|
On September 16 2009 21:34 Sprite wrote:
The kid did the right thing. Anyone who says "oh the burglar was unarmed!" the guy couldn't have known that and the chances of grabbing a hammer or baseball bat over a sword to combat the thief are slim to none. If someone is in your home you take the best thing to defend yourself with. When someone LUNGES at a guy carrying a sword, who by the way was on his own property. The guy has every right to defend himself. There are several "what if?" situations that could be played like if he wouldn't have grabbed the sword or confronted the man. However, the thief lunged at him this alone allows the man to defend himself. Nobody is certain of what intentions the man had if he had successfully lunged at him. It's unfortunate that the thief died but who knows if he would have killed someone in that place.
If the thief had a gun it would have been auto gg.
Damn i need to buy a gun too. It would be 50% / 50%. That's fair.
On September 16 2009 21:34 Sprite wrote:
For the people soloing out Americans on self-defense, your logic is pity for someone breaking into your home to potentially harm you and your family. You can't just calculate "oh he would not hurt or kill me!" regardless if you tried to stop him or not.You can't solo out if a person on your home is just going to take stuff. Bottom line someone attacks you, fight back or die. Survival instincts take over in these situations. In this case the guy made sure no one at his residence would be harmed with a single slash. I commend him for it.
Yea because all the thieves are fucking psychos who are here to kill you and rape your dog.
|
On September 16 2009 21:42 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 21:34 Sprite wrote:
The kid did the right thing. Anyone who says "oh the burglar was unarmed!" the guy couldn't have known that and the chances of grabbing a hammer or baseball bat over a sword to combat the thief are slim to none. If someone is in your home you take the best thing to defend yourself with. When someone LUNGES at a guy carrying a sword, who by the way was on his own property. The guy has every right to defend himself. There are several "what if?" situations that could be played like if he wouldn't have grabbed the sword or confronted the man. However, the thief lunged at him this alone allows the man to defend himself. Nobody is certain of what intentions the man had if he had successfully lunged at him. It's unfortunate that the thief died but who knows if he would have killed someone in that place.
If the thief had a gun it would have been auto gg. Damn i need to buy a gun too. It would be 50% / 50%. That's fair. he walked downstairs with a weapon to investigate the noise in a place full of roommates. Not knowing a thief is in his home. He stumbles upon thief, thief assaults him he defends himself. If the guy would have had a gun it would have been murder and we would be having another discussion. But lets stick to the facts of the story he had no gun and he attacked an armed person. Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 21:34 Sprite wrote:
For the people soloing out Americans on self-defense, your logic is pity for someone breaking into your home to potentially harm you and your family. You can't just calculate "oh he would not hurt or kill me!" regardless if you tried to stop him or not.You can't solo out if a person on your home is just going to take stuff. Bottom line someone attacks you, fight back or die. Survival instincts take over in these situations. In this case the guy made sure no one at his residence would be harmed with a single slash. I commend him for it. Yea because all the thieves are fucking psychos who are here to kill you and rape your dog.
the fact you don't know that he isn't a psycho proves my point.
|
On September 16 2009 22:03 Sprite wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 21:42 Boblion wrote:On September 16 2009 21:34 Sprite wrote:
The kid did the right thing. Anyone who says "oh the burglar was unarmed!" the guy couldn't have known that and the chances of grabbing a hammer or baseball bat over a sword to combat the thief are slim to none. If someone is in your home you take the best thing to defend yourself with. When someone LUNGES at a guy carrying a sword, who by the way was on his own property. The guy has every right to defend himself. There are several "what if?" situations that could be played like if he wouldn't have grabbed the sword or confronted the man. However, the thief lunged at him this alone allows the man to defend himself. Nobody is certain of what intentions the man had if he had successfully lunged at him. It's unfortunate that the thief died but who knows if he would have killed someone in that place.
If the thief had a gun it would have been auto gg. Damn i need to buy a gun too. It would be 50% / 50%. That's fair. he walked downstairs with a weapon to investigate the noise in a place full of roommates. Not knowing a thief is in his home. He stumbles upon thief, thief assaults him he defends himself. If the guy would have had a gun it would have been murder and we would be having another discussion. But lets stick to the facts of the story he had no gun and he attacked an armed person. On September 16 2009 21:34 Sprite wrote:
For the people soloing out Americans on self-defense, your logic is pity for someone breaking into your home to potentially harm you and your family. You can't just calculate "oh he would not hurt or kill me!" regardless if you tried to stop him or not.You can't solo out if a person on your home is just going to take stuff. Bottom line someone attacks you, fight back or die. Survival instincts take over in these situations. In this case the guy made sure no one at his residence would be harmed with a single slash. I commend him for it. Yea because all the thieves are fucking psychos who are here to kill you and rape your dog. the fact you don't know that he isn't a psycho proves my point.
