's about to take your entire life savings it's worth going out there, but I'm not risking my life for a few hundred bucks worth of stuff. And I won't have my entire life savings in my living room. I mean there's certain things everyone would stand up for like a wife/kids. It's just a matter of how much something is worth.
|
Why is it 50/50 that someone has a weapon, what do you need a weapon for when you're there to steal stuff? On the other hand, when you know there's a gun lunatic in every house that just want's to shoot you at first site, I can see why ppl would...
|
arghhh, ive seen the title 10 times already. its bugging me so much lol. plzz fix the spelling :O
|
And for clarification purposes of this thread, none of you know if the robber actually attacked the kid and the kid was defending himself. None of us know. You are innocent until proven guilty so people shouldn't condemn the kid like he executed the criminal. But you also shouldn't state it as fact that the robber charged the kid and he defended himself because as I said, none of us know and of course he is going to tell the police he charged at him whether he did or not.
|
On September 16 2009 15:01 MadNeSs wrote:
Why is it 50/50 that someone has a weapon, what do you need a weapon for when you're there to steal stuff? On the other hand, when you know there's a gun lunatic in every house that just want's to shoot you at first site, I can see why ppl would...
50/50 is a phrase used to say that it could go either way. A person can try to escape or knock you out to continue the theft, so its a 50/50 situation, because anything could happen.
And a lot of people carry a bat to protect themselves? Why? Its all psychology. It makes the person feel more comfortable and safer than not holding one.
And if you want my opinion, theres a limit to how much can get stolen. If its a ps3, laptop, sure. But if its something like 20,000 car, I won't kill but I would like to beat the living shit out of them.
|
On September 16 2009 15:03 BlackJack wrote:
And for clarification purposes of this thread, none of you know if the robber actually attacked the kid and the kid was defending himself. None of us know. You are innocent until proven guilty so people shouldn't condemn the kid like he executed the criminal. But you also shouldn't state it as fact that the robber charged the kid and he defended himself because as I said, none of us know and of course he is going to tell the police he charged at him whether he did or not.
Well, if you're going to be so cynical, then all we can say is that a dead robber was found in a garage with sword wounds. The college kid had a sword, but we don't know if he used it or not, and we don't know who actually broke the garage.
How else would the robber get slashed? He would've had to not notice the kid or must've charged at him.
|
On September 16 2009 15:05 Avidkeystamper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 15:03 BlackJack wrote:
And for clarification purposes of this thread, none of you know if the robber actually attacked the kid and the kid was defending himself. None of us know. You are innocent until proven guilty so people shouldn't condemn the kid like he executed the criminal. But you also shouldn't state it as fact that the robber charged the kid and he defended himself because as I said, none of us know and of course he is going to tell the police he charged at him whether he did or not. Well, if you're going to be so cynical, then all we can say is that a dead robber was found in a garage with sword wounds. The college kid had a sword, but we don't know if he used it or not, and we don't know who actually broke the garage. How else would the robber get slashed? He would've had to not notice the kid or must've charged at him.
It's possible that the kid entered the garage from the same way the burglar did and the robber was cornered. It says in the article that the garage was detatched from the house so it's unlikely that there were multiple ways to enter the garage. Nobody is being cyncical, you just can't automatically assume that somebody has the balls to charge someone wielding a katana.
|
On September 16 2009 14:59 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 14:52 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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. Please do realize that weapon possession in most other countries is illegal. So you absolutely do not legally have any right to approach somebody in your house with a gun. That's in America and is not outside of the U.S. I don't think you have a right to approach someone in your house with a gun for the very simple reason that I don't believe in a right to own guns. I believe a society without civilians with firearms is much better and safer than the ones with.I suppose you have some sort of 'right' approaching with a sword, but doing so is plain retarded because: a) he won't have a weapon and 99% chance you didn't need a sword to make him flee b) he will have a weapon which in most cases >>> sword meaning gg you Ok well "legally armed" then. Doesn't even have to be a gun, but you definitely have a right to walk freely within your own house with anything legal in your possession that you choose to have in your possession. @Madness that asked if a baseball bat or golf club was a weapon Whether something is a weapon depends entirely upon how you use it. Why would you make a distinction over robbing someone with a sword and robbing someone with a large knife just because the knife can also be used to slice bread? It makes no sense. In USA, if you attack someone with a baseball bat or a shovel you will most likely be charged with assault with a deadly weapon even though they are designed to hit balls and dig holes.
Then the laws must be different then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
