A Johns Hopkins University student armed with a samurai sword killed a man who broke into the garage of his off-campus residence early Tuesday, a Baltimore police spokesman said.
According to preliminary reports, a resident of the 300 block of E. University Parkway called police about a suspicious person, department spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said. An off-duty officer responded about 1:20 a.m. to the area with university security, according to Guglielmi. They heard shouts and screams from a neighboring house and found the suspected burglar suffering from a nearly severed hand and laceration to his upper body, he said.
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.
The student told police that he heard a commotion in the house and went downstairs armed with the sword, Guglielmi said. He saw the side door to the garage had been pried open and found a man inside, who lunged at the student. There was no indication that the suspected burglar was armed, however, according to Guglielmi.
Burglars had already stolen two laptops and a Sony PlayStation from the student's home Monday, Guglielmi said.
Dennis O'Shea, a spokesman for Johns Hopkins, said all four residents of the house are undergraduate students at the university. Police had released three of the roommates by Tuesday afternoon. The student who wielded the sword remained in custody while investigators worked to corroborate his story with evidence and witness statements. Police have not released the name of the residents, but department sources identified the detained student as John Pontolillo, 20, of Wall, N.J.
The city state's attorney's office will determine whether to press charges, Guglielmi said.
Police have also not formally released the name of the suspected burglar, but a department source identified the man as Donald D. Rice, 49, of the 600 block of E. 27th St. in Baltimore. Guglielmi said the suspect had 29 prior convictions for crimes such as breaking and entering, and had been released Saturday from the Baltimore County Detention Center after he was arrested by county police in August 2008 for stealing a car in Baltimore. Rice was found guilty in December on one count of unauthorized removal of property, and he was sentenced to 18 months in prison.
Michael Hughes of the 3400 block of University Place, about a block away from the scene, said he was working at his home when he heard screams shortly after 1 a.m.
"I could hear the fear in the voice, and I could tell someone was scared," said Hughes, 43, who works for Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Hughes said he called police and could hear sirens as he was on the phone. He walked over to the crime scene shortly after.
"The body was near the garage. And I watched them carry the sword out. The whole thing was surreal and totally bizarre," Hughes said.
By Tuesday afternoon, two pools of blood remained on the ground a few feet away from the door to the garage, which is not connected to the home. A door to a wooden fence surrounding the back yard was broken, allowing the scene to be viewed from the sidewalk.
The three-story house has five bedrooms and two bathrooms, according to Diego Ardila, a junior at Hopkins. Ardila said he lived in the house during the summer and was a roommate of two of the people that currently live there.
Ardila, 19, said one of the roommates owned a samurai sword and generally kept it in his room. Ardila described the student as somewhat outgoing, although they did not speak frequently.
"He kept the sword on top of his cabinet," Ardila said.
Five people lived at the house during the summer, according to Ardila, who now lives a few blocks away.
"You don't expect to hear that someone you know killed a guy with a samurai sword. From what little I know of him, he wasn't some guy going out to kill," Ardila said.
Guglielmi said it is legal to possess a sword in Baltimore, and "individuals have a right to defend their person and their property." But the police spokesman said he was not in a position to comment on whether it was appropriate to use a sword, baseball bat or other means of defense.
Rice was arrested Sept. 25, 2006, for operating a stolen vehicle. Inside the vehicle, police found a camera bag with video tapes that had been taken from a home in the 200 block of E. University Parkway, which was ransacked a month before when someone broke in through a back window, according to court records. The intruder stole luggage, a laptop computer, a video camera, two digital cameras, and the black camera bag.
Rice was charged in both incidents, and received five months in jail -- or time served -- for the theft, court records show.
On Dec. 14, 2007, police on patrol in the 400 block of E. 27th St. saw Rice, who the officers wrote looked suspicious and was fumbling with something in his jacket pocket, court records show. When an officer approached, Rice pulled a loaded Rohm .22-caliber handgun, which the officer was able to grab.
Rice was charged with several weapons charges, but prosecutors dropped the case in Circuit Court in July 2008 after one of the officers -- who was deployed overseas with the military -- could not attend a court hearing, according to the state's attorney's office.
Baltimore Sun reporter Justin Fenton contributed to this article.
I'm at a loss for words. On one hand it's pretty awesome, on the other hand it's just fucking weird.
That said, I think the police should probably press charges
lol if your house was being robbed, you come down with a sword. the man plunges at you, what do you do? cut in strategically locations that wouldn't kill the man? i don't htink its easy to turn and run when carrying a samurai sword.
On September 16 2009 09:53 MamiyaOtaru wrote: press charges why?
? Unnecessary force.
No such thing when someone is in your house stealing your shit. And besides, it's not like he hacked away at him, it was one strike and it just happened to be a good one.
If someone lunges at me in my home I don't care if I'm holding a bazooka I'm defending myself (although the blast would probably kill me too so that's not a good idea either).
On September 16 2009 10:03 FragKrag wrote: oops i didn't read the part where he dived at him :x
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.
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.
Or you could get a gun like a non self deluded human being.
Known criminal breaks in, attempts to attack the guy, guy defends himself from potential great bodily harm or even death, resident defends himself.
There's no charges to press, oh you didn't defend yourself and got stabbed and then robbed? Well...now we won't press charges! Get real! Sword, gun, knife, bat, whatever, criminals need to get the fuck out.
It's perfectly fine to shoot someone who invaded your house as a means of self defense. Defending your house with a sword is the same thing, so the guy shouldn't get prosecuted. But you're supposed to use as little force as possible in order to defend yourself, that's where it'll get complicated.
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.
Or you could get a gun like a non self deluded human being.
Well I'm obviously gonna have a gun.
On September 16 2009 10:11 T.O.P. wrote: It's perfectly fine to shoot someone who invaded your house as a means of self defense. Defending your house with a sword is the same thing, so the guy shouldn't get prosecuted. But you're supposed to use as little force as possible in order to defend yourself, that's where it'll get complicated.
He could just use the "he was coming right for me!" defense....
By now, many of you have heard of an incident that occurred in the early hours of this morning in which an intruder was killed at a student’s off-campus residence. While the facts are under investigation, I am relieved to report that the student was not harmed.
It's legal to use a gun to defend yourself against an invader as a means of self defense. Using a sword to defend yourself is no different, the police shouldn't press charges. However, you are supposed to use the least amount of force to defend yourself, the police could argue that the student did not need to kill the thief.
I could understand if he stabbed him in the chest or the face that you could prove he was "intending to kill", but there is no f*cking natural reaction other then hacking at someone's hand if they're lunging to grab you. The guy protected himself and the criminal got his just desserts.
If you don't want to think of it that way, then think of it this way:
What message do you send to criminals if you convict this guy (the student)?
On September 16 2009 10:24 T.O.P. wrote: It's legal to use a gun to defend yourself against an invader as a means of self defense. Using a sword to defend yourself is no different, the police shouldn't press charges. However, you are supposed to use the least amount of force to defend yourself, the police could argue that the student did not need to kill the thief.
What do you mean 'least amount of force?' Maybe you just shouldn't use 'unnecessary force' or force when it isn't needed (thief leaves house and is running away you shouldn't snipe him).
Unless there is important information missing from the article (which the readers shouldn't have any reason to believe?) there is no reason for this to be a controversy. His home was invaded, he was attacked by the invader (pending investigation of if the student's story checks out), and he used the sword to defend himself. There is no reason to second guess the nature of how he used the sword so long as no specific contrary evidence turns up.
edit: If everything was the same except the sword was illegal, then he wouldn't be any more liable for the death of the invader in my opinion... he would merely be at risk of whatever penalties the sword restriction held.
"Police have also not formally released the name of the suspected burglar, but a department source identified the man as Donald D. Rice, 49, of the 600 block of E. 27th St. in Baltimore. Guglielmi said the suspect had 29 prior convictions for crimes such as breaking and entering, and had been released Saturday from the Baltimore County Detention Center after he was arrested by county police in August 2008 for stealing a car in Baltimore. Rice was found guilty in December on one count of unauthorized removal of property, and he was sentenced to 18 months in prison."
it's not like this guy was a contributing member to society anyways.... don't press charges imo
On September 16 2009 10:29 skronch wrote: "Police have also not formally released the name of the suspected burglar, but a department source identified the man as Donald D. Rice, 49, of the 600 block of E. 27th St. in Baltimore. Guglielmi said the suspect had 29 prior convictions for crimes such as breaking and entering, and had been released Saturday from the Baltimore County Detention Center after he was arrested by county police in August 2008 for stealing a car in Baltimore. Rice was found guilty in December on one count of unauthorized removal of property, and he was sentenced to 18 months in prison."
it's not like this guy was a contributing member to society anyways.... don't press charges imo
There is no reason to use such an approach to justifying whichever side you align with. Whether if he was a repeated criminal or not does not change how the law should deal with this incident.
That's true micro. I mean its not like the guy knew who the guy was, he just knew he was getting robbed, not that the guy had pulled a gun on a cop a few months earlier. However bias is unavoidable most of the time. If he killed another student there would probably be more of an issue.
On September 16 2009 10:24 T.O.P. wrote: It's legal to use a gun to defend yourself against an invader as a means of self defense. Using a sword to defend yourself is no different, the police shouldn't press charges. However, you are supposed to use the least amount of force to defend yourself, the police could argue that the student did not need to kill the thief.
It doesn't sound like he killed him on purpose. One swing seems like the least possible when you have a god damn sword. The police can't argue anything.
In Canada, self-defense laws would convict the student here. It is very hard to get away killing somebody and proclaiming it was self-defense, the burglar needed to have something equivalent to a sword for the student to get away with no charges. I'm not agreeing with this here, I don't think the student should be charged but just be wary that the United States does things differently than other parts of the world. Just noting if this thread becomes a huge debate.
On September 16 2009 09:53 MamiyaOtaru wrote: press charges why?
? Unnecessary force.
No such thing when someone is in your house stealing your shit. And besides, it's not like he hacked away at him, it was one strike and it just happened to be a good one.
ya, the burglar dived at him. anything short of defending himself would have resulted in being beat the shit up. besides, the burglar would have stolen the sword and who knows what the burglar would do then.
I would have done the same thing. I think as soon as someone breaks and enters onto someone else's property their life is forfeit, for the simple reason that the resident of the house shouldn't have to try and discern whether or not the person breaking and entering is threatening their life.
For example I go downstairs to see someone prowling, my automatic assumption is they are armed with a firearm. Whether or not it's true, I'm not going to get closer and try to find out. I'm going to take him out if possible (or run away really scared and call the police as he takes off with my shit).
I believe the castle doctrine applies, which allows one to use deadly force to defend one's self on one's dwelling place. I believe the garage is considered part of the dwelling place, so the samurai should not be prosecuted.
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.
On September 16 2009 10:29 skronch wrote: "Police have also not formally released the name of the suspected burglar, but a department source identified the man as Donald D. Rice, 49, of the 600 block of E. 27th St. in Baltimore. Guglielmi said the suspect had 29 prior convictions for crimes such as breaking and entering, and had been released Saturday from the Baltimore County Detention Center after he was arrested by county police in August 2008 for stealing a car in Baltimore. Rice was found guilty in December on one count of unauthorized removal of property, and he was sentenced to 18 months in prison."
it's not like this guy was a contributing member to society anyways.... don't press charges imo
There is no reason to use such an approach to justifying whichever side you align with. Whether if he was a repeated criminal or not does not change how the law should deal with this incident.
that's why i don't make the laws (and it's probably a good thing)
but as a student, i have a much easier time empathizing with a peer. like it's really scary how you can be a 'good' citizen your entire life, but one crazy fucked up incident can mess up the rest of your life. for his sake, i hope that this whole situation doesn't get too messy.
unnecessary force my ass. someone stealing my shit and i find out, i'm pulling out my 12 gauge and telling him to hit the floor. and if he twitches the wrong way, lets just say that im not gonna get the security deposit back for my apartment.
What's wrong with that kid he doesn't own a bat like a normal person but instead keeps a samurai sword by his bedside.
Unless he saw a gun or some sort of weapon from the guy seriously something wrong there the kid fucked up the situation even more by bring a sword, if it was a gun it be a different story he lunges at him he get shot depending on the shoot the guy dies in a min or in a few hours, but a sword is just asking for some fucked up shit.
Sorry but my logic works unless the guy was like 8 feet tall and was built like Eugen Sandow that is excessive force in my rule book.
The kid is confident enough to slash away at the guy but can't think like listening to the door opening it seeing the thief then running to call the police, it is not up to the kid to confront the thief unless he believes he can control the situation which he obviously could not. Obviously that college education isn't doing much for his critical thinking. #rant rant rant#
if someone is taking my stuff, I don't have to let him. If someone jumps at me (after proving he is a criminal by breaking into my house) I don't need to ask him politely what his intentions are, then sit down with a spreadsheet and come up with the least amount of force necessary to subdue the guy, especially when my calculation, if wrong, could lead to me being dead.
Guy jumped at student, student defended. End of story. No wrong doing. If the burglar didn't want to get sworded, he could have not lunged, or better yet, not broken into a house with the intention of stealing shit.
On September 16 2009 11:46 Saddened Izzy wrote: What's wrong with that kid he doesn't own a bat like a normal person but instead keeps a samurai sword by his bed side. Unless he saw a gun or some sort of weapon from the guy seriously something wrong there the kid fucked up the situation even more by bring a sword, if it was a gun it be a different story he lunges at him he get shot depending on the shoot the guy dies in a min or in a few hours, but a sword is just asking for some fucked up shit. Sorry but my logic works unless the guy was like 8 feet tall and was built like Eugen Sandow that is excessive force in my rule book the kid is confident enough to slash away at the guy but can't think like listening to the door opening it seeing the thief then running to call the police, it is not up to the kid to confront the thief unless he believes he can control the situation which he obviously could not. Obviously that college education isn't doing much for his critical thinking. #rant rant rant#
If he calls the police - the robber gets away in time, and you lose your shit. Why would you have to see a gun if someone broke into your place to steal your stuff. You take the pussy way out like you're saying, you just lost $50-100 of stuff.
I'd sooner kill the guy who broke into my property in the first place, who most likely wouldn't hesitate to use force against me. That is assuming I had the chance. I might call the police simply out of fear, but just because this kid didn't, doesn't mean he made the wrong choice imo.
