On September 16 2009 13:59 Biochemist wrote: Maybe you could explain why it's such a huge gamble. If he's busy taking my stuff, it means my weapon is pointed at him long before his is pointed at me. I'm a decorated competition shooter. If he does anything other than put his hands up or turn and run, he's getting two in the chest and one in the head.
God stfu already. Noone knows you're a competition shooter nor is your shooting experience one bit relevant to the discussion at hand. Your personal situation is obviously different from the general one. The one we're discussing.
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.
On September 16 2009 14:04 Brett wrote: This sentiment of protection of self and property, which is largely American given their laws and the voices in this thread, appears to me completely nonsensical.
I honestly don't understand the kid's reaction: He hears a noise, knowing that there have been thefts and the like, and makes a, relatively safe, assumption that someone is on his property stealing his goods. This THIEF, not robber, and there is a clear distinction, is not in his presence or field of view. He does not know who it is. Fair enough so far, right?
But here is where I don't understand this particular sentiment relating to protection of property which is clearly demonstrated in this thread. Someone please explain to me where the sense is in aggravating the situation by arming yourself with a deadly weapon, whether it be gun or sword or crossbow or whatever, and investigating the noise. YOU are placing your person at risk by confronting the thief in defence of property; the thief may be carrying a gun... he may turn upon hearing you, shit himself and shoot you... or he may be lucky in any sort of scuffle to disarm you and use your own weapon against you. You die over a fucking CD player. Intelligent. Admittedly less concerning is that you are placing his person at risk by taking such a weapon INTO the situation; as was the case here, this person lost their life in an attempt to steal a playstation or whatever it was that he sought.
I am not against proportional self defence of your person or property at all. But what appears to be common sense to me is that risking my own person in defence of property is not an intelligent risk. Not when I simply have the option of removing myself from the situation and calling the appropriate authorities. Aggravating a situation by arming yourself with a deadly weapon and approaching a person displaying some form of criminal intent is at the very least incredibly reckless on your part.
Many of you seem to be hung up on this notion of justice: "he'd get away", "he's a scumbag thief" etc. That is what the criminal justice system is for... That is why there are criminal laws, courts, police etc. You are not judge, juror and executioner for a reason.
As for the people screaming 'if you enter my property, steal, walk at me then your life is forfeit/I'll shoot you between the eyes' and so on, all I can say is thank christ people like you are not law makers in my country.
I just want to make sure, but you do know that, although it may seem dumb, that its human nature to check things out yourself. People don't want to look like dumbass and create a situation out of nothing. So they will usually solve problem by themselves. But the main point of argument is whether the kid was justified to kill the burglar, which he is because although he did a dumb thing to confront the burglar, the burglar attacked the kid, making the kill a completely justified one. The kid made a dumb mistake, but you can't really punish someone for making a dumb mistake.
On September 16 2009 14:04 Brett wrote: This sentiment of protection of self and property, which is largely American given their laws and the voices in this thread, appears to me completely nonsensical.
I honestly don't understand the kid's reaction: He hears a noise, knowing that there have been thefts and the like, and makes a, relatively safe, assumption that someone is on his property stealing his goods. This THIEF, not robber, and there is a clear distinction, is not in his presence or field of view. He does not know who it is. Fair enough so far, right?
But here is where I don't understand this particular sentiment relating to protection of property which is clearly demonstrated in this thread. Someone please explain to me where the sense is in aggravating the situation by arming yourself with a deadly weapon, whether it be gun or sword or crossbow or whatever, and investigating the noise. YOU are placing your person at risk by confronting the thief in defence of property; the thief may be carrying a gun... he may turn upon hearing you, shit himself and shoot you... or he may be lucky in any sort of scuffle to disarm you and use your own weapon against you. You die over a fucking CD player. Intelligent. Admittedly less concerning is that you are placing his person at risk by taking such a weapon INTO the situation; as was the case here, this person lost their life in an attempt to steal a playstation or whatever it was that he sought.
I am not against proportional self defence of your person or property at all. But what appears to be common sense to me is that risking my own person in defence of property is not an intelligent risk. Not when I simply have the option of removing myself from the situation and calling the appropriate authorities. Aggravating a situation by arming yourself with a deadly weapon and approaching a person displaying some form of criminal intent is at the very least incredibly reckless on your part.