Yea lets try a coin flip gun vs gun.
|
On September 16 2009 22:03 Sprite wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 21:42 Boblion wrote:On September 16 2009 21:34 Sprite wrote:
The kid did the right thing. Anyone who says "oh the burglar was unarmed!" the guy couldn't have known that and the chances of grabbing a hammer or baseball bat over a sword to combat the thief are slim to none. If someone is in your home you take the best thing to defend yourself with. When someone LUNGES at a guy carrying a sword, who by the way was on his own property. The guy has every right to defend himself. There are several "what if?" situations that could be played like if he wouldn't have grabbed the sword or confronted the man. However, the thief lunged at him this alone allows the man to defend himself. Nobody is certain of what intentions the man had if he had successfully lunged at him. It's unfortunate that the thief died but who knows if he would have killed someone in that place.
If the thief had a gun it would have been auto gg. Damn i need to buy a gun too. It would be 50% / 50%. That's fair. he walked downstairs with a weapon to investigate the noise in a place full of roommates. Not knowing a thief is in his home. He stumbles upon thief, thief assaults him he defends himself. If the guy would have had a gun it would have been murder and we would be having another discussion. But lets stick to the facts of the story he had no gun and he attacked an armed person. On September 16 2009 21:34 Sprite wrote:
For the people soloing out Americans on self-defense, your logic is pity for someone breaking into your home to potentially harm you and your family. You can't just calculate "oh he would not hurt or kill me!" regardless if you tried to stop him or not.You can't solo out if a person on your home is just going to take stuff. Bottom line someone attacks you, fight back or die. Survival instincts take over in these situations. In this case the guy made sure no one at his residence would be harmed with a single slash. I commend him for it. Yea because all the thieves are fucking psychos who are here to kill you and rape your dog. the fact you don't know that he isn't a psycho proves my point.
what Boblion is saying is that being that "you don't know" anything why go downstairs in the first place? ^_^
I understand his argument and unless I had a gun myself I wouldn't have went either IF I was sure it was a thief. But once the situation happened the student took the best course of action to defend himself/
|
I'm starting to think that buying a sword like that might be a better idea than to buy a gun.
you don't fuck with a guy who has a sword.
Plus if you kill the fucker, you can say You didn't want to kill him. While guns are weapons to kill.
But if the burglar has a gun, then you're probly fucked unless you have some matrix skills.
|
On September 16 2009 22:34 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 22:03 Sprite wrote:On September 16 2009 21:42 Boblion wrote:On September 16 2009 21:34 Sprite wrote:
The kid did the right thing. Anyone who says "oh the burglar was unarmed!" the guy couldn't have known that and the chances of grabbing a hammer or baseball bat over a sword to combat the thief are slim to none. If someone is in your home you take the best thing to defend yourself with. When someone LUNGES at a guy carrying a sword, who by the way was on his own property. The guy has every right to defend himself. There are several "what if?" situations that could be played like if he wouldn't have grabbed the sword or confronted the man. However, the thief lunged at him this alone allows the man to defend himself. Nobody is certain of what intentions the man had if he had successfully lunged at him. It's unfortunate that the thief died but who knows if he would have killed someone in that place.