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.
so people should just be idle when a thief who broke into your house lunges at you? kid was defending himself, probably without intent to kill. i bet he was spooked out of his mind, especially considering he got robbed before in the very same week.
baltimore/JHU is a scary place. i went to a nerd camp at Hopkins in 7th grade and there was a time when a random dude (not a student but just someone from the streets) walked in and sat down in one of the classes. bad security much?
wait, you are seriously saying that the police should press charges? seriously? i can kill a man who intrudes on my NEIGHBORS property. You could sit down in my house, i could tell you to leave (Dont even have too) and if you didn't i could shoot you where you stood (Note, im going to school in canada but im not from here). That man was only defending himself, he was ready to defend himself and his roommates property (Which, by the way had previously been looted mere days before), and when the burglar moved in he struck as he should have. I'm sorry, but that mans time was up years ago. Although i'm not sure about laws in other states/countries, but the if he got close enough to strike him with a sword, clearly the man was attacking or approaching. criminals record speaks for itself, it was only a matter of time before someone caught him and had the balls to do the right thing.
The kid is a university student, pressing charges would possibly ruin his life for doing the right thing. Besides, i believe in any state you can kill someone on your property. And if charges are pressed I will have lost faith in the american penal system. If the days when someone comes on my property without my permission and i cannot defend my family come, I will have lost all faith in the states.
And to the poster who said wth is wrong with this kid, why does he have a samurai sword...
Seriously? you dont know anyone who has baught a katana?
Your seriously posting on team liquid, a site for starcraft, which if you dont know starcraft is heavily populated by Asians(Not to be racist). Most of my friends have samurai swords, although most of them aren't sharpened some of them are. My best friends parents media room has many many masks and other artifacts on the walls along with a mesh of swords and other weapons from there culture.
On September 16 2009 12:08 Djabanete wrote: Burglars had already stolen two laptops and a Sony PlayStation from the student's home Monday, Guglielmi said.
...and that's when he went out and bought the samurai sword. Can you blame the kid?
That better not have been the Sony PlayStation 3 the most expensive of all consoles.
On September 16 2009 12:07 Phayze wrote: wait, you are seriously saying that the police should press charges? seriously? i can kill a man who intrudes on my NEIGHBORS property. You could sit down in my house, i could tell you to leave (Dont even have too) and if you didn't i could shoot you where you stood (Note, im going to school in canada but im not from here).
On September 16 2009 12:16 MuffinDude wrote: Gee thanks. and i was going to apply to johns hopkins, now i find out that theres a samurai there?
Befriend him and become his neighbor. He's got your back.
On September 16 2009 11:46 Saddened Izzy wrote: What's wrong with that kid he doesn't own a bat like a normal person but instead keeps a samurai sword by his bed side. Unless he saw a gun or some sort of weapon from the guy seriously something wrong there the kid fucked up the situation even more by bring a sword, if it was a gun it be a different story he lunges at him he get shot depending on the shoot the guy dies in a min or in a few hours, but a sword is just asking for some fucked up shit. Sorry but my logic works unless the guy was like 8 feet tall and was built like Eugen Sandow that is excessive force in my rule book the kid is confident enough to slash away at the guy but can't think like listening to the door opening it seeing the thief then running to call the police, it is not up to the kid to confront the thief unless he believes he can control the situation which he obviously could not. Obviously that college education isn't doing much for his critical thinking. #rant rant rant#
If he calls the police - the robber gets away in time, and you lose your shit. Why would you have to see a gun if someone broke into your place to steal your stuff. You take the pussy way out like you're saying, you just lost $50-100 of stuff.
I'd sooner kill the guy who broke into my property in the first place, who most likely wouldn't hesitate to use force against me. That is assuming I had the chance. I might call the police simply out of fear, but just because this kid didn't, doesn't mean he made the wrong choice imo.
He took matters into his own hands by confronting the thief in the first place. He couldn't like listen to the door and peek inside to see? And he couldn't handle the fucking situation he killed the guy plain and simple,
he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
self defense only works when they come to attack you, the guy came to steal not to hurt him physically if the state can't do so call "righteous killings" then you can't either. Ionno if his state banned the death sentence or not but i'll look it up.
What he's too cheap to afford home or renters insurance instead he kills a guy over a few bucks? this was off campus
On September 16 2009 11:46 Saddened Izzy wrote: What's wrong with that kid he doesn't own a bat like a normal person but instead keeps a samurai sword by his bed side. Unless he saw a gun or some sort of weapon from the guy seriously something wrong there the kid fucked up the situation even more by bring a sword, if it was a gun it be a different story he lunges at him he get shot depending on the shoot the guy dies in a min or in a few hours, but a sword is just asking for some fucked up shit. Sorry but my logic works unless the guy was like 8 feet tall and was built like Eugen Sandow that is excessive force in my rule book the kid is confident enough to slash away at the guy but can't think like listening to the door opening it seeing the thief then running to call the police, it is not up to the kid to confront the thief unless he believes he can control the situation which he obviously could not. Obviously that college education isn't doing much for his critical thinking. #rant rant rant#
If he calls the police - the robber gets away in time, and you lose your shit. Why would you have to see a gun if someone broke into your place to steal your stuff. You take the pussy way out like you're saying, you just lost $50-100 of stuff.
I'd sooner kill the guy who broke into my property in the first place, who most likely wouldn't hesitate to use force against me. That is assuming I had the chance. I might call the police simply out of fear, but just because this kid didn't, doesn't mean he made the wrong choice imo.
He took matters into his own hands by confronting the thief in the first place. He couldn't like listen to the door and peek inside to see? And he couldn't handle the fucking situation he killed the guy plain and simple,
he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
self defense only works when they come to attack you, the guy came to steal not to hurt him physically if the state can't do so call "righteous killings" then you can't either. Ionno if his state banned the death sentence or not but i'll look it up.
What he's too cheap to afford home or renters insurance instead he kills a guy over a few bucks? this was off campus
I thought the robber attacked first? I'm pretty sure u have right to defend yourself, or what can you say about the policemen who shot a kid with a squirtgun thinking it was a gun or the policeman who shot a guy in bronx because they thought he was taking out a weapon even though he was going to take out his id.
He slashed him once. Because he clearly has had expertise in using samurai swords like all college students and knew what type of strike kills and not. And it didn't even kill immediately.
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
What he's too cheap to afford home or renters insurance instead he kills a guy over a few bucks? this was off campus
No, he didn't have an intention on killing him, he had the intention to defend himself and his property. This is heavily indicated by the one slash that killed the intruder, You don't think the burglar immediately died do you? he most likely bled for minutes before he finally passed. In medieval times battlefields were strung with cries of the wounded for many hours. These are the laws in the majority of states in the US, the fact that apparently the burglar approached the samurai nerd is defense enough to justify his use of the sword, let alone the fact that the guy was in his house.
On September 16 2009 11:46 Saddened Izzy wrote: What's wrong with that kid he doesn't own a bat like a normal person but instead keeps a samurai sword by his bed side. Unless he saw a gun or some sort of weapon from the guy seriously something wrong there the kid fucked up the situation even more by bring a sword, if it was a gun it be a different story he lunges at him he get shot depending on the shoot the guy dies in a min or in a few hours, but a sword is just asking for some fucked up shit. Sorry but my logic works unless the guy was like 8 feet tall and was built like Eugen Sandow that is excessive force in my rule book the kid is confident enough to slash away at the guy but can't think like listening to the door opening it seeing the thief then running to call the police, it is not up to the kid to confront the thief unless he believes he can control the situation which he obviously could not. Obviously that college education isn't doing much for his critical thinking. #rant rant rant#
If he calls the police - the robber gets away in time, and you lose your shit. Why would you have to see a gun if someone broke into your place to steal your stuff. You take the pussy way out like you're saying, you just lost $50-100 of stuff.
I'd sooner kill the guy who broke into my property in the first place, who most likely wouldn't hesitate to use force against me. That is assuming I had the chance. I might call the police simply out of fear, but just because this kid didn't, doesn't mean he made the wrong choice imo.
He took matters into his own hands by confronting the thief in the first place. He couldn't like listen to the door and peek inside to see? And he couldn't handle the fucking situation he killed the guy plain and simple,
he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
self defense only works when they come to attack you, the guy came to steal not to hurt him physically if the state can't do so call "righteous killings" then you can't either. Ionno if his state banned the death sentence or not but i'll look it up.
What he's too cheap to afford home or renters insurance instead he kills a guy over a few bucks? this was off campus
I thought the robber attacked first? I'm pretty sure u have right to defend yourself, or what can you say about the policemen who shot a kid with a squirtgun thinking it was a gun or the policeman who shot a guy in bronx because they thought he was taking out a weapon even though he was going to take out his id.
The kid put himself in that situation, should i feel sorry for the guy who taunts a man all say long then gets the shit beat out of him, the kid poked the fucking bear when he decided to investigate with a fucking samurai sword. Unless the robber touched him, one can easily argue the robber was heading to the door when he saw a kid with a mother fucking sword barge in which the kid was blocking so the kid killed a man tiring to run away.
It was not a matter of life and death until the kid went into that garage with a sword the robber wasn't armed the kid was.
A fucking gain This was off campus, the kid could easily filled out a police report and collect on his renters or home insurance w.e and get the what 100 hell let's put it at $1000 worth of stuff the burglar could have stole. You have a right to defend yourself, you do not have the right to defend your property the GOVERNMENT defends your property and contracts let them do their job.
There was a string of robberies in the area not a string of robberies following by the robber harming/killing anyone, there is no reason to think the robber would have turned homicidal.
On September 16 2009 11:46 Saddened Izzy wrote: What's wrong with that kid he doesn't own a bat like a normal person but instead keeps a samurai sword by his bed side. Unless he saw a gun or some sort of weapon from the guy seriously something wrong there the kid fucked up the situation even more by bring a sword, if it was a gun it be a different story he lunges at him he get shot depending on the shoot the guy dies in a min or in a few hours, but a sword is just asking for some fucked up shit. Sorry but my logic works unless the guy was like 8 feet tall and was built like Eugen Sandow that is excessive force in my rule book the kid is confident enough to slash away at the guy but can't think like listening to the door opening it seeing the thief then running to call the police, it is not up to the kid to confront the thief unless he believes he can control the situation which he obviously could not. Obviously that college education isn't doing much for his critical thinking. #rant rant rant#
If he calls the police - the robber gets away in time, and you lose your shit. Why would you have to see a gun if someone broke into your place to steal your stuff. You take the pussy way out like you're saying, you just lost $50-100 of stuff.
I'd sooner kill the guy who broke into my property in the first place, who most likely wouldn't hesitate to use force against me. That is assuming I had the chance. I might call the police simply out of fear, but just because this kid didn't, doesn't mean he made the wrong choice imo.
He took matters into his own hands by confronting the thief in the first place. He couldn't like listen to the door and peek inside to see? And he couldn't handle the fucking situation he killed the guy plain and simple,
he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
self defense only works when they come to attack you, the guy came to steal not to hurt him physically if the state can't do so call "righteous killings" then you can't either. Ionno if his state banned the death sentence or not but i'll look it up.
What he's too cheap to afford home or renters insurance instead he kills a guy over a few bucks? this was off campus
I thought the robber attacked first? I'm pretty sure u have right to defend yourself, or what can you say about the policemen who shot a kid with a squirtgun thinking it was a gun or the policeman who shot a guy in bronx because they thought he was taking out a weapon even though he was going to take out his id.
The kid put himself in that situation. Unless the robber touched him one can easily argue the robber was heading to the door when he saw a kid with a mother fucking sword barge in which the kid was blocking.
Do you fucking read the opening? He came in by prying the garage door open and he could of left through the garage door dumbass.
Its completely reasonable because: 1 - He came in through the side door, so he could of ran away through there. So... 2 - The burglar was attacking the kid, self defense. 3 - He is on other person's property. 4 - The burglar is a scumbag.
On September 16 2009 12:18 Saddened Izzy wrote: he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
LOL. Because if he killed him with a hammer he MIGHT have been going to his garage to hang a painting. Or if he killed him with a golf club he MIGHT have been going to hit a few balls. hahaha
On September 16 2009 12:24 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: You gotta be one shallow son of a bitch to think the protection of your property is worth a human life.
I agree
However.... If you are there when they are there it could be kill or be killed. I have given a situation where someone broke into my house a lot of thought before. If i had sometype of club or bat or anything I wouldnt hesitate to go for the head if I had any inclination they could be armed. If they were running away or something of course I wouldnt chase after them and beat them to death or anything though.
On September 16 2009 12:24 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: You gotta be one shallow son of a bitch to think the protection of your property is worth a human life.
So you are saying that in any case when your in the heat of the moment, potentially scared for your life, your family, your friends, that you should roll over and die? This man seems desperate enough in the past to attempt to pull a gun on a police officer, granted not every "intruder" would be this far through the cracks. But there are many justifications for using deadly force and if you feel that under no circumstance should you attempt to defend yourself and your belongings on your own property just wait till perhaps you, or someone you know is put in the same situation. Today's society is so scared of conflict in the interest of self preservation that you would think they should atleast be able to defend themselves.
On September 16 2009 12:18 Saddened Izzy wrote: he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
LOL. Because if he killed him with a hammer he MIGHT have been going to his garage to hang a painting. Or if he killed him with a golf club he MIGHT have been going to hit a few balls. hahaha
A sword serves one purpose and that is to kill people. The fact the kid owned one brings up serious doubts to the kid not just confronting the robber and slashing him then telling lies to the police saying he lunged at him. Guess what it's easily to lie about what happened when the only other witness is dead.
There is intent to do serious harm to another when you bring something that is only a weapon to confront someone. He could have easily walked away well ran.
What the hell is so wrong saying "When someone breaks into your house to steal something and you notice you go to the police, when they break into your house to kill you and your family you can kill him too." No one should ever die over a few bucks.
On September 16 2009 12:24 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: You gotta be one shallow son of a bitch to think the protection of your property is worth a human life.
So you are saying that in any case when your in the heat of the moment, potentially scared for your life, your family, your friends, that you should roll over and die? This man seems desperate enough in the past to attempt to pull a gun on a police officer, granted not every "intruder" would be this far through the cracks. But there are many justifications for using deadly force and if you feel that under no circumstance should you attempt to defend yourself and your belongings on your own property just wait till perhaps you, or someone you know is put in the same situation. Today's society is so scared of conflict in the interest of self preservation that you would think they should atleast be able to defend themselves.