Many of you seem to be hung up on this notion of justice: "he'd get away", "he's a scumbag thief" etc. That is what the criminal justice system is for... That is why there are criminal laws, courts, police etc. You are not judge, juror and executioner for a reason.
As for the people screaming 'if you enter my property, steal, walk at me then your life is forfeit/I'll shoot you between the eyes' and so on, all I can say is thank christ people like you are not law makers in my country.
Seriously, the world is horribly overpopulated and getting worse. Why protect career criminals? Hammurabi had it right.
The notation that the people are justice is reinforced in American history and law though, although what people in American don't understand is even under law just about 90% of the time laws are created and petitioned by proxy you do not have the direct power you have power by proxy, like police and shit go use them.
There is also this notion in the US of you have the right to defend your property by force as some sort of Unenumerated rights right which is debatable but if it is debatable then how could it be so blatant that it is the 9th amendment. Go have the police defend your propriety get your priorities right and defend your life.
So the nerd being terrified counts as self defense obviously he wasn't terrified enough because HE FUCKING confronted the robber obviously he was so terrified he wasn't thinking straight because i mean fear you run away from that shit right so i mean the kid must be confused or something. terror does some crazy shit to people maybe next time i'm terrified I'll go kill someone and claim self defense after all i just need to walk around with a sword and wait until someone comes at me.
Man you are really dumb. Being terrified doesn't mean you run away. Getting into a situation where you feel safer (perhaps with a katana) isn't a sign of intent to kill or any relevant premeditation. You also ignored the idea that the robber could have easily surrendered, which was the point of my post. I wasn't saying because the kid was scared it can be self defense, in fact that part is also irrelevant. I already said I believe that given the entire context of the article it was in self defense. I'm not looking to argue if it was self defense with you or not. I'm proposing that if someone has a weapon pointed at you lunging at them is a bad idea. While surrendering peacefully almost guarantees your life.
On September 16 2009 13:59 Biochemist wrote: Maybe you could explain why it's such a huge gamble. If he's busy taking my stuff, it means my weapon is pointed at him long before his is pointed at me. I'm a decorated competition shooter. If he does anything other than put his hands up or turn and run, he's getting two in the chest and one in the head.
God stfu already. Noone knows you're a competition shooter nor is your shooting experience one bit relevant to the discussion at hand. Your personal situation is obviously different from the general one. The one we're discussing.
On September 16 2009 14:09 Saddened Izzy wrote: The notation that the people are justice is reinforced in American history and law though, although what people in American don't understand is even under law just about 90% of the time laws are created and petitioned by proxy you do not have the direct power you have power by proxy, like police and shit go use them.
There is also this notion in the US of you have the right to defend your property by force as some sort of Unenumerated rights right which is debatable but if it is debatable then how could it be so blatant that it is the 9th amendment. Go have the police defend your propriety get your priorities right and defend your life.
Changing topics I see. But the kid didn't kill to protect his property but to check the irregularties happening in his house. He killed because the man engaged the kid. I don't know whats wrong with holding property dearly. Its an American culture, like in Japan, they have the whole senior/junior relationship which has its ups and down. You have to accept cultures the way they are.
And Nazgul, I just want to ask that you do know that johns hopkins area is bad with high crime rate and, even though it was pretty stupid, confronting a burglar without a weapon can lead to death, so bringing a weapon actually increases your chance of survival.
So the nerd being terrified counts as self defense obviously he wasn't terrified enough because HE FUCKING confronted the robber obviously he was so terrified he wasn't thinking straight because i mean fear you run away from that shit right so i mean the kid must be confused or something. terror does some crazy shit to people maybe next time i'm terrified I'll go kill someone and claim self defense after all i just need to walk around with a sword and wait until someone comes at me.
Man you are really dumb. Being terrified doesn't mean you run away. Getting into a situation where you feel safer (perhaps with a katana) isn't a sign of intent to kill or any relevant premeditation. You also ignored the idea that the robber could have easily surrendered, which was the point of my post. I wasn't saying because the kid was scared it can be self defense, in fact that part is also irrelevant. I already said I believe that given the entire context of the article it was in self defense. I'm not looking to argue if it was self defense with you or not. I'm proposing that if someone has a weapon pointed at you. Lunging at them is a bad idea, while surrendering peacefully almost guarantees your life.