If the thief had a gun it would have been auto gg. Damn i need to buy a gun too. It would be 50% / 50%. That's fair. he walked downstairs with a weapon to investigate the noise in a place full of roommates. Not knowing a thief is in his home. He stumbles upon thief, thief assaults him he defends himself. If the guy would have had a gun it would have been murder and we would be having another discussion. But lets stick to the facts of the story he had no gun and he attacked an armed person. On September 16 2009 21:34 Sprite wrote:
For the people soloing out Americans on self-defense, your logic is pity for someone breaking into your home to potentially harm you and your family. You can't just calculate "oh he would not hurt or kill me!" regardless if you tried to stop him or not.You can't solo out if a person on your home is just going to take stuff. Bottom line someone attacks you, fight back or die. Survival instincts take over in these situations. In this case the guy made sure no one at his residence would be harmed with a single slash. I commend him for it. Yea because all the thieves are fucking psychos who are here to kill you and rape your dog. the fact you don't know that he isn't a psycho proves my point. what Boblion is saying is that being that "you don't know" anything why go downstairs in the first place? ^_^ I understand his argument and unless I had a gun myself I wouldn't have went either IF I was sure it was a thief. But once the situation happened the student took the best course of action to defend himself/
People are living with you and you hear a loud noise first thought is maybe it's one of these people i live with. but he is uncertain what it is, it could have been anything so he takes his sword just in case he walks into a bad situation which he obviously did. I understand your points and respect them all I'm saying is your last sentence pretty much. Kid took the right course of action after walking down there not knowing what was happening.
|
I got sent this story like 5 times
|
Braavos36373 Posts
are people arguing that its theoretically its safer to stay in your room and call the police? or that the castle law in the United States is wrong?
because if the guy lunged at the college kid in his home after breaking into it, the kid was completely justified in swording him and won't get any punishment. especially since the guy did it before and this was the second time.
all this debate about when to use possibly deadly force and when not to just creates more problems than it solves. the castle rule exists for a reason. people saying "well we dont know what happened" is exactly one of the reasons why the rule exists. it makes it clear and easily enforceable. break into home + fear = you can use force, even deadly force. you may think this rule is stupid, but there are very obvious pros and cons to it.
the reality is, the kid acted within his rights.
|
I eagerly await the day I can put my knife and sword cache to use 
|
why we dont just all agree that its awesome to kill with a samurai sword in the 21century? I mean one Hit, that dude is not bad
|
He just had that mentality.
|
On September 16 2009 19:14 NeoIllusions wrote:
"Sanctity of life" makes me chuckle. Not everyone's life is equal or worth the same. That being said, I hope the student does get acquitted for self-defense.
Having lived in a slummy ghetto like parts of Baltimore, Maryland at one point in my life, I have to say that many of you are over-optimistic about how much calling the police will do. Just exactly how often do you think burglary cases are solved and closed? How many cases just end up being another unsolved statistic? Perhaps living in that specific area gives a better understanding of what kind of low-lifes there are in the States.
So I like to ask someone like Naz, say calling the authority is really a moot action and like the student in the OP, you have been a victim of theft previously. Exactly how many times would you simply lock your door, call the police, and just hope the criminal gets caught this time around so you won't be victimized again?
Frankly, I see confrontation as necessary at some point. In my opinion, the student did no wrong.
That's pretty interesting. If the police won't come, or if this literally happens all the time, then I can't see anything wrong with taking matters in your own hands. Someone has to do something to get society back on track and if others won't do anything then that's a pretty good motivation to do things yourself. That's really unknown territory for me as there's not a single place in Holland where you will find such a situation.
I think if your neighborhood is at the point where you doing something about it actually has an influence on next week, so like let's say on average someone will break in to your house once a week, but by stopping this one guy people know you're no easy target which stops others from coming, then that's a lot of solid justification to take matters in to your own hands.
That doesn't mean shit for the justice system, judges can't exactly say "oh this neighborhood it's ok but this one isn't".
On September 16 2009 20:54 Ace wrote:
When you live in Baltimore where burglars will kill you then you have to defend yourself. The kid didn't even intend to kill him so you're point is moot on both accounts. This isn't an ethics discussion on morals about murder - it's about survival. The student obviously felt it was an "either he goes or I go situation" and did what anyone with basic survival instincts would have done.
It is the opposite of basic survival instincts to show up with a sword facing a burglar in a country/neighborhood where violence and guns are common. Had he gone down with a gun and shot the guy in the back of his head I could have agreed with you. But realistically all a sword does for him is give him the option to cut down an unarmed man. In case of an armed man with a gun he just signed his death by approaching him with a sword. How is that basic survival at all? Either stay away from the violent maniac possibly carrying a gun, or approach him with a gun yourself. That would be a survival tactic. Not carrying a gun to cut down the unarmed and have yourself get shot versus the armed.