That man should be considered a hero.
It's simply not safer for your family when you carry a gun out to meet a burglar. It's fucking stupid and gets people killed it's like the most retarded misconception Americans have. Walk out without a weapon and you are more likely not to die and keep your family safe. Most burglars run when they get caught, but try pointing a gun at them see if they care about their life. I guarantee you they will fight to survive.
There is not a single justification to walk out with a sword or a gun to meet a burglar. And then to cut him down when he isn't carrying a weapon is downright nuts.
Why are you people arguing about the sword in the first place? I think what matters is that the kid "accidently" killed the thief, not the tool used. So what about those people who keep guns in their closet just for the very same purpose? Isnt that normal in america? So samurai swords are bad, what about guns? Shooting is ok, slashing is not? Am i getting this right.
its absurd that the law protects the criminal more than the REAL victims. why do you think Rice has been arrested 29 times? why do you think he went straight back to it just 3 days after being released? if you still sympathize with the burglar more than the student, then it is you who is screwed up.
The area seems to be very hostile. This kid should definitely be commended.
"They heard shouts and screams from a neighboring house and found the suspected burglar suffering from a nearly severed hand and laceration to his upper body, he said."
He did not chase after the burglar, or meet him on the street to kill him. He merely heard something suspicious and brought the means to defend himself. May i remind you in his own house on his place of residence
On September 16 2009 12:18 Saddened Izzy wrote: he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
LOL. Because if he killed him with a hammer he MIGHT have been going to his garage to hang a painting. Or if he killed him with a golf club he MIGHT have been going to hit a few balls. hahaha
A sword serves one purpose and that is to kill people. The fact the kid owned one brings up serious doubts to the kid not just confronting the robber and slashing him then telling lies to the police saying he lunged at him. Guess what it's easily to lie about what happened when the only other witness is dead.
There is intent to do serious harm to another when you bring something that is only a weapon to confront someone.
What the hell is so wrong saying "When someone breaks into your house to steal something and you notice you go to the police, when they break into your house to kill you and your family you can kill him too." No one should ever die over a few bucks.
Thats funny, because why the fuck would there be the second amendment? A gun is the same as a sword, made only to kill. You take a gun with you because just in case theres a break in and you want to defend yourself. He brought a sword to protect himself and the man lunged at the student once the thief saw the student. Anybody would panic at the fact that theres a complete stranger in your house and is charging straight at you and you're not sure if he has a weapon or not.
On September 16 2009 12:38 Phayze wrote: Also on the news page i found this
The area seems to be very hostile. This kid should definitely be commended.
It sucks that johns hopkins is in a bad neighborhood.
it's easy to second guess people after the fact, but in the heat of the moment, all you know is that some strange person is trying to break into your house. i'm sure the sensation you get when that's happening is pretty intense. you don't know what their intentions are, but that they are violating a very basic social rule. yeah, personal property isn't worth someone's life, but that's the not evaluation you are running in your mind at that moment its happening. its not like your first reaction is to stop and ask the guy, "hey, are you here to rape and kill or just steal?"
also, that kid has to live with the fact he killed someone. even if it was justified or not, taking someone's life has to got to weigh heavy on you.
I agree with A3iL3r0n, because this is a hindsight bias. Hindsight bias is saying that you knew it would of happened after it happened. You won't be saying the same thing if the kid got fcked over would you?
On September 16 2009 12:41 A3iL3r0n wrote: it's easy to second guess people after the fact, but in the heat of the moment, all you know is that some strange person is trying to break into your house. i'm sure the sensation you get when that's happening is pretty intense. you don't know what their intentions are, but that they are violating a very basic social rule. yeah, personal property isn't worth someone's life, but that's the not evaluation you are running in your mind at that moment its happening. its not like your first reaction is to stop and ask the guy, "hey, are you here to rape and kill or just steal?"
also, that kid has to live with the fact he killed someone. even if it was justified or not, taking someone's life has to got to weigh heavy on you.
I don't disagree with you at all. I think everything you say is right on. However what you are saying here, and what others are doing by cheering for him saying it was the right thing is a world of difference.
I think believing it is not right to cut down an unarmed man, burglar or not, and believing it's stupid to meet a burglar with a weapon in your hand, doesn't mean you can't agree with the fact that emotion can change every rational argument.
On September 16 2009 12:18 Saddened Izzy wrote: he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
LOL. Because if he killed him with a hammer he MIGHT have been going to his garage to hang a painting. Or if he killed him with a golf club he MIGHT have been going to hit a few balls. hahaha
A sword serves one purpose and that is to kill people. The fact the kid owned one brings up serious doubts to the kid not just confronting the robber and slashing him then telling lies to the police saying he lunged at him. Guess what it's easily to lie about what happened when the only other witness is dead.
There is intent to do serious harm to another when you bring something that is only a weapon to confront someone.
What the hell is so wrong saying "When someone breaks into your house to steal something and you notice you go to the police, when they break into your house to kill you and your family you can kill him too." No one should ever die over a few bucks.
Thats funny, because why the fuck would there be the second amendment? A gun is the same as a sword, made only to kill. You take a gun with you because just in case theres a break in and you want to defend yourself. He brought a sword to protect himself and the man lunged at the student once the thief saw the student. Anybody would panic at the fact that theres a complete stranger in your house and is charging straight at you and you're not sure if he has a weapon or not.
On September 16 2009 12:38 Phayze wrote: Also on the news page i found this
The area seems to be very hostile. This kid should definitely be commended.
It sucks that johns hopkins is in a bad neighborhood.
And it wasn't like a hidden weapon. This is if this burglar wasn't deterred at a sword and lunged at the kid regardless, assuming that's what happened, there's almost no chance he wouldn't have killed that kid. Just the kid holding a sword by itself is like a warning. If you come in here I'm going to stab you, I'm telling you exactly what will happen if you proceed. It's not like were sitting down for tea, only the tea is poison. As soon as you saw the sword and decided to lunge, you signed you agreement to this dispute. Given the additional info, and the fact that this guy had 29 arrests and charged at a guy holding a sword. Assuming this info is correct this kid does deserve a medal.
On September 16 2009 12:41 A3iL3r0n wrote: it's easy to second guess people after the fact, but in the heat of the moment, all you know is that some strange person is trying to break into your house. i'm sure the sensation you get when that's happening is pretty intense. you don't know what their intentions are, but that they are violating a very basic social rule. yeah, personal property isn't worth someone's life, but that's the not evaluation you are running in your mind at that moment its happening. its not like your first reaction is to stop and ask the guy, "hey, are you here to rape and kill or just steal?"
also, that kid has to live with the fact he killed someone. even if it was justified or not, taking someone's life has to got to weigh heavy on you.
I don't disagree with you at all. I think everything you say is right on. However what you are saying here, and what others are doing by cheering for him saying it was the right thing is a world of difference.
I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
On September 16 2009 12:18 Saddened Izzy wrote: he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
LOL. Because if he killed him with a hammer he MIGHT have been going to his garage to hang a painting. Or if he killed him with a golf club he MIGHT have been going to hit a few balls. hahaha
A sword serves one purpose and that is to kill people. The fact the kid owned one brings up serious doubts to the kid not just confronting the robber and slashing him then telling lies to the police saying he lunged at him. Guess what it's easily to lie about what happened when the only other witness is dead.
There is intent to do serious harm to another when you bring something that is only a weapon to confront someone.
What the hell is so wrong saying "When someone breaks into your house to steal something and you notice you go to the police, when they break into your house to kill you and your family you can kill him too." No one should ever die over a few bucks.
Thats funny, because why the fuck would there be the second amendment? A gun is the same as a sword, made only to kill. You take a gun with you because just in case theres a break in and you want to defend yourself. He brought a sword to protect himself and the man lunged at the student once the thief saw the student. Anybody would panic at the fact that theres a complete stranger in your house and is charging straight at you and you're not sure if he has a weapon or not.
On September 16 2009 12:38 Phayze wrote: Also on the news page i found this
The area seems to be very hostile. This kid should definitely be commended.
It sucks that johns hopkins is in a bad neighborhood.
You interpret the 2nd amendment way i interpret it another. You believe that bearing arms as a right is equivalent to being allowed to kill people in the name of defense and getting away with that?
Anyone who kills anyone when the other guy is not armed or made it crystal clear that he will kill you or people around you right now, cannot walk away scott free the kid should serve time just like a guy who accidentally kills a person walking down the street with a car. You say it's different? because one is something one does in defense vs something one does out of being inept? It is not, defending yourself is never an excuse to kill someone like that there was no struggle, no fight the kid killed him one slash, does it make what the robber was doing right to say it's wrong of the kid to do what he did? Of course not. what the hell is not want to be the hero go out and stop the bad guys go be a police officer even police officers don't get away with kill people in the name of defense, most of them loose their jobs over situations like that unless the guy the shot had a gun and was using it or already kill people.
There was more then 1 way to handle that situation and guess what the kid chose one of the crappiest ways to go about it.
On September 16 2009 12:41 A3iL3r0n wrote: it's easy to second guess people after the fact, but in the heat of the moment, all you know is that some strange person is trying to break into your house. i'm sure the sensation you get when that's happening is pretty intense. you don't know what their intentions are, but that they are violating a very basic social rule. yeah, personal property isn't worth someone's life, but that's the not evaluation you are running in your mind at that moment its happening. its not like your first reaction is to stop and ask the guy, "hey, are you here to rape and kill or just steal?"
also, that kid has to live with the fact he killed someone. even if it was justified or not, taking someone's life has to got to weigh heavy on you.
I don't disagree with you at all. I think everything you say is right on. However what you are saying here, and what others are doing by cheering for him saying it was the right thing is a world of difference.
I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
Again you do not have the right to defend your property you have an Unenumerated right to defend your life but the kid put himself in danger.
There was more then 1 way to handle that situation and guess what the kid chose one of the crappiest ways to go about it, and he should be punished as such i'm not saying 25 to life or some shit like that i'm saying it is a crime to take matters into your own hands resulting in someone's death.
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
On September 16 2009 12:18 Saddened Izzy wrote: he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
LOL. Because if he killed him with a hammer he MIGHT have been going to his garage to hang a painting. Or if he killed him with a golf club he MIGHT have been going to hit a few balls. hahaha
A sword serves one purpose and that is to kill people. The fact the kid owned one brings up serious doubts to the kid not just confronting the robber and slashing him then telling lies to the police saying he lunged at him. Guess what it's easily to lie about what happened when the only other witness is dead.
There is intent to do serious harm to another when you bring something that is only a weapon to confront someone.
What the hell is so wrong saying "When someone breaks into your house to steal something and you notice you go to the police, when they break into your house to kill you and your family you can kill him too." No one should ever die over a few bucks.
Thats funny, because why the fuck would there be the second amendment? A gun is the same as a sword, made only to kill. You take a gun with you because just in case theres a break in and you want to defend yourself. He brought a sword to protect himself and the man lunged at the student once the thief saw the student. Anybody would panic at the fact that theres a complete stranger in your house and is charging straight at you and you're not sure if he has a weapon or not.
On September 16 2009 12:38 Phayze wrote: Also on the news page i found this
The area seems to be very hostile. This kid should definitely be commended.
It sucks that johns hopkins is in a bad neighborhood.
You interpret the 2nd amendment way i interpret it another. Anyone who kills anyone when the other guy is not armed or made it crystal clear that he will kill you or people around you right now, cannot walk away scott free the kid should serve time just like a guy who accidentally kills a person walking down the street with a car. You say it's different? because one is something one does in defense vs something one does out of being inept? It is not, defending yourself is never an excuse to kill someone like that there was no struggle, no fight the kid killed him one slash, does it make what the robber was doing right to say it's wrong of the kid to do what he did? Of course not. what the hell is not want to be the hero go out and stop the bad guys go be a police officer. There was more then 1 way to handle that situation and guess what the kid chose one of the crappiest ways to go about it.
Oh so are you saying that the kid knew that the man was unarmed when IT WAS DARK AND HE ONLY CAUGHT A GLIMPSE OF THE THEIF. If the kid died, you'll probably go like why didn't he chop off the thief's head right there.
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
I don't understand this. Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense.
Killing never is the right thing, but you should always have the right to defend yourself and your property. As you said, it's a world of difference. I don't understand why you feel you cannot defend yourself with whatever force you feel is needed to secure your own well being. It's easy to dismantle it after the fact and from a third party perspective decide what was "Necessary". I know, if I was being robbed in my own home I wouldn't stand there and be passive, But i do guess a large amount of people on these forums have no backbone, as most of todays current society are, very very passive. Hell I even saw an elderly couple get mugged a few blocks down from my apartment, and no one did a thing about it. A crowded downtown street stood and stared, all scared of confrontation... It absolutely sickened me.
It's interesting that this thread is popping up because just a few weeks ago we had this one. It's hard to say if the guy was justified or not since we don't know the details, but it seems safe to say the invader was robbing the place seeing that he has past criminal history. I'd lean towards saying the guy shouldn't have charges pressed against him, he was just exercising his right to protect his home and property.
On September 16 2009 12:55 Phayze wrote: Killing never is the right thing, but you should always have the right to defend yourself and your property. As you said, it's a world of difference. I don't understand why you feel you cannot defend yourself with whatever force is needed to secure your own well being. I know, if I was being robbed in my own home I wouldn't stand there and be passive, But i do guess a large amount of people on these forums have no backbone, as most of todays current society are, very very passive. Hell I even saw an elderly couple get mugged a few blocks down from my apartment, and no one did a thing about it. Scared of confrontation... It absolutely sickened me.
I agree with this guy because would you're not guaranteed that someone will help you. Heres some examples.
A man was killing a woman. She cried for help and some lights turned on and the murder ran away, but came back and stabbed her and ran away when more lights came on and came back and finished her off. There were about 41 witnesses and NONE of them called the police.
A man thought that somebody was robbing his house. He called the police and they told him that they had nobody available and they will get to him when they have someone free. He called back few minutes later and told him he shot the burglar. THEN a whole bunch of police came and arrested the guy. The police asked the guy," I thought you shot him?" He replied," I thought you had no one available?"