"I'm not looking to argue if it was self defense with you or not."
So then why are you arguing with me because this is exactly what i'm arguing about. Also you could have just said that opinion instead. I'm pretty sure most people will agree with you lunging at someone with a weapon when you don't have one isn't the brightest thing to do. But yet you argue with me
On September 16 2009 14:09 Saddened Izzy wrote: The notation that the people are justice is reinforced in American history and law though, although what people in American don't understand is even under law just about 90% of the time laws are created and petitioned by proxy you do not have the direct power you have power by proxy, like police and shit go use them.
There is also this notion in the US of you have the right to defend your property by force as some sort of Unenumerated rights right which is debatable but if it is debatable then how could it be so blatant that it is the 9th amendment. Go have the police defend your propriety get your priorities right and defend your life.
Changing topics I see. But the kid didn't kill to protect his property but to check the irregularties happening in his house. He killed because the man engaged the kid. I don't know whats wrong with holding property dearly. Its an American culture, like in Japan, they have the whole senior/junior relationship which has its ups and down. You have to accept cultures the way they are.
So it's a culturally acceptable makes it right? That seems even a stupider thing to say then anything i could typo and mis construe.
So the nerd being terrified counts as self defense obviously he wasn't terrified enough because HE FUCKING confronted the robber obviously he was so terrified he wasn't thinking straight because i mean fear you run away from that shit right so i mean the kid must be confused or something. terror does some crazy shit to people maybe next time i'm terrified I'll go kill someone and claim self defense after all i just need to walk around with a sword and wait until someone comes at me.
Man you are really dumb. Being terrified doesn't mean you run away. Getting into a situation where you feel safer (perhaps with a katana) isn't a sign of intent to kill or any relevant premeditation. You also ignored the idea that the robber could have easily surrendered, which was the point of my post. I wasn't saying because the kid was scared it can be self defense, in fact that part is also irrelevant. I already said I believe that given the entire context of the article it was in self defense. I'm not looking to argue if it was self defense with you or not. I'm proposing that if someone has a weapon pointed at you. Lunging at them is a bad idea, while surrendering peacefully almost guarantees your life.
I'm not looking to argue if it was self defense with you or not.
So then why are you arguing with me because this is exactly what i'm arguing about. Also you could have just said that opinion instead. I'm pretty sure most people will agree with you lunging at someone with a weapon when you don't have one isn't the brightest thing to do. But yet you argue with me
On September 16 2009 11:15 Ideas wrote: I can't believe that guy went in and out of jail so frequently. Really shows the problem with the criminal justice system :\
Also, the police are just making sure that the kid's story about the burglar lunging at him is true. The burglar could of (but probably not) put his hands up and surrendered but then the kid just slashed him anyway killing him and then say that he lunged at him. It's happened a lot before (except with a gun and not a sword LOL). He'll probably be released pretty soon.
I think the biggest thing is that he let the burglar bleed to death, you don't die from a severed hand and light tissue damage to the chest if it is treated.
So the nerd being terrified counts as self defense obviously he wasn't terrified enough because HE FUCKING confronted the robber obviously he was so terrified he wasn't thinking straight because i mean fear you run away from that shit right so i mean the kid must be confused or something. terror does some crazy shit to people maybe next time i'm terrified I'll go kill someone and claim self defense after all i just need to walk around with a sword and wait until someone comes at me.
Man you are really dumb. Being terrified doesn't mean you run away. Getting into a situation where you feel safer (perhaps with a katana) isn't a sign of intent to kill or any relevant premeditation. You also ignored the idea that the robber could have easily surrendered, which was the point of my post. I wasn't saying because the kid was scared it can be self defense, in fact that part is also irrelevant. I already said I believe that given the entire context of the article it was in self defense. I'm not looking to argue if it was self defense with you or not. I'm proposing that if someone has a weapon pointed at you. Lunging at them is a bad idea, while surrendering peacefully almost guarantees your life.
I'm not looking to argue if it was self defense with you or not.
So then why are you arguing with me because this is exactly what i'm arguing about. Also you could have just said that opinion instead. I'm pretty sure most people will agree with you lunging at someone with a weapon when you don't have one isn't the brightest thing to do. But yet you argue with me
thou art a master troll, i bow before thee.
True that, I don't even know what hes arguing for anymore.