|
Braavos36373 Posts
well actually, im pretty sure a jury would consider factors like repeatedly incompetent police action
also, in the US the response time for law enforcement often varies greatly depending on how affluent a neighborhood you live in, so i can see poorer people relying more on themselves
|
Considering about 90% of the posts in this thread are "I would do the same" and I assume they aren't all poor nor living in the worst neighborhoods, it doesn't really matter that a single specific example was or wasn't. It's more the fact that so many people would just shoot a guy who enters their house. You've probably noticed it's almost solely Americans. It's something so stamped in the American society that people learn and accept it so easily almost without being able to rationally think it through. Enter my territory = I can shoot you.
a) random burglar does not deserve death (the one in the story was pretty useless so hindsight not really a big deal, but could have been a single mom first time offender who knows)
b) It is not safer to go out there with a weapon (with exception of a bunch of neighborhoods where things happen repeatedly or police doesn't show up). Had the burglar in this story carried a gun the kid would now be dead.
|
On September 16 2009 11:47 BlackJack wrote:
I hope this kid gets the electric chair. NOBODY has the right to take another person's life.
LOL quote of the month right there.
Also, as Nazgul pointed out, owning a firearm as a security measure is about as clever as hiding in back alleys to avoid getting mugged.
|
On September 16 2009 15:41 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 14:50 A3iL3r0n wrote:On September 16 2009 14:44 Masamune wrote: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. Have you not watched the news lately? Do you not see what's happening with healthcare in your country? Some people will complain that a life was lost here and then reject a universal health care plan that can save millions of lives and dollars. Look at how humans treat environmental issues. Look at how we treat other species, let alone our own. I think I genuinely do lose faith in humanity day by day. And no, I don't give a shit to accept and feel compassionate towards someone who has committed 29 past offenses and who is approximately half a century old. He's really a lost cause and I don't think things would have changed if he were allowed to live through his 30th crime. I think, ironically, what's more cliche and trendy is your whole, ''Oh, but he's a product of his environment, he was probably raised having a bad childhood and may have had mental disorders''. Cut the crap, we all know this, we don't need it rehashed by you. Besides, I don't think there are many humans who are capable of compulvisly committing crimes, be it burglary or murder, who are mentally stable or regular people--but let me rape your sister and then attribute it to psychological problems, and we'll see where you really stand. This burglar may have been influenced by his life events, but he was probably predispositioned to behaving in such a compuslive manner. Am I glad he's dead? No. Do I care? No. I just think that it's refreshing, for once, to see that the burglar on the receiving end of death is not some young guy with a few thefts here and there. This guy pointed a gun at a cop once and had it wrestled away btw. I don't see why people even have compassion for him. There are billions of us around, so what if a bad apple gets thrown into the compost a little early?
I do know what's going on in my country with healthcare, and it's immoral. I am aware of how we are slowly poisoning ourselves through the environment. It's because people don't have compassion. So, if you don't have compassion either, who is going to make it better? Basically, you're saying that because other people don't care, it's making you not care, which is too bad.
If you dehumanize the burglar as totally evil or of lesser worth, then you won't understand what lead him to that point in his life. If you don't understand that, you won't understand how to prevent that from happening to others in the future. Somehow, he went from a beautiful little baby to a compulsive criminal. People just don't start stealing and doing negative things to society for no reason.
Further, when someone feels as though they are classified as a "bad apple", what regard do they have for the society that is treating them as worthless? Very little. There is no social contract when people feel outcast, but if you make everyone feel included and relevant, then there's a motivation to contribute rather than not caring. You can see this dynamic on teamliquid. People who try contribute and are told they suck are less likely to contribute again, and people who are told their contributions are great typically contribute more and better content to the site.
That said, I can also appreciate the fact that he's dead might be sparing other people from harm.
|
Braavos36373 Posts
On September 17 2009 00:04 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
Considering about 90% of the posts in this thread are "I would do the same" and I assume they aren't all poor nor living in the worst neighborhoods, it doesn't really matter that a single specific example was or wasn't. It's more the fact that so many people would just shoot a guy who enters their house. You've probably noticed it's almost solely Americans. It's something so stamped in the American society that people learn and accept it so easily almost without being able to rationally think it through. Enter my territory = I can shoot you.
its not really that weird if you consider the history of the US. its a relatively young country that was founded on people defending their freedom from tyranny. then it spent 100+ years exploring a frontier that was extremely dangerous, where families would live by themselves in a log cabin and have to defend from the elements, indians, and wild animals. its a culture based on self reliance, independence, and strong individual property rights. these sort of values get ingrained in society and are reinforced throughout society. even now, when theres no frontier and no real danger of attack, people love being macho cowboys. its just part of the US.