This just shows you that you just have to take action for yourself.
Nazgul, do you have any data? What you're saying makes sense, but I'm curious if any decent studies on this have been done.
On another note, maybe I'm a shallow bastard but if someone breaks into my house I'm putting a bullet between their eyes before they have a chance to attack me or my family, much less turn around and run. The world's human population is increasing at an exponential rate; I have no "sanctity of life" qualms about taking the trash out, given the chance.
There seems to be a lot of assumption that the student had INTENT to kill. The way I read it, the burglar lunges at him, and the student has an immediate reaction to stop the intruder by using the sword NOT on the neck, NOT in the chest, but at one of the extremities of the body - the hand.
Personally, I read it as though the student was simply defending himself by stopping the attacker, although it ended up killing him. Therefore it's justified. Maybe I'm biased though?
I agree with A3iL3r0n, because this is a hindsight bias. Hindsight bias is saying that you knew it would of happened after it happened. You won't be saying the same thing if the kid got fcked over would you?
Yeah, I wouldn't be saying the same thing, because obviously no one would say "the kid was at fault for killing the burglar" if the kid didn't kill the burglar and instead got fucked over. But I would still think that if he had killed the burglar he would be at fault. The fact that in the heat of the moment the guy didn't evaluate the situation properly doesn't mean the killing was justified.
On September 16 2009 11:46 Saddened Izzy wrote: What's wrong with that kid he doesn't own a bat like a normal person but instead keeps a samurai sword by his bed side. Unless he saw a gun or some sort of weapon from the guy seriously something wrong there the kid fucked up the situation even more by bring a sword, if it was a gun it be a different story he lunges at him he get shot depending on the shoot the guy dies in a min or in a few hours, but a sword is just asking for some fucked up shit. Sorry but my logic works unless the guy was like 8 feet tall and was built like Eugen Sandow that is excessive force in my rule book the kid is confident enough to slash away at the guy but can't think like listening to the door opening it seeing the thief then running to call the police, it is not up to the kid to confront the thief unless he believes he can control the situation which he obviously could not. Obviously that college education isn't doing much for his critical thinking. #rant rant rant#
If he calls the police - the robber gets away in time, and you lose your shit. Why would you have to see a gun if someone broke into your place to steal your stuff. You take the pussy way out like you're saying, you just lost $50-100 of stuff.
I'd sooner kill the guy who broke into my property in the first place, who most likely wouldn't hesitate to use force against me. That is assuming I had the chance. I might call the police simply out of fear, but just because this kid didn't, doesn't mean he made the wrong choice imo.
He took matters into his own hands by confronting the thief in the first place. He couldn't like listen to the door and peek inside to see? And he couldn't handle the fucking situation he killed the guy plain and simple,
he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
self defense only works when they come to attack you, the guy came to steal not to hurt him physically if the state can't do so call "righteous killings" then you can't either. Ionno if his state banned the death sentence or not but i'll look it up.
What he's too cheap to afford home or renters insurance instead he kills a guy over a few bucks? this was off campus
1. You obviously have a lot of bias already coming into this thread. 2. You assume too easily that he meant to kill someone with the sword. 3. You believe that you have the right mindset regarding this matter, everyone else is wrong. 4. You sound REALLY stuck up.
On September 16 2009 12:18 Saddened Izzy wrote: he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
LOL. Because if he killed him with a hammer he MIGHT have been going to his garage to hang a painting. Or if he killed him with a golf club he MIGHT have been going to hit a few balls. hahaha
A sword serves one purpose and that is to kill people. The fact the kid owned one brings up serious doubts to the kid not just confronting the robber and slashing him then telling lies to the police saying he lunged at him. Guess what it's easily to lie about what happened when the only other witness is dead.
There is intent to do serious harm to another when you bring something that is only a weapon to confront someone.
What the hell is so wrong saying "When someone breaks into your house to steal something and you notice you go to the police, when they break into your house to kill you and your family you can kill him too." No one should ever die over a few bucks.
Thats funny, because why the fuck would there be the second amendment? A gun is the same as a sword, made only to kill. You take a gun with you because just in case theres a break in and you want to defend yourself. He brought a sword to protect himself and the man lunged at the student once the thief saw the student. Anybody would panic at the fact that theres a complete stranger in your house and is charging straight at you and you're not sure if he has a weapon or not.
On September 16 2009 12:38 Phayze wrote: Also on the news page i found this
The area seems to be very hostile. This kid should definitely be commended.
It sucks that johns hopkins is in a bad neighborhood.
You interpret the 2nd amendment way i interpret it another. Anyone who kills anyone when the other guy is not armed or made it crystal clear that he will kill you or people around you right now, cannot walk away scott free the kid should serve time just like a guy who accidentally kills a person walking down the street with a car. You say it's different? because one is something one does in defense vs something one does out of being inept? It is not, defending yourself is never an excuse to kill someone like that there was no struggle, no fight the kid killed him one slash, does it make what the robber was doing right to say it's wrong of the kid to do what he did? Of course not. what the hell is not want to be the hero go out and stop the bad guys go be a police officer. There was more then 1 way to handle that situation and guess what the kid chose one of the crappiest ways to go about it.
Oh so are you saying that the kid knew that the man was unarmed when IT WAS DARK AND HE ONLY CAUGHT A GLIMPSE OF THE THEIF. If the kid died, you'll probably go like why didn't he chop off the thief's head right there.
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
I don't understand this. Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense.
Really you assume i believe in the death penalty? Well i don't you know what i would do remove his citizenship put him in jail for life.
It was dark and he only caught a glimpse of the thief? It was dark and he lied not to get into any bigger trouble then he already knows hes in for chopping a guy up is just as easy to say. And yes you endanger yourself by bringing weapons with you any time, guess what more people die and get hurt by their own chainsaw and gun then by someone else you saying a chain saw isn't as dangerous as a gun, fuck it's just a motorized saw which is a samuari sword to some extent in design. Guess what you own a weapon you better be prepared for the consequences of using it.
On September 16 2009 11:46 Saddened Izzy wrote: What's wrong with that kid he doesn't own a bat like a normal person but instead keeps a samurai sword by his bed side. Unless he saw a gun or some sort of weapon from the guy seriously something wrong there the kid fucked up the situation even more by bring a sword, if it was a gun it be a different story he lunges at him he get shot depending on the shoot the guy dies in a min or in a few hours, but a sword is just asking for some fucked up shit. Sorry but my logic works unless the guy was like 8 feet tall and was built like Eugen Sandow that is excessive force in my rule book the kid is confident enough to slash away at the guy but can't think like listening to the door opening it seeing the thief then running to call the police, it is not up to the kid to confront the thief unless he believes he can control the situation which he obviously could not. Obviously that college education isn't doing much for his critical thinking. #rant rant rant#
If he calls the police - the robber gets away in time, and you lose your shit. Why would you have to see a gun if someone broke into your place to steal your stuff. You take the pussy way out like you're saying, you just lost $50-100 of stuff.
I'd sooner kill the guy who broke into my property in the first place, who most likely wouldn't hesitate to use force against me. That is assuming I had the chance. I might call the police simply out of fear, but just because this kid didn't, doesn't mean he made the wrong choice imo.
He took matters into his own hands by confronting the thief in the first place. He couldn't like listen to the door and peek inside to see? And he couldn't handle the fucking situation he killed the guy plain and simple,
he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
self defense only works when they come to attack you, the guy came to steal not to hurt him physically if the state can't do so call "righteous killings" then you can't either. Ionno if his state banned the death sentence or not but i'll look it up.
What he's too cheap to afford home or renters insurance instead he kills a guy over a few bucks? this was off campus
1. You obviously have a lot of bias already coming into this thread. 2. You assume too easily that he meant to kill someone with the sword. 3. You believe that you have the right mindset regarding this matter, everyone else is wrong. 4. You sound REALLY stuck up.
I have a strong position and unless someone can tell me logically how killing someone over property can ever be considered not a crime well blow my mind. Also i tend to shout even though i know it's not going to help my argument when i strongly believe in something.
The thing i focus on is the kid confronted the thief he didn't hear suspect shit in the garage and called the police and waited at the neighbors or something he took it on himself to handle it and it resulted in a death and he should be put on trial for such.
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
Nazgul what would you do in a position where you were home sleeping and a guy breaks in? Im just curious as to your personal response and im on your side.
Personally I would probably make sure my family/friends were safe and then call the police. While maybe 8/10 time when you confront a burgler he will run but weapons just escalate the situation. If you just make sure you and whoever else in the house with with is safe by like all being in one room locked door then oh well insurance covers property that is stolen. If the person confronts us then it escalates to him not being there just for stealing so then deadly force might come into play.
On September 16 2009 12:18 Saddened Izzy wrote: he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
LOL. Because if he killed him with a hammer he MIGHT have been going to his garage to hang a painting. Or if he killed him with a golf club he MIGHT have been going to hit a few balls. hahaha
A sword serves one purpose and that is to kill people. The fact the kid owned one brings up serious doubts to the kid not just confronting the robber and slashing him then telling lies to the police saying he lunged at him. Guess what it's easily to lie about what happened when the only other witness is dead.
There is intent to do serious harm to another when you bring something that is only a weapon to confront someone.
What the hell is so wrong saying "When someone breaks into your house to steal something and you notice you go to the police, when they break into your house to kill you and your family you can kill him too." No one should ever die over a few bucks.
Thats funny, because why the fuck would there be the second amendment? A gun is the same as a sword, made only to kill. You take a gun with you because just in case theres a break in and you want to defend yourself. He brought a sword to protect himself and the man lunged at the student once the thief saw the student. Anybody would panic at the fact that theres a complete stranger in your house and is charging straight at you and you're not sure if he has a weapon or not.
On September 16 2009 12:38 Phayze wrote: Also on the news page i found this
The area seems to be very hostile. This kid should definitely be commended.
It sucks that johns hopkins is in a bad neighborhood.
You interpret the 2nd amendment way i interpret it another. Anyone who kills anyone when the other guy is not armed or made it crystal clear that he will kill you or people around you right now, cannot walk away scott free the kid should serve time just like a guy who accidentally kills a person walking down the street with a car. You say it's different? because one is something one does in defense vs something one does out of being inept? It is not, defending yourself is never an excuse to kill someone like that there was no struggle, no fight the kid killed him one slash, does it make what the robber was doing right to say it's wrong of the kid to do what he did? Of course not. what the hell is not want to be the hero go out and stop the bad guys go be a police officer. There was more then 1 way to handle that situation and guess what the kid chose one of the crappiest ways to go about it.
Oh so are you saying that the kid knew that the man was unarmed when IT WAS DARK AND HE ONLY CAUGHT A GLIMPSE OF THE THEIF. If the kid died, you'll probably go like why didn't he chop off the thief's head right there.
On September 16 2009 12:50 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
I don't understand this. Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense.
Really you assume i believe in the death penalty? Well i don't you know what i would do remove his citizenship put him in jail for life.
It was dark and he only caught a glimpse of the thief? It was dark and he lied not to get into any bigger trouble then he already knows hes in for chopping a guy up is just as easy to say. And yes you endanger yourself by bringing weapons with you any time, guess what more people die and get hurt by their own chainsaw and gun then by someone else you saying a chain saw isn't as dangerous as a gun, fuck it's just a motorized saw which is a samuari sword to some extent in design. Guess what you own a weapon you better be prepared for the consequences of using it.
I don't understand the your mind set that the kid was going in to kill the guy. Why can't you see that he had the sword to protect himself. It was more like oh it the garage seems suspicious, I'll bring along something to defend myself just in case the worst case scenario happens and make sure everything is alright. This guys was charged like almost 30 times, he could be dangerous. The sword was probably the best weapon that he could find at the time and he brought it with him so that he could protect himself.
Guess what? I don't own a weapon.
And guess what? You need to stop being a stuck up bastard and admit that the kid wasn't bringing the sword to kill people.
On September 16 2009 11:46 Saddened Izzy wrote: What's wrong with that kid he doesn't own a bat like a normal person but instead keeps a samurai sword by his bed side. Unless he saw a gun or some sort of weapon from the guy seriously something wrong there the kid fucked up the situation even more by bring a sword, if it was a gun it be a different story he lunges at him he get shot depending on the shoot the guy dies in a min or in a few hours, but a sword is just asking for some fucked up shit. Sorry but my logic works unless the guy was like 8 feet tall and was built like Eugen Sandow that is excessive force in my rule book the kid is confident enough to slash away at the guy but can't think like listening to the door opening it seeing the thief then running to call the police, it is not up to the kid to confront the thief unless he believes he can control the situation which he obviously could not. Obviously that college education isn't doing much for his critical thinking. #rant rant rant#
If he calls the police - the robber gets away in time, and you lose your shit. Why would you have to see a gun if someone broke into your place to steal your stuff. You take the pussy way out like you're saying, you just lost $50-100 of stuff.
I'd sooner kill the guy who broke into my property in the first place, who most likely wouldn't hesitate to use force against me. That is assuming I had the chance. I might call the police simply out of fear, but just because this kid didn't, doesn't mean he made the wrong choice imo.
He took matters into his own hands by confronting the thief in the first place. He couldn't like listen to the door and peek inside to see? And he couldn't handle the fucking situation he killed the guy plain and simple,
he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
self defense only works when they come to attack you, the guy came to steal not to hurt him physically if the state can't do so call "righteous killings" then you can't either. Ionno if his state banned the death sentence or not but i'll look it up.
What he's too cheap to afford home or renters insurance instead he kills a guy over a few bucks? this was off campus
1. You obviously have a lot of bias already coming into this thread. 2. You assume too easily that he meant to kill someone with the sword. 3. You believe that you have the right mindset regarding this matter, everyone else is wrong. 4. You sound REALLY stuck up.
I have a strong position and unless someone can tell me logically how killing someone over property can ever be considered not a crime well blow my mind. Also i tend to shout even though i know it's not going to help my argument when i strongly believe in something.
The thing i focus on is the kid confronted the thief he didn't hear suspect shit in the garage and called the police and waited at the neighbors or something he took it on himself to handle it and it resulted in a death and he should be put on trial for such.
The kid didn't kill because his property was stolen but because he was being charged at by a stranger and whats wrong with bringing a weapon in YOUR OWN HOUSE. We don't have to rely on the police all the time you know.
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.