On September 16 2009 14:16 Klockan3 wrote: I think the biggest thing is that he let the burglar bleed to death, you don't die from a severed hand and light tissue damage to the chest if it is treated.
On September 16 2009 14:16 Klockan3 wrote: I think the biggest thing is that he let the burglar bleed to death, you don't die from a severed hand and light tissue damage to the chest if it is treated.
I'm no doctor but I was under the impression severed hand means cut off his hand? That seems kind of hard to treat.. unless you have a fire ready at hand or something.
On September 16 2009 13:14 p4NDemik wrote: Best course of action in this situation: call the authorities and make sure everyone is locked in a secure room, only using a weapon as last recourse if there is clear intent of assault. Unfortunately in our culture it's ingrained in our minds that confrontation is for some reason necessary. At the end of the day you may have lost some stuff (if the guy isn't caught by the cops), but 9 times out of 10 all parties should walk away unscathed.
It was a very poor decision to confront the intruder on the student's part in my opinion, however that does not change the fact that he has the right to defend himself in his own home, if the accused man did in fact try to jump him.
Did he take the right course of action? No. Does this mean that under the law he should be incarcerated for a large portion of his life? That's debatable, pending investigation, but from the limited information provided here, probably not.
As if I'm going to hide in a closet while some lowlife scum takes the stuff that I've worked my ass off for? If you break into my house while my family and I are sleeping, I don't care what your intentions are, you are going to die.
I have ZERO respect and tolerance for parasites that can only sustain themselves by leaching from other people. If you're that desperate, go panhandle.
So you'd rather take a HUGE gamble with your own and others lives rather than lose some possessions you consider valuable? Maybe to you a few of your personal possessions are worth dying for, but for me, I'll pass. But then again I'm a student with a laptop, an iPod, a shitty tv, enough money in the bank to pay for next semester, and little else to my name. Your case may be different but I'd still disagree with you on principle.
Maybe you could explain why it's such a huge gamble. If he's busy taking my stuff, it means my weapon is pointed at him long before his is pointed at me. I'm a decorated competition shooter. If he does anything other than put his hands up or turn and run, he's getting two in the chest and one in the head.
"I don't care what your intentions are, you are going to die" combined with "I'm a decorated competition shooter" ....
You are justifying the death penalty as an appropriate disposition for burglary and theft of goods. How is that not completely disproportionate to the crime being committed. That is not self defence. That is murder. In the name of some shitty items worth $500. Well... at least in most of the world.
On September 16 2009 14:16 Klockan3 wrote: I think the biggest thing is that he let the burglar bleed to death, you don't die from a severed hand and light tissue damage to the chest if it is treated.
I'm no doctor but I was under the impression severed hand means cut off his hand? That seems kind of hard to treat.. unless you have a fire ready at hand or something.
Well soldiers come back after getting their limbs blown off, so I think its possible, but as I said earlier, wasn't he decapitated.?
On September 16 2009 14:19 Brett wrote: You are justifying the death penalty as an appropriate disposition for burglary and theft of goods. How is that not completely disproportionate to the crime being committed. That is not self defence. That is murder. In the name of some shitty items worth $500. Well... at least in most of the world.
So the nerd being terrified counts as self defense obviously he wasn't terrified enough because HE FUCKING confronted the robber obviously he was so terrified he wasn't thinking straight because i mean fear you run away from that shit right so i mean the kid must be confused or something. terror does some crazy shit to people maybe next time i'm terrified I'll go kill someone and claim self defense after all i just need to walk around with a sword and wait until someone comes at me.
Man you are really dumb. Being terrified doesn't mean you run away. Getting into a situation where you feel safer (perhaps with a katana) isn't a sign of intent to kill or any relevant premeditation. You also ignored the idea that the robber could have easily surrendered, which was the point of my post. I wasn't saying because the kid was scared it can be self defense, in fact that part is also irrelevant. I already said I believe that given the entire context of the article it was in self defense. I'm not looking to argue if it was self defense with you or not. I'm proposing that if someone has a weapon pointed at you. Lunging at them is a bad idea, while surrendering peacefully almost guarantees your life.
I'm not looking to argue if it was self defense with you or not.