you could say its stupid and irrational, but there are also many, many advantages our society has because of these values. regardless, just like the right to have guns, its not changing anytime soon.
a) random burglar does not deserve death (the one in the story was pretty useless so hindsight not really a big deal, but could have been a single mom first time offender who knows)
Well, the castle rule does deter thieves. There are other benefits to it, in that its extremely easy to enforce and draws a very clear line. The courts are very pragmatic, they don't want an arbitrary standard where they (and the person in the house) has to make some mental calculus about what the thief "deserves.." If some guy enters your home, and hes coming upstairs, you're not going to wait to see if hes going to steal your computer or to rape your daughter. The courts dont want to parse through a case where they have to determine whether the homeowner was justified in punching him? Breaking his arm? Tying his legs? Hitting him with a bat? Stabbing him? Shooting him? Its almost impossible to determine what "force" someone can use based on what the attacker is doing. It simply doesnt work in the real world like that. Someone already broke into your house, its already an extremely risky and dangerous situation. Often you have to preemptively strike. Nobody is going to risk the lives of themselves or their loved ones (even if its a .001% chance its a murderer and not a common thief).
One of the biggest critiques of the US criminal justice system is the felony murder rule. Basically, if you are committing a felony and someone dies (whether accidental or intentional), manslaughter gets upgraded to murder. You can see the myriad of problems with this rule, as there are many felonies which are simply not very serious and there are deaths that happen in the course of a felony that have nothing to do with what the criminal does.
The underlying theme is that once a criminal starts doing illegal, potentially dangerous stuff, all bets are off and his rights are severely, severely limited. The castle rule is aimed to prevent breaking and entering in the first place. For instance, if I was in Texas, I would not rob someones house, because theres a high probability they a) have a gun and b) are going to shoot me without asking any questions. In fact, I'm not 100% sure, but I think the crime rate is less in Texas.
b) It is not safer to go out there with a weapon (with exception of a bunch of neighborhoods where things happen repeatedly or police doesn't show up). Had the burglar in this story carried a gun the kid would now be dead.
This makes a lot of sense, but again is inconsistent with the American mentality. You arent going to convince Americans that they should either a) hide in their rooms or b) confront the thief without having a weapon. Even if both of those are less risky. People generally prefer action than inaction, even if it endangers their life more. For instance, theres a significantly higher survival rate if you are stranded in a snowstorm if you just sit in your car and wait for rescue. But a ridiculous number of people die trying to walk back to safety when they would have survived by just waiting. Theres something about fighting on your feet that appeals far more to people (especially Americans) than just being idle hoping for the thief to leave.
|
On September 16 2009 19:14 NeoIllusions wrote:
"Sanctity of life" makes me chuckle. Not everyone's life is equal or worth the same. That being said, I hope the student does get acquitted for self-defense.
Having lived in a slummy ghetto like parts of Baltimore, Maryland at one point in my life, I have to say that many of you are over-optimistic about how much calling the police will do. Just exactly how often do you think burglary cases are solved and closed? How many cases just end up being another unsolved statistic? Perhaps living in that specific area gives a better understanding of what kind of low-lifes there are in the States.
So I like to ask someone like Naz, say calling the authority is really a moot action and like the student in the OP, you have been a victim of theft previously. Exactly how many times would you simply lock your door, call the police, and just hope the criminal gets caught this time around so you won't be victimized again?
Frankly, I see confrontation as necessary at some point. In my opinion, the student did no wrong.
If everyone's life is not worth the same, then exactly what factors will determine the value of someone's life? Their cash flow? Their IQ? This reasoning leads to no good end.
And also, @Hot_bid, if you were a the burglar and desperately depended on stealing to make a living, would you not make sure to be armed and at the ready if you were expecting to be greeted with guns? All statistics prove that people arming themselves with gun will only cause more violent crime and people shooting each other. This is exactly why Obama tried to get a handgun ban through.
|
Too late to join the inevitable debate, but in response to the OP, this is pretty random, awesome, and fucked up all at the same time.
|
You're all ignoring the main point.
The suspect was pronounced dead at the scene. Based on the initial investigation, the student killed the man with only one strike of the sword, according to Guglielmi. The medical examiner will make the final determination, he said.
One strike! That's like the essence of sword mastery!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