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
I'd agree, the safest thing to do, if possible is to wait for the person to come to you, not go looking around in the dark for them, plus you know your own house better than they do, stop and call the cops if you can. If you have a family it's a little different situation, or if you live with roommates, it's a little more dangerous investigating suspicious noises because so many people live in that house, you could harm one of your friends. It's also a reason burglars break into houses where a lot of people live because you would be less suspicious hearing random noises at night.
On September 16 2009 12:18 Saddened Izzy wrote: he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
LOL. Because if he killed him with a hammer he MIGHT have been going to his garage to hang a painting. Or if he killed him with a golf club he MIGHT have been going to hit a few balls. hahaha
A sword serves one purpose and that is to kill people. The fact the kid owned one brings up serious doubts to the kid not just confronting the robber and slashing him then telling lies to the police saying he lunged at him. Guess what it's easily to lie about what happened when the only other witness is dead.
There is intent to do serious harm to another when you bring something that is only a weapon to confront someone.
What the hell is so wrong saying "When someone breaks into your house to steal something and you notice you go to the police, when they break into your house to kill you and your family you can kill him too." No one should ever die over a few bucks.
Thats funny, because why the fuck would there be the second amendment? A gun is the same as a sword, made only to kill. You take a gun with you because just in case theres a break in and you want to defend yourself. He brought a sword to protect himself and the man lunged at the student once the thief saw the student. Anybody would panic at the fact that theres a complete stranger in your house and is charging straight at you and you're not sure if he has a weapon or not.
On September 16 2009 12:38 Phayze wrote: Also on the news page i found this
The area seems to be very hostile. This kid should definitely be commended.
It sucks that johns hopkins is in a bad neighborhood.
You interpret the 2nd amendment way i interpret it another. Anyone who kills anyone when the other guy is not armed or made it crystal clear that he will kill you or people around you right now, cannot walk away scott free the kid should serve time just like a guy who accidentally kills a person walking down the street with a car. You say it's different? because one is something one does in defense vs something one does out of being inept? It is not, defending yourself is never an excuse to kill someone like that there was no struggle, no fight the kid killed him one slash, does it make what the robber was doing right to say it's wrong of the kid to do what he did? Of course not. what the hell is not want to be the hero go out and stop the bad guys go be a police officer. There was more then 1 way to handle that situation and guess what the kid chose one of the crappiest ways to go about it.
Oh so are you saying that the kid knew that the man was unarmed when IT WAS DARK AND HE ONLY CAUGHT A GLIMPSE OF THE THEIF. If the kid died, you'll probably go like why didn't he chop off the thief's head right there.
On September 16 2009 12:50 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
I don't understand this. Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense.
Really you assume i believe in the death penalty? Well i don't you know what i would do remove his citizenship put him in jail for life.
It was dark and he only caught a glimpse of the thief? It was dark and he lied not to get into any bigger trouble then he already knows hes in for chopping a guy up is just as easy to say. And yes you endanger yourself by bringing weapons with you any time, guess what more people die and get hurt by their own chainsaw and gun then by someone else you saying a chain saw isn't as dangerous as a gun, fuck it's just a motorized saw which is a samuari sword to some extent in design. Guess what you own a weapon you better be prepared for the consequences of using it.
You are all over the place with your thought process. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Its a good thing your opinion doesn't matter. There is almost no chance, given the circumstances, that the kid will receive any kind of harsh punishment. It was nice of you to drop your over inflated rage all over the subject in a cesspool of horrible points and convoluted logic though, thanks.
On September 16 2009 10:55 Snet wrote: Awesome lol. I have a samurai sword in my room, don't ask me why I just do. o_o
here's the thing with guys owning a samurai sword:
We have an incident here in the 89's that a man who likes being a bad-ass goes to one of our neighbor's house and demands an all-kill match against his mortal enemy? (sorry, forgot what they were fighting about)
So the dude inside the house said, if you want a fucking fight come in to my house you bitch.. something in the lines of that..
Well, since he is so much badassery he went inside the house but what the fuck! he didn't see it coming.. the guy that owns the house is a fucking ninja, why?
when the bad-ass came in to the house, the home owner turned off all his lights then starts slashing(?) + Show Spoiler +
there is a question mark remember?
with his designed samurai sword.
Now the problem with that is they can't find anyone to press charges because they don't know who really did the crime since 1) Lights were turned off 2) there was like 15 people inside the house (LMAO when he incident happened) 3) The suspects is either the tricycle drivers or the owner of the house itself. and 4) trespassing.
Not all human lives are equal, some people deserve to die for what they do. It's the ultimate form of accountability. This thief knew everything that being a burglar entailed; including getting killed on "the job." Why can't we accept this? If this kid truly felt threatened, then he was fully justified. Yes, I'm cold hearted.
On September 16 2009 13:19 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: Not all human lives are equal, some people deserve to die for what they do. It's the ultimate form of accountability. This thief knew everything that being a burglar entailed; including getting killed on "the job." Why can't we accept this? If this kid truly felt threatened, then he was fully justified. Yes, I'm cold hearted.
Anyone that I find on my property, with the intent to steal shit, will be receiving the sweet spot of my 34" aluminum bat from high school.
On September 16 2009 12:18 Saddened Izzy wrote: he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
LOL. Because if he killed him with a hammer he MIGHT have been going to his garage to hang a painting. Or if he killed him with a golf club he MIGHT have been going to hit a few balls. hahaha
A sword serves one purpose and that is to kill people. The fact the kid owned one brings up serious doubts to the kid not just confronting the robber and slashing him then telling lies to the police saying he lunged at him. Guess what it's easily to lie about what happened when the only other witness is dead.
There is intent to do serious harm to another when you bring something that is only a weapon to confront someone.
What the hell is so wrong saying "When someone breaks into your house to steal something and you notice you go to the police, when they break into your house to kill you and your family you can kill him too." No one should ever die over a few bucks.
Thats funny, because why the fuck would there be the second amendment? A gun is the same as a sword, made only to kill. You take a gun with you because just in case theres a break in and you want to defend yourself. He brought a sword to protect himself and the man lunged at the student once the thief saw the student. Anybody would panic at the fact that theres a complete stranger in your house and is charging straight at you and you're not sure if he has a weapon or not.
On September 16 2009 12:38 Phayze wrote: Also on the news page i found this
The area seems to be very hostile. This kid should definitely be commended.
It sucks that johns hopkins is in a bad neighborhood.
You interpret the 2nd amendment way i interpret it another. Anyone who kills anyone when the other guy is not armed or made it crystal clear that he will kill you or people around you right now, cannot walk away scott free the kid should serve time just like a guy who accidentally kills a person walking down the street with a car. You say it's different? because one is something one does in defense vs something one does out of being inept? It is not, defending yourself is never an excuse to kill someone like that there was no struggle, no fight the kid killed him one slash, does it make what the robber was doing right to say it's wrong of the kid to do what he did? Of course not. what the hell is not want to be the hero go out and stop the bad guys go be a police officer. There was more then 1 way to handle that situation and guess what the kid chose one of the crappiest ways to go about it.
Oh so are you saying that the kid knew that the man was unarmed when IT WAS DARK AND HE ONLY CAUGHT A GLIMPSE OF THE THEIF. If the kid died, you'll probably go like why didn't he chop off the thief's head right there.
On September 16 2009 12:50 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
I don't understand this. Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense.
Really you assume i believe in the death penalty? Well i don't you know what i would do remove his citizenship put him in jail for life.
It was dark and he only caught a glimpse of the thief? It was dark and he lied not to get into any bigger trouble then he already knows hes in for chopping a guy up is just as easy to say. And yes you endanger yourself by bringing weapons with you any time, guess what more people die and get hurt by their own chainsaw and gun then by someone else you saying a chain saw isn't as dangerous as a gun, fuck it's just a motorized saw which is a samuari sword to some extent in design. Guess what you own a weapon you better be prepared for the consequences of using it.
I don't understand the your mind set that the kid was going in to kill the guy. Why can't you see that he had the sword to protect himself. It was more like oh it the garage seems suspicious, I'll bring along something to defend myself just in case the worst case scenario happens and make sure everything is alright. This guys was charged like almost 30 times, he could be dangerous. The sword was probably the best weapon that he could find at the time and he brought it with him so that he could protect himself.
Guess what? I don't own a weapon.
And guess what? You need to stop being a stuck up bastard and admit that the kid wasn't bringing the sword to kill people.
How does calling me stuck up change anything?
The kid confronted the thief and it resulted in the kid using the sword and killing the man, you saying you shouldn't be call accounted for when you use a gun a weapon meant to kill, he was using a sword, all i'm saying when you have a deadly weapon and use it you are held accountable for what happens.
Guess what the kid should have done make sure everyone is already take that sword get everyone in the same room and wait it out only using it when the thief comes barging into that room, you think i'm so stuck up that if it happened to me i would be all on the other side. Guess what i've been mugged i have had work done to get my teeth and jaw all right again because i got hit in the jaw with brass knuckles got my mp3 player and wallet stolen if anything by your description i have even more of a right to kill the guys who jumped me as they made it clear they were going to hurt me after it's self defense. Guess what i don't i get my strong position from the reactions of people after the incident. Hell i still wear braces to move my teeth after my jaw and bite was redone.
What makes me angry is that people seem to think he has the kid in that situation had the right to kill the man. I stand to say he did not esp in that situation nothing to me in that article said that the level of force he used was necessary.
If someone I don't know breaks into my house, I won't busy myself trying to guess what he would do. He could be stealing, he could be a murderer on the run from the law with nothing to lose.
I don't have a display samurai sword, but I'll grab the best weapon closest to me - be it sword or a bat (which I do have) or fist full of noodles like in that one movie. The point is he's gonna get it if he doesn't make himself scarce fast enough.
Are you kidding me?!
If you really "value human life" then maybe you'd hide under your bed while he takes everything he wants. Human life isn't even in the top 5 on my mind if something like that happens.
On September 16 2009 12:18 Saddened Izzy wrote: he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
LOL. Because if he killed him with a hammer he MIGHT have been going to his garage to hang a painting. Or if he killed him with a golf club he MIGHT have been going to hit a few balls. hahaha
A sword serves one purpose and that is to kill people. The fact the kid owned one brings up serious doubts to the kid not just confronting the robber and slashing him then telling lies to the police saying he lunged at him. Guess what it's easily to lie about what happened when the only other witness is dead.
There is intent to do serious harm to another when you bring something that is only a weapon to confront someone.
What the hell is so wrong saying "When someone breaks into your house to steal something and you notice you go to the police, when they break into your house to kill you and your family you can kill him too." No one should ever die over a few bucks.
Thats funny, because why the fuck would there be the second amendment? A gun is the same as a sword, made only to kill. You take a gun with you because just in case theres a break in and you want to defend yourself. He brought a sword to protect himself and the man lunged at the student once the thief saw the student. Anybody would panic at the fact that theres a complete stranger in your house and is charging straight at you and you're not sure if he has a weapon or not.
On September 16 2009 12:38 Phayze wrote: Also on the news page i found this
The area seems to be very hostile. This kid should definitely be commended.
It sucks that johns hopkins is in a bad neighborhood.
You interpret the 2nd amendment way i interpret it another. Anyone who kills anyone when the other guy is not armed or made it crystal clear that he will kill you or people around you right now, cannot walk away scott free the kid should serve time just like a guy who accidentally kills a person walking down the street with a car. You say it's different? because one is something one does in defense vs something one does out of being inept? It is not, defending yourself is never an excuse to kill someone like that there was no struggle, no fight the kid killed him one slash, does it make what the robber was doing right to say it's wrong of the kid to do what he did? Of course not. what the hell is not want to be the hero go out and stop the bad guys go be a police officer. There was more then 1 way to handle that situation and guess what the kid chose one of the crappiest ways to go about it.
Oh so are you saying that the kid knew that the man was unarmed when IT WAS DARK AND HE ONLY CAUGHT A GLIMPSE OF THE THEIF. If the kid died, you'll probably go like why didn't he chop off the thief's head right there.
On September 16 2009 12:50 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
I don't understand this. Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense.
Really you assume i believe in the death penalty? Well i don't you know what i would do remove his citizenship put him in jail for life.
It was dark and he only caught a glimpse of the thief? It was dark and he lied not to get into any bigger trouble then he already knows hes in for chopping a guy up is just as easy to say. And yes you endanger yourself by bringing weapons with you any time, guess what more people die and get hurt by their own chainsaw and gun then by someone else you saying a chain saw isn't as dangerous as a gun, fuck it's just a motorized saw which is a samuari sword to some extent in design. Guess what you own a weapon you better be prepared for the consequences of using it.
I don't understand the your mind set that the kid was going in to kill the guy. Why can't you see that he had the sword to protect himself. It was more like oh it the garage seems suspicious, I'll bring along something to defend myself just in case the worst case scenario happens and make sure everything is alright. This guys was charged like almost 30 times, he could be dangerous. The sword was probably the best weapon that he could find at the time and he brought it with him so that he could protect himself.
Guess what? I don't own a weapon.
And guess what? You need to stop being a stuck up bastard and admit that the kid wasn't bringing the sword to kill people.
How does calling me stuck up change anything?
The kid confronted the thief and it resulted in the kid using the sword and killing the man, you saying you shouldn't be call accounted for when you use a gun a weapon meant to kill, he was using a sword, all i'm saying when you have a deadly weapon and use it you are held accountable for what happens.
Guess what the kid should have done make sure everyone is already take that sword get everyone in the same room and wait it out only using it when the thief comes barging into that room, you think i'm so stuck up that if it happened to me i would be all on the other side. Guess what i've been mugged i have had work done to get my teeth and jaw all right again because i got hit in the jaw with brass knuckles got my mp3 player and wallet stolen if anything by your description i have even more of a right to kill the guys who jumped me as they made it clear they were going to hurt me after it's self defense. Guess what i don't i get my strong position from the reactions of people after the incident. Hell i still wear braces to move my teeth after my jaw and bite was redone.
Stop saying "Guess what" and learn how to put a fucking sentence together and maybe people will take you seriously.
On September 16 2009 12:55 Phayze wrote: I know, if I was being robbed in my own home I wouldn't stand there and be passive, But i do guess a large amount of people on these forums have no backbone, as most of todays current society are, very very passive. Hell I even saw an elderly couple get mugged a few blocks down from my apartment, and no one did a thing about it. A crowded downtown street stood and stared, all scared of confrontation... It absolutely sickened me.