So then why are you arguing with me because this is exactly what i'm arguing about. Also you could have just said that opinion instead. I'm pretty sure most people will agree with you lunging at someone with a weapon when you don't have one isn't the brightest thing to do. But yet you argue with me
Do you understand the english language at all? I'm not trying to be condescending, but it is readily apparent that you are not reading or not understanding what I am saying.
The burglar made an attempt to attack the student. The student chopped with a sword. It was entirely in the burglars hands and it was the fault of the burglar. If he wanted to live he could have easily surrendered. Don't B&E and especially don't attack a resident when faced with a weapon while B&E'ing. End of story.
Food for thought. The thief was KILLED by DEFENSE. KILLING was not the DEFENSE. A subtle difference that changes everything.
So the nerd being terrified counts as self defense obviously he wasn't terrified enough because HE FUCKING confronted the robber obviously he was so terrified he wasn't thinking straight because i mean fear you run away from that shit right so i mean the kid must be confused or something. terror does some crazy shit to people maybe next time i'm terrified I'll go kill someone and claim self defense after all i just need to walk around with a sword and wait until someone comes at me.
Man you are really dumb. Being terrified doesn't mean you run away. Getting into a situation where you feel safer (perhaps with a katana) isn't a sign of intent to kill or any relevant premeditation. You also ignored the idea that the robber could have easily surrendered, which was the point of my post. I wasn't saying because the kid was scared it can be self defense, in fact that part is also irrelevant. I already said I believe that given the entire context of the article it was in self defense. I'm not looking to argue if it was self defense with you or not. I'm proposing that if someone has a weapon pointed at you. Lunging at them is a bad idea, while surrendering peacefully almost guarantees your life.
I'm not looking to argue if it was self defense with you or not.
So then why are you arguing with me because this is exactly what i'm arguing about. Also you could have just said that opinion instead. I'm pretty sure most people will agree with you lunging at someone with a weapon when you don't have one isn't the brightest thing to do. But yet you argue with me
Do you understand the english language at all? I'm not trying to be condescending, but it is readily apparent that you are not reading or not understanding what I am saying.
The burglar made an attempt to attack the student. The student chopped with a sword. It was entirely in the burglars hands and it was the fault of the burglar. If he wanted to live he could have easily surrendered. Don't B&E and especially don't attack a resident when faced with a weapon while B&E'ing. End of story.
i think you're misunderstanding her argument. the kid was waiting to try out his new sword, and this was the perfect opportunity. it's like if you drop someone in a shark tank, only they are covered with beef but then you blame the sharks for having teeth. see?
On September 16 2009 14:14 MuffinDude wrote: And Nazgul, I just want to ask that you do know that johns hopkins area is bad with high crime rate and, even though it was pretty stupid, confronting a burglar without a weapon can lead to death, so bringing a weapon actually increases your chance of survival.
You're operating under the assumption that confrontation was even necessary. Highest chance of survival = not confronting the intruder. He'd already made the decision that the situation was dangerous enough to call the cops, from that point all he had to do was park his ass in his room and lock the door and he would have the best chance of getting through the whole ordeal. This cavalier attitude most U.S. citizens seem to gravitate to is so illogical it boggles the mind, though I do understand why we all feel the urge.
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.
On September 16 2009 14:14 MuffinDude wrote: And Nazgul, I just want to ask that you do know that johns hopkins area is bad with high crime rate and, even though it was pretty stupid, confronting a burglar without a weapon can lead to death, so bringing a weapon actually increases your chance of survival.
You're operating under the assumption that confrontation was even necessary. Highest chance of survival = not confronting the intruder. He'd already made the decision that the situation was dangerous enough to call the cops, from that point all he had to do was park his ass in his room and lock the door and he would have the best chance of getting through the whole ordeal. This cavalier attitude most U.S. citizens seem to gravitate to is so illogical it boggles the mind, though I do understand why we all feel the urge.
It was stupid, but humans are curious and they don't want to look bad, he wanted to make sure there was a robber just so that the police won't come and say u dumbass theres nothing here.
But the fact is that he chose to confront the guy and in this situation, bringing a weapon is more reasonable then not bringing one, justifying my case why he would bring a weapon even though it could worsen the situation like nazgul argued for.
If you look it that way, then bringing a weapon will actually put you in less danger.
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. 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.
The problem is he already put himself in that situation and you're stating that he has no right to exercise self-defense because hes a complete fucktart for endangering himself. Doesn't make any sense.
EPT