That's not because people are passive, it's because they don't believe events like those are their responsibility. When something like a stabbing happens in a public area with plenty of witnesses, it's highly unlikely anyone will do anything. It's called the bystander effect. It's easy for you to say that if you were on the street, you would have chased down the muggers, or at least called the cops, but if you're a typical human being, you wouldn't have. There's no evidence to suggest that it's the relative docility of people in modern society (as compared to, say, the Middle Ages) that causes the bystander effect.
On September 16 2009 11:46 Saddened Izzy wrote: What's wrong with that kid he doesn't own a bat like a normal person but instead keeps a samurai sword by his bed side. Unless he saw a gun or some sort of weapon from the guy seriously something wrong there the kid fucked up the situation even more by bring a sword, if it was a gun it be a different story he lunges at him he get shot depending on the shoot the guy dies in a min or in a few hours, but a sword is just asking for some fucked up shit. Sorry but my logic works unless the guy was like 8 feet tall and was built like Eugen Sandow that is excessive force in my rule book the kid is confident enough to slash away at the guy but can't think like listening to the door opening it seeing the thief then running to call the police, it is not up to the kid to confront the thief unless he believes he can control the situation which he obviously could not. Obviously that college education isn't doing much for his critical thinking. #rant rant rant#
If he calls the police - the robber gets away in time, and you lose your shit. Why would you have to see a gun if someone broke into your place to steal your stuff. You take the pussy way out like you're saying, you just lost $50-100 of stuff.
I'd sooner kill the guy who broke into my property in the first place, who most likely wouldn't hesitate to use force against me. That is assuming I had the chance. I might call the police simply out of fear, but just because this kid didn't, doesn't mean he made the wrong choice imo.
He took matters into his own hands by confronting the thief in the first place. He couldn't like listen to the door and peek inside to see? And he couldn't handle the fucking situation he killed the guy plain and simple,
he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
self defense only works when they come to attack you, the guy came to steal not to hurt him physically if the state can't do so call "righteous killings" then you can't either. Ionno if his state banned the death sentence or not but i'll look it up.
What he's too cheap to afford home or renters insurance instead he kills a guy over a few bucks? this was off campus
1. You obviously have a lot of bias already coming into this thread. 2. You assume too easily that he meant to kill someone with the sword. 3. You believe that you have the right mindset regarding this matter, everyone else is wrong. 4. You sound REALLY stuck up.
I have a strong position and unless someone can tell me logically how killing someone over property can ever be considered not a crime well blow my mind. Also i tend to shout even though i know it's not going to help my argument when i strongly believe in something.
The thing i focus on is the kid confronted the thief he didn't hear suspect shit in the garage and called the police and waited at the neighbors or something he took it on himself to handle it and it resulted in a death and he should be put on trial for such.
how is prosecuting the shit out of a 20 year old kid for not making the right judgment call in a frightening situation justice?
it's like you're rushing in to make an already sad situation worse.
On September 16 2009 12:18 Saddened Izzy wrote: he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
LOL. Because if he killed him with a hammer he MIGHT have been going to his garage to hang a painting. Or if he killed him with a golf club he MIGHT have been going to hit a few balls. hahaha
A sword serves one purpose and that is to kill people. The fact the kid owned one brings up serious doubts to the kid not just confronting the robber and slashing him then telling lies to the police saying he lunged at him. Guess what it's easily to lie about what happened when the only other witness is dead.
There is intent to do serious harm to another when you bring something that is only a weapon to confront someone.
What the hell is so wrong saying "When someone breaks into your house to steal something and you notice you go to the police, when they break into your house to kill you and your family you can kill him too." No one should ever die over a few bucks.
Thats funny, because why the fuck would there be the second amendment? A gun is the same as a sword, made only to kill. You take a gun with you because just in case theres a break in and you want to defend yourself. He brought a sword to protect himself and the man lunged at the student once the thief saw the student. Anybody would panic at the fact that theres a complete stranger in your house and is charging straight at you and you're not sure if he has a weapon or not.
On September 16 2009 12:38 Phayze wrote: Also on the news page i found this
The area seems to be very hostile. This kid should definitely be commended.
It sucks that johns hopkins is in a bad neighborhood.
You interpret the 2nd amendment way i interpret it another. Anyone who kills anyone when the other guy is not armed or made it crystal clear that he will kill you or people around you right now, cannot walk away scott free the kid should serve time just like a guy who accidentally kills a person walking down the street with a car. You say it's different? because one is something one does in defense vs something one does out of being inept? It is not, defending yourself is never an excuse to kill someone like that there was no struggle, no fight the kid killed him one slash, does it make what the robber was doing right to say it's wrong of the kid to do what he did? Of course not. what the hell is not want to be the hero go out and stop the bad guys go be a police officer. There was more then 1 way to handle that situation and guess what the kid chose one of the crappiest ways to go about it.
Oh so are you saying that the kid knew that the man was unarmed when IT WAS DARK AND HE ONLY CAUGHT A GLIMPSE OF THE THEIF. If the kid died, you'll probably go like why didn't he chop off the thief's head right there.
On September 16 2009 12:50 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
I don't understand this. Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense.
Really you assume i believe in the death penalty? Well i don't you know what i would do remove his citizenship put him in jail for life.
It was dark and he only caught a glimpse of the thief? It was dark and he lied not to get into any bigger trouble then he already knows hes in for chopping a guy up is just as easy to say. And yes you endanger yourself by bringing weapons with you any time, guess what more people die and get hurt by their own chainsaw and gun then by someone else you saying a chain saw isn't as dangerous as a gun, fuck it's just a motorized saw which is a samuari sword to some extent in design. Guess what you own a weapon you better be prepared for the consequences of using it.
I don't understand the your mind set that the kid was going in to kill the guy. Why can't you see that he had the sword to protect himself. It was more like oh it the garage seems suspicious, I'll bring along something to defend myself just in case the worst case scenario happens and make sure everything is alright. This guys was charged like almost 30 times, he could be dangerous. The sword was probably the best weapon that he could find at the time and he brought it with him so that he could protect himself.
Guess what? I don't own a weapon.
And guess what? You need to stop being a stuck up bastard and admit that the kid wasn't bringing the sword to kill people.
How does calling me stuck up change anything?
The kid confronted the thief and it resulted in the kid using the sword and killing the man, you saying you shouldn't be call accounted for when you use a gun a weapon meant to kill, he was using a sword, all i'm saying when you have a deadly weapon and use it you are held accountable for what happens.
Guess what the kid should have done make sure everyone is already take that sword get everyone in the same room and wait it out only using it when the thief comes barging into that room, you think i'm so stuck up that if it happened to me i would be all on the other side. Guess what i've been mugged i have had work done to get my teeth and jaw all right again because i got hit in the jaw with brass knuckles got my mp3 player and wallet stolen if anything by your description i have even more of a right to kill the guys who jumped me as they made it clear they were going to hurt me after it's self defense. Guess what i don't i get my strong position from the reactions of people after the incident. Hell i still wear braces to move my teeth after my jaw and bite was redone.
If you got mugged, then thats too bad for you. As my teachers have taught me, under normal circumstances, if the man threatens you then you give into whatever the man wants. But if the man wants to kill you or it looks like hes about to kill you, then thats the time self-defense comes into play. The situation was clearly threatening to the kid. I'm not promoting killing, but the kid did right thing for protecting himself.
And it sounds like you didn't get mugged on your property. The whole private property thing just tips it in the favor of the kid more. And sounds like you got your ass handed to you by the mugger. You probably couldn't do shit.
As kev pointed out, stop using guess what. You suck at writing arguments.
On September 16 2009 13:22 .risingdragoon wrote: This whole discussion is reTARDed.
If someone I don't know breaks into my house, I won't busy myself trying to guess what he would do. He could be stealing, he could be a murderer on the run from the law with nothing to lose.
I don't have a display samurai sword, but I'll grab the best weapon closest to me - be it sword or a bat (which I do have) or fist full of noodles like in that one movie. The point is he's gonna get it if he doesn't make himself scarce fast enough.
Are you kidding me?!
If you really "value human life" then maybe you'd hide under your bed while he takes everything he wants. Human life isn't even in the top 5 on my mind if something like that happens.
On September 16 2009 13:22 .risingdragoon wrote: This whole discussion is reTARDed.
If someone I don't know breaks into my house, I won't busy myself trying to guess what he would do. He could be stealing, he could be a murderer on the run from the law with nothing to lose.
I don't have a display samurai sword, but I'll grab the best weapon closest to me - be it sword or a bat (which I do have) or fist full of noodles like in that one movie. The point is he's gonna get it if he doesn't make himself scarce fast enough.
Are you kidding me?!
If you really "value human life" then maybe you'd hide under your bed while he takes everything he wants. Human life isn't even in the top 5 on my mind if something like that happens.
^
I just want to ask, what if the mugger surrenders? Do you still kick his ass/kill him for it or just tie him up? I mean, there could have been a scenario that the MOFO shit's his pants since he saw you with a gun pointing at him.
On September 16 2009 13:22 .risingdragoon wrote: This whole discussion is reTARDed.
If someone I don't know breaks into my house, I won't busy myself trying to guess what he would do. He could be stealing, he could be a murderer on the run from the law with nothing to lose.
I don't have a display samurai sword, but I'll grab the best weapon closest to me - be it sword or a bat (which I do have) or fist full of noodles like in that one movie. The point is he's gonna get it if he doesn't make himself scarce fast enough.
Are you kidding me?!
If you really "value human life" then maybe you'd hide under your bed while he takes everything he wants. Human life isn't even in the top 5 on my mind if something like that happens.
^
I just want to ask, what if the mugger surrenders? Do you still kick his ass/kill him for it or just tie him up? I mean, there could have been a scenario that the MOFO shit's his pants since he saw you with a gun pointing at him.
Of course not. I'd keep the bat primed over his skull until the police arrive.
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.
On September 16 2009 13:22 .risingdragoon wrote: This whole discussion is reTARDed.
If someone I don't know breaks into my house, I won't busy myself trying to guess what he would do. He could be stealing, he could be a murderer on the run from the law with nothing to lose.
I don't have a display samurai sword, but I'll grab the best weapon closest to me - be it sword or a bat (which I do have) or fist full of noodles like in that one movie. The point is he's gonna get it if he doesn't make himself scarce fast enough.
Are you kidding me?!
If you really "value human life" then maybe you'd hide under your bed while he takes everything he wants. Human life isn't even in the top 5 on my mind if something like that happens.
^
I just want to ask, what if the mugger surrenders? Do you still kick his ass/kill him for it or just tie him up? I mean, there could have been a scenario that the MOFO shit's his pants since he saw you with a gun pointing at him.
Of course not. I'd keep the bat primed over his skull until the police arrive.
gimme a high five on that one! yahoo! that's one way of stress relieving
On September 16 2009 12:18 Saddened Izzy wrote: he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
LOL. Because if he killed him with a hammer he MIGHT have been going to his garage to hang a painting. Or if he killed him with a golf club he MIGHT have been going to hit a few balls. hahaha
A sword serves one purpose and that is to kill people. The fact the kid owned one brings up serious doubts to the kid not just confronting the robber and slashing him then telling lies to the police saying he lunged at him. Guess what it's easily to lie about what happened when the only other witness is dead.
There is intent to do serious harm to another when you bring something that is only a weapon to confront someone.
What the hell is so wrong saying "When someone breaks into your house to steal something and you notice you go to the police, when they break into your house to kill you and your family you can kill him too." No one should ever die over a few bucks.
Thats funny, because why the fuck would there be the second amendment? A gun is the same as a sword, made only to kill. You take a gun with you because just in case theres a break in and you want to defend yourself. He brought a sword to protect himself and the man lunged at the student once the thief saw the student. Anybody would panic at the fact that theres a complete stranger in your house and is charging straight at you and you're not sure if he has a weapon or not.
On September 16 2009 12:38 Phayze wrote: Also on the news page i found this
The area seems to be very hostile. This kid should definitely be commended.
It sucks that johns hopkins is in a bad neighborhood.
You interpret the 2nd amendment way i interpret it another. Anyone who kills anyone when the other guy is not armed or made it crystal clear that he will kill you or people around you right now, cannot walk away scott free the kid should serve time just like a guy who accidentally kills a person walking down the street with a car. You say it's different? because one is something one does in defense vs something one does out of being inept? It is not, defending yourself is never an excuse to kill someone like that there was no struggle, no fight the kid killed him one slash, does it make what the robber was doing right to say it's wrong of the kid to do what he did? Of course not. what the hell is not want to be the hero go out and stop the bad guys go be a police officer. There was more then 1 way to handle that situation and guess what the kid chose one of the crappiest ways to go about it.
Oh so are you saying that the kid knew that the man was unarmed when IT WAS DARK AND HE ONLY CAUGHT A GLIMPSE OF THE THEIF. If the kid died, you'll probably go like why didn't he chop off the thief's head right there.
On September 16 2009 12:50 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
I don't understand this. Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense.
Really you assume i believe in the death penalty? Well i don't you know what i would do remove his citizenship put him in jail for life.
It was dark and he only caught a glimpse of the thief? It was dark and he lied not to get into any bigger trouble then he already knows hes in for chopping a guy up is just as easy to say. And yes you endanger yourself by bringing weapons with you any time, guess what more people die and get hurt by their own chainsaw and gun then by someone else you saying a chain saw isn't as dangerous as a gun, fuck it's just a motorized saw which is a samuari sword to some extent in design. Guess what you own a weapon you better be prepared for the consequences of using it.
I don't understand the your mind set that the kid was going in to kill the guy. Why can't you see that he had the sword to protect himself. It was more like oh it the garage seems suspicious, I'll bring along something to defend myself just in case the worst case scenario happens and make sure everything is alright. This guys was charged like almost 30 times, he could be dangerous. The sword was probably the best weapon that he could find at the time and he brought it with him so that he could protect himself.
Guess what? I don't own a weapon.
And guess what? You need to stop being a stuck up bastard and admit that the kid wasn't bringing the sword to kill people.
How does calling me stuck up change anything?
The kid confronted the thief and it resulted in the kid using the sword and killing the man, you saying you shouldn't be call accounted for when you use a gun a weapon meant to kill, he was using a sword, all i'm saying when you have a deadly weapon and use it you are held accountable for what happens.
Guess what the kid should have done make sure everyone is already take that sword get everyone in the same room and wait it out only using it when the thief comes barging into that room, you think i'm so stuck up that if it happened to me i would be all on the other side. Guess what i've been mugged i have had work done to get my teeth and jaw all right again because i got hit in the jaw with brass knuckles got my mp3 player and wallet stolen if anything by your description i have even more of a right to kill the guys who jumped me as they made it clear they were going to hurt me after it's self defense. Guess what i don't i get my strong position from the reactions of people after the incident. Hell i still wear braces to move my teeth after my jaw and bite was redone.
What makes me angry is that people seem to think he has the kid in that situation had the right to kill the man. I stand to say he did not esp in that situation nothing to me in that article said that the level of force he used was necessary.
Can you tell me where you live? That way i can rob the fuck out of you as you stand in your house and do nothing.
the thief knew what he was getting into. he has been prosecuted many times and fails to learn from his mistakes. why should this low life have the same protection has law abiding citizens who don't threaten others, take others property etc? you know, when thieves take your property, you do not get reimbursed. you just get tax credits. what good is tax credits when you lose your laptop, gaming systems, etc? i wouldn't take this shit and i dont feel one ounce of pity for the fucker who died. society is better off without him.
i will drink a beer to this student for making this world a better place.
On September 16 2009 13:11 Slaughter wrote: Nazgul what would you do in a position where you were home sleeping and a guy breaks in? Im just curious as to your personal response and im on your side.
Personally I would probably make sure my family/friends were safe and then call the police. While maybe 8/10 time when you confront a burgler he will run but weapons just escalate the situation. If you just make sure you and whoever else in the house with with is safe by like all being in one room locked door then oh well insurance covers property that is stolen. If the person confronts us then it escalates to him not being there just for stealing so then deadly force might come into play.
I can't tell you of course what exactly I would do but I think yelling you know he's there and that the police is coming (regardless of whether they are) is the best way to go about it. In that case why would a simple burglar stick around to shoot you and your family? I think it's important to realize a burglar is really far from a killer. To approach him with a weapon is not self-defense it is the opposite of self-defense.
It feels like there is a large group of people who have grown up with the image and have been told over and over and over that a gun/weapon equals self defense, self protection and self preservation. It doesn't. It endangers yourself and your family. It seriously puzzles my mind to see quotes like "Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense." pop up when it is pretty fucking clear you are endangering your own life by bringing one.
On September 16 2009 13:34 Biochemist wrote: 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.
And by doing so you endangered not just your own but also the lives of your family and kids tenfold which makes you a terrible husband and father in my mind. But go ahead put your family in danger to save a few hundred bucks of worthless stuff and feel right about shooting someone.
Confronting a burglar has just as much to do with "principle" as it does with defending your property. Life is way too short to put up with crap like that. The article says that the kid was JUST robbed. I don't see how anyone can be so calm about being robbed multiple times within the same week without standing up for themselves.
I can have understanding for what happened, but not respect. What happens happens it's understandable he might have been freaked out from the past weeks happenings, its possible he aimed at the hand because he had no intent of killing, it's possible he wasn't thinking rationally. That makes things less bad, but in the end I believe you don't have the right to kill someone who isn't threatening to kill you. No items in your or mine house should be worth that much.
Being a burglar (without carrying a weapon) is morally not much different from tax evasion. Think on that.
Confronting a burglar has just as much to do with "principle" as it does with defending your property. Life is way too short to put up with crap like that. The article says that the kid was JUST robbed. I don't see how anyone can be so calm about being robbed multiple times within the same week without standing up for themselves.
I don't condone or condemn using a weapon to defend your property, but I think if you kill someone who's robbing you, it's perfectly fair for you to face a manslaughter trial. Determining whether the guy was guilty of manslaughter or not guilty on the grounds of self defense would be easier after the evidence is examined.
On September 16 2009 12:18 Saddened Izzy wrote: he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
LOL. Because if he killed him with a hammer he MIGHT have been going to his garage to hang a painting. Or if he killed him with a golf club he MIGHT have been going to hit a few balls. hahaha
A sword serves one purpose and that is to kill people. The fact the kid owned one brings up serious doubts to the kid not just confronting the robber and slashing him then telling lies to the police saying he lunged at him. Guess what it's easily to lie about what happened when the only other witness is dead.
There is intent to do serious harm to another when you bring something that is only a weapon to confront someone.
What the hell is so wrong saying "When someone breaks into your house to steal something and you notice you go to the police, when they break into your house to kill you and your family you can kill him too." No one should ever die over a few bucks.
Thats funny, because why the fuck would there be the second amendment? A gun is the same as a sword, made only to kill. You take a gun with you because just in case theres a break in and you want to defend yourself. He brought a sword to protect himself and the man lunged at the student once the thief saw the student. Anybody would panic at the fact that theres a complete stranger in your house and is charging straight at you and you're not sure if he has a weapon or not.
On September 16 2009 12:38 Phayze wrote: Also on the news page i found this
The area seems to be very hostile. This kid should definitely be commended.
It sucks that johns hopkins is in a bad neighborhood.
You interpret the 2nd amendment way i interpret it another. Anyone who kills anyone when the other guy is not armed or made it crystal clear that he will kill you or people around you right now, cannot walk away scott free the kid should serve time just like a guy who accidentally kills a person walking down the street with a car. You say it's different? because one is something one does in defense vs something one does out of being inept? It is not, defending yourself is never an excuse to kill someone like that there was no struggle, no fight the kid killed him one slash, does it make what the robber was doing right to say it's wrong of the kid to do what he did? Of course not. what the hell is not want to be the hero go out and stop the bad guys go be a police officer. There was more then 1 way to handle that situation and guess what the kid chose one of the crappiest ways to go about it.
Oh so are you saying that the kid knew that the man was unarmed when IT WAS DARK AND HE ONLY CAUGHT A GLIMPSE OF THE THEIF. If the kid died, you'll probably go like why didn't he chop off the thief's head right there.
On September 16 2009 12:50 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
I don't understand this. Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense.
Really you assume i believe in the death penalty? Well i don't you know what i would do remove his citizenship put him in jail for life.
It was dark and he only caught a glimpse of the thief? It was dark and he lied not to get into any bigger trouble then he already knows hes in for chopping a guy up is just as easy to say. And yes you endanger yourself by bringing weapons with you any time, guess what more people die and get hurt by their own chainsaw and gun then by someone else you saying a chain saw isn't as dangerous as a gun, fuck it's just a motorized saw which is a samuari sword to some extent in design. Guess what you own a weapon you better be prepared for the consequences of using it.
I don't understand the your mind set that the kid was going in to kill the guy. Why can't you see that he had the sword to protect himself. It was more like oh it the garage seems suspicious, I'll bring along something to defend myself just in case the worst case scenario happens and make sure everything is alright. This guys was charged like almost 30 times, he could be dangerous. The sword was probably the best weapon that he could find at the time and he brought it with him so that he could protect himself.
Guess what? I don't own a weapon.
And guess what? You need to stop being a stuck up bastard and admit that the kid wasn't bringing the sword to kill people.
How does calling me stuck up change anything?
The kid confronted the thief and it resulted in the kid using the sword and killing the man, you saying you shouldn't be call accounted for when you use a gun a weapon meant to kill, he was using a sword, all i'm saying when you have a deadly weapon and use it you are held accountable for what happens.
Guess what the kid should have done make sure everyone is already take that sword get everyone in the same room and wait it out only using it when the thief comes barging into that room, you think i'm so stuck up that if it happened to me i would be all on the other side. Guess what i've been mugged i have had work done to get my teeth and jaw all right again because i got hit in the jaw with brass knuckles got my mp3 player and wallet stolen if anything by your description i have even more of a right to kill the guys who jumped me as they made it clear they were going to hurt me after it's self defense. Guess what i don't i get my strong position from the reactions of people after the incident. Hell i still wear braces to move my teeth after my jaw and bite was redone.
If you got mugged, then thats too bad for you. As my teachers have taught me, under normal circumstances, if the man threatens you then you give into whatever the man wants. But if the man wants to kill you or it looks like hes about to kill you, then thats the time self-defense comes into play. The situation was clearly threatening to the kid. I'm not promoting killing, but the kid did right thing for protecting himself.
And it sounds like you didn't get mugged on your property. The whole private property thing just tips it in the favor of the kid more. And sounds like you got your ass handed to you by the mugger. You probably couldn't do shit.
As kev pointed out, stop using guess what. You suck at writing arguments.
Again you suck at reading
The kid confronted the thief he heard weird shit in garage he knew there was a string of burglaries in the neighborhood.
HE put himself in that situation knowing he would have to use the sword and it resulted in him killing a man over property.
This is the part i mull over he went confronted the robber with the sword the robber didn't confront him.
How the hell does anyone here think it's alright to kill another over property.
Maybe we should kill all sharks that take a bit out of humans for swimming were they feed. Face it you put yourself in the situation you pay the consequences.
Life to me is sacred and killing people over stupid decisions is never right.
On September 16 2009 12:18 Saddened Izzy wrote: he didn't have the intention of killing him?
He brought a fucking samurai sword the sword is a weapon only, he didn't bring a hammer or a bat; shit that serves multiple purposes he brought a fucking sword the only object of a sword is to kill shit.
LOL. Because if he killed him with a hammer he MIGHT have been going to his garage to hang a painting. Or if he killed him with a golf club he MIGHT have been going to hit a few balls. hahaha
A sword serves one purpose and that is to kill people. The fact the kid owned one brings up serious doubts to the kid not just confronting the robber and slashing him then telling lies to the police saying he lunged at him. Guess what it's easily to lie about what happened when the only other witness is dead.
There is intent to do serious harm to another when you bring something that is only a weapon to confront someone.
What the hell is so wrong saying "When someone breaks into your house to steal something and you notice you go to the police, when they break into your house to kill you and your family you can kill him too." No one should ever die over a few bucks.
Thats funny, because why the fuck would there be the second amendment? A gun is the same as a sword, made only to kill. You take a gun with you because just in case theres a break in and you want to defend yourself. He brought a sword to protect himself and the man lunged at the student once the thief saw the student. Anybody would panic at the fact that theres a complete stranger in your house and is charging straight at you and you're not sure if he has a weapon or not.
On September 16 2009 12:38 Phayze wrote: Also on the news page i found this
The area seems to be very hostile. This kid should definitely be commended.
It sucks that johns hopkins is in a bad neighborhood.
You interpret the 2nd amendment way i interpret it another. Anyone who kills anyone when the other guy is not armed or made it crystal clear that he will kill you or people around you right now, cannot walk away scott free the kid should serve time just like a guy who accidentally kills a person walking down the street with a car. You say it's different? because one is something one does in defense vs something one does out of being inept? It is not, defending yourself is never an excuse to kill someone like that there was no struggle, no fight the kid killed him one slash, does it make what the robber was doing right to say it's wrong of the kid to do what he did? Of course not. what the hell is not want to be the hero go out and stop the bad guys go be a police officer. There was more then 1 way to handle that situation and guess what the kid chose one of the crappiest ways to go about it.
Oh so are you saying that the kid knew that the man was unarmed when IT WAS DARK AND HE ONLY CAUGHT A GLIMPSE OF THE THEIF. If the kid died, you'll probably go like why didn't he chop off the thief's head right there.
On September 16 2009 12:50 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
I don't understand this. Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense.
Really you assume i believe in the death penalty? Well i don't you know what i would do remove his citizenship put him in jail for life.
It was dark and he only caught a glimpse of the thief? It was dark and he lied not to get into any bigger trouble then he already knows hes in for chopping a guy up is just as easy to say. And yes you endanger yourself by bringing weapons with you any time, guess what more people die and get hurt by their own chainsaw and gun then by someone else you saying a chain saw isn't as dangerous as a gun, fuck it's just a motorized saw which is a samuari sword to some extent in design. Guess what you own a weapon you better be prepared for the consequences of using it.
I don't understand the your mind set that the kid was going in to kill the guy. Why can't you see that he had the sword to protect himself. It was more like oh it the garage seems suspicious, I'll bring along something to defend myself just in case the worst case scenario happens and make sure everything is alright. This guys was charged like almost 30 times, he could be dangerous. The sword was probably the best weapon that he could find at the time and he brought it with him so that he could protect himself.
Guess what? I don't own a weapon.
And guess what? You need to stop being a stuck up bastard and admit that the kid wasn't bringing the sword to kill people.
How does calling me stuck up change anything?
The kid confronted the thief and it resulted in the kid using the sword and killing the man, you saying you shouldn't be call accounted for when you use a gun a weapon meant to kill, he was using a sword, all i'm saying when you have a deadly weapon and use it you are held accountable for what happens.
Guess what the kid should have done make sure everyone is already take that sword get everyone in the same room and wait it out only using it when the thief comes barging into that room, you think i'm so stuck up that if it happened to me i would be all on the other side. Guess what i've been mugged i have had work done to get my teeth and jaw all right again because i got hit in the jaw with brass knuckles got my mp3 player and wallet stolen if anything by your description i have even more of a right to kill the guys who jumped me as they made it clear they were going to hurt me after it's self defense. Guess what i don't i get my strong position from the reactions of people after the incident. Hell i still wear braces to move my teeth after my jaw and bite was redone.
What makes me angry is that people seem to think he has the kid in that situation had the right to kill the man. I stand to say he did not esp in that situation nothing to me in that article said that the level of force he used was necessary.
Can you tell me where you live? That way i can rob the fuck out of you as you stand in your house and do nothing.
And you would be arrested and i would be reimbursed by insurance. We have systems set up for this if you don't care to use them well then it's your fault.
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
Nazgul what would you do in a position where you were home sleeping and a guy breaks in? Im just curious as to your personal response and im on your side.
Personally I would probably make sure my family/friends were safe and then call the police. While maybe 8/10 time when you confront a burgler he will run but weapons just escalate the situation. If you just make sure you and whoever else in the house with with is safe by like all being in one room locked door then oh well insurance covers property that is stolen. If the person confronts us then it escalates to him not being there just for stealing so then deadly force might come into play.
I can't tell you of course what exactly I would do but I think yelling you know he's there and that the police is coming is the best way to go about it. In that case why would a simple burglar stick around to shoot you and your family? I think it's important to realize a burglar is really far from a killer. To approach him with a weapon is not self-defense it is the opposite of self-defense. It kind of feels like there is a large group of people who have grown up with the image and have been told over and over and over that a gun/weapon equals self defense, self protection and self reservation. It doesn't. It endangers yourself and your family. It seriously puzzles my mind to see quotes like "Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense." pop up when it is pretty fucking clear you are endangering your own life by bringing one.
it really depends on the burglars nazgul. where i live, when people come to mug you, they come armed and won't hesitate to harm you. my neighbor was being robbed back in the day, and the first action the fucker took was slice at the guy with a knife before trying to rob him.
every scenario is different, and i would rather prepare for worst case scenario than hope for the best in a situation. if you don't care for your property and can afford to take the hit, sure, call the police and let the fucker ransack your house. but not all of us can afford to lose everything we own just to get fucking tax credits from the government and an empty house to boot.
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.
On September 16 2009 13:11 Slaughter wrote: Nazgul what would you do in a position where you were home sleeping and a guy breaks in? Im just curious as to your personal response and im on your side.
Personally I would probably make sure my family/friends were safe and then call the police. While maybe 8/10 time when you confront a burgler he will run but weapons just escalate the situation. If you just make sure you and whoever else in the house with with is safe by like all being in one room locked door then oh well insurance covers property that is stolen. If the person confronts us then it escalates to him not being there just for stealing so then deadly force might come into play.
I can't tell you of course what exactly I would do but I think yelling you know he's there and that the police is coming (regardless of whether they are) is the best way to go about it. In that case why would a simple burglar stick around to shoot you and your family? I think it's important to realize a burglar is really far from a killer. To approach him with a weapon is not self-defense it is the opposite of self-defense.
It feels like there is a large group of people who have grown up with the image and have been told over and over and over that a gun/weapon equals self defense, self protection and self preservation. It doesn't. It endangers yourself and your family. It seriously puzzles my mind to see quotes like "Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense." pop up when it is pretty fucking clear you are endangering your own life by bringing one.
He deserved to die for being dumb enough to leap at someone wielding a samurai sword.
On September 16 2009 12:26 BlackJack wrote: [quote]
LOL. Because if he killed him with a hammer he MIGHT have been going to his garage to hang a painting. Or if he killed him with a golf club he MIGHT have been going to hit a few balls. hahaha
A sword serves one purpose and that is to kill people. The fact the kid owned one brings up serious doubts to the kid not just confronting the robber and slashing him then telling lies to the police saying he lunged at him. Guess what it's easily to lie about what happened when the only other witness is dead.
There is intent to do serious harm to another when you bring something that is only a weapon to confront someone.
What the hell is so wrong saying "When someone breaks into your house to steal something and you notice you go to the police, when they break into your house to kill you and your family you can kill him too." No one should ever die over a few bucks.
Thats funny, because why the fuck would there be the second amendment? A gun is the same as a sword, made only to kill. You take a gun with you because just in case theres a break in and you want to defend yourself. He brought a sword to protect himself and the man lunged at the student once the thief saw the student. Anybody would panic at the fact that theres a complete stranger in your house and is charging straight at you and you're not sure if he has a weapon or not.
On September 16 2009 12:38 Phayze wrote: Also on the news page i found this
The area seems to be very hostile. This kid should definitely be commended.
It sucks that johns hopkins is in a bad neighborhood.
You interpret the 2nd amendment way i interpret it another. Anyone who kills anyone when the other guy is not armed or made it crystal clear that he will kill you or people around you right now, cannot walk away scott free the kid should serve time just like a guy who accidentally kills a person walking down the street with a car. You say it's different? because one is something one does in defense vs something one does out of being inept? It is not, defending yourself is never an excuse to kill someone like that there was no struggle, no fight the kid killed him one slash, does it make what the robber was doing right to say it's wrong of the kid to do what he did? Of course not. what the hell is not want to be the hero go out and stop the bad guys go be a police officer. There was more then 1 way to handle that situation and guess what the kid chose one of the crappiest ways to go about it.
Oh so are you saying that the kid knew that the man was unarmed when IT WAS DARK AND HE ONLY CAUGHT A GLIMPSE OF THE THEIF. If the kid died, you'll probably go like why didn't he chop off the thief's head right there.
On September 16 2009 12:50 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
I don't understand this. Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense.
Really you assume i believe in the death penalty? Well i don't you know what i would do remove his citizenship put him in jail for life.
It was dark and he only caught a glimpse of the thief? It was dark and he lied not to get into any bigger trouble then he already knows hes in for chopping a guy up is just as easy to say. And yes you endanger yourself by bringing weapons with you any time, guess what more people die and get hurt by their own chainsaw and gun then by someone else you saying a chain saw isn't as dangerous as a gun, fuck it's just a motorized saw which is a samuari sword to some extent in design. Guess what you own a weapon you better be prepared for the consequences of using it.
I don't understand the your mind set that the kid was going in to kill the guy. Why can't you see that he had the sword to protect himself. It was more like oh it the garage seems suspicious, I'll bring along something to defend myself just in case the worst case scenario happens and make sure everything is alright. This guys was charged like almost 30 times, he could be dangerous. The sword was probably the best weapon that he could find at the time and he brought it with him so that he could protect himself.
Guess what? I don't own a weapon.
And guess what? You need to stop being a stuck up bastard and admit that the kid wasn't bringing the sword to kill people.
How does calling me stuck up change anything?
The kid confronted the thief and it resulted in the kid using the sword and killing the man, you saying you shouldn't be call accounted for when you use a gun a weapon meant to kill, he was using a sword, all i'm saying when you have a deadly weapon and use it you are held accountable for what happens.
Guess what the kid should have done make sure everyone is already take that sword get everyone in the same room and wait it out only using it when the thief comes barging into that room, you think i'm so stuck up that if it happened to me i would be all on the other side. Guess what i've been mugged i have had work done to get my teeth and jaw all right again because i got hit in the jaw with brass knuckles got my mp3 player and wallet stolen if anything by your description i have even more of a right to kill the guys who jumped me as they made it clear they were going to hurt me after it's self defense. Guess what i don't i get my strong position from the reactions of people after the incident. Hell i still wear braces to move my teeth after my jaw and bite was redone.
If you got mugged, then thats too bad for you. As my teachers have taught me, under normal circumstances, if the man threatens you then you give into whatever the man wants. But if the man wants to kill you or it looks like hes about to kill you, then thats the time self-defense comes into play. The situation was clearly threatening to the kid. I'm not promoting killing, but the kid did right thing for protecting himself.
And it sounds like you didn't get mugged on your property. The whole private property thing just tips it in the favor of the kid more. And sounds like you got your ass handed to you by the mugger. You probably couldn't do shit.
As kev pointed out, stop using guess what. You suck at writing arguments.
Again you suck at reading
The kid confronted the thief he heard weird shit in garage he knew there was a string of burglaries in the neighborhood.
HE put himself in that situation knowing he would have to use the sword and it resulted in him killing a man over property.
This is the part i mull over he went confronted the robber with the sword the robber didn't confront him.
How the hell does anyone here think it's alright to kill another over property.
Maybe we should kill all sharks that take a bit out of humans for swimming were they feed. Face it you put yourself in the situation you pay the consequences.
Life to me is sacred and killing people over stupid decisions is never right.
Here is your problem. He wasn't killed over property. He was killed in self defense. The fact that he is a thief or burglar is irrelevant.
On September 16 2009 13:11 Slaughter wrote: Nazgul what would you do in a position where you were home sleeping and a guy breaks in? Im just curious as to your personal response and im on your side.
Personally I would probably make sure my family/friends were safe and then call the police. While maybe 8/10 time when you confront a burgler he will run but weapons just escalate the situation. If you just make sure you and whoever else in the house with with is safe by like all being in one room locked door then oh well insurance covers property that is stolen. If the person confronts us then it escalates to him not being there just for stealing so then deadly force might come into play.
I can't tell you of course what exactly I would do but I think yelling you know he's there and that the police is coming (regardless of whether they are) is the best way to go about it. In that case why would a simple burglar stick around to shoot you and your family? I think it's important to realize a burglar is really far from a killer. To approach him with a weapon is not self-defense it is the opposite of self-defense.
It feels like there is a large group of people who have grown up with the image and have been told over and over and over that a gun/weapon equals self defense, self protection and self preservation. It doesn't. It endangers yourself and your family. It seriously puzzles my mind to see quotes like "Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense." pop up when it is pretty fucking clear you are endangering your own life by bringing one.
And sir, what I don't understand is why won't you bring one? If the kid didn't bring the sword, the guy would of tackled him, beat the living shit out of the kid. Whether a weapon endangers a person really depends on the situation. The whole problem is that we know that the thief had malicious intent, so to counter that I would bring a weapon. The only time a weapon would endanger you is if you bring a gun out to the public, then the police can accidently shoot you. But the kid knew that he could of lost his life if the thief had a weapon so he brought his own weapon to protect himself. I think that the your survival rate if you bring the weapon increases if you know that your life is at risk.
On September 16 2009 12:35 Saddened Izzy wrote: [quote] A sword serves one purpose and that is to kill people. The fact the kid owned one brings up serious doubts to the kid not just confronting the robber and slashing him then telling lies to the police saying he lunged at him. Guess what it's easily to lie about what happened when the only other witness is dead.
There is intent to do serious harm to another when you bring something that is only a weapon to confront someone.
What the hell is so wrong saying "When someone breaks into your house to steal something and you notice you go to the police, when they break into your house to kill you and your family you can kill him too." No one should ever die over a few bucks.
Thats funny, because why the fuck would there be the second amendment? A gun is the same as a sword, made only to kill. You take a gun with you because just in case theres a break in and you want to defend yourself. He brought a sword to protect himself and the man lunged at the student once the thief saw the student. Anybody would panic at the fact that theres a complete stranger in your house and is charging straight at you and you're not sure if he has a weapon or not.
On September 16 2009 12:38 Phayze wrote: Also on the news page i found this
The area seems to be very hostile. This kid should definitely be commended.
It sucks that johns hopkins is in a bad neighborhood.
You interpret the 2nd amendment way i interpret it another. Anyone who kills anyone when the other guy is not armed or made it crystal clear that he will kill you or people around you right now, cannot walk away scott free the kid should serve time just like a guy who accidentally kills a person walking down the street with a car. You say it's different? because one is something one does in defense vs something one does out of being inept? It is not, defending yourself is never an excuse to kill someone like that there was no struggle, no fight the kid killed him one slash, does it make what the robber was doing right to say it's wrong of the kid to do what he did? Of course not. what the hell is not want to be the hero go out and stop the bad guys go be a police officer. There was more then 1 way to handle that situation and guess what the kid chose one of the crappiest ways to go about it.
Oh so are you saying that the kid knew that the man was unarmed when IT WAS DARK AND HE ONLY CAUGHT A GLIMPSE OF THE THEIF. If the kid died, you'll probably go like why didn't he chop off the thief's head right there.
On September 16 2009 12:50 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
I don't understand this. Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense.
Really you assume i believe in the death penalty? Well i don't you know what i would do remove his citizenship put him in jail for life.
It was dark and he only caught a glimpse of the thief? It was dark and he lied not to get into any bigger trouble then he already knows hes in for chopping a guy up is just as easy to say. And yes you endanger yourself by bringing weapons with you any time, guess what more people die and get hurt by their own chainsaw and gun then by someone else you saying a chain saw isn't as dangerous as a gun, fuck it's just a motorized saw which is a samuari sword to some extent in design. Guess what you own a weapon you better be prepared for the consequences of using it.
I don't understand the your mind set that the kid was going in to kill the guy. Why can't you see that he had the sword to protect himself. It was more like oh it the garage seems suspicious, I'll bring along something to defend myself just in case the worst case scenario happens and make sure everything is alright. This guys was charged like almost 30 times, he could be dangerous. The sword was probably the best weapon that he could find at the time and he brought it with him so that he could protect himself.
Guess what? I don't own a weapon.
And guess what? You need to stop being a stuck up bastard and admit that the kid wasn't bringing the sword to kill people.
How does calling me stuck up change anything?
The kid confronted the thief and it resulted in the kid using the sword and killing the man, you saying you shouldn't be call accounted for when you use a gun a weapon meant to kill, he was using a sword, all i'm saying when you have a deadly weapon and use it you are held accountable for what happens.
Guess what the kid should have done make sure everyone is already take that sword get everyone in the same room and wait it out only using it when the thief comes barging into that room, you think i'm so stuck up that if it happened to me i would be all on the other side. Guess what i've been mugged i have had work done to get my teeth and jaw all right again because i got hit in the jaw with brass knuckles got my mp3 player and wallet stolen if anything by your description i have even more of a right to kill the guys who jumped me as they made it clear they were going to hurt me after it's self defense. Guess what i don't i get my strong position from the reactions of people after the incident. Hell i still wear braces to move my teeth after my jaw and bite was redone.
If you got mugged, then thats too bad for you. As my teachers have taught me, under normal circumstances, if the man threatens you then you give into whatever the man wants. But if the man wants to kill you or it looks like hes about to kill you, then thats the time self-defense comes into play. The situation was clearly threatening to the kid. I'm not promoting killing, but the kid did right thing for protecting himself.
And it sounds like you didn't get mugged on your property. The whole private property thing just tips it in the favor of the kid more. And sounds like you got your ass handed to you by the mugger. You probably couldn't do shit.
As kev pointed out, stop using guess what. You suck at writing arguments.
Again you suck at reading
The kid confronted the thief he heard weird shit in garage he knew there was a string of burglaries in the neighborhood.
HE put himself in that situation knowing he would have to use the sword and it resulted in him killing a man over property.
This is the part i mull over he went confronted the robber with the sword the robber didn't confront him.
How the hell does anyone here think it's alright to kill another over property.
Maybe we should kill all sharks that take a bit out of humans for swimming were they feed. Face it you put yourself in the situation you pay the consequences.
Life to me is sacred and killing people over stupid decisions is never right.
Here is your problem. He wasn't killed over property. He was killed in self defense. The fact that he is a thief or burglar is irrelevant.
Again you see it as self defence
I see it as hes the idiot that walks into the bear cage covered in meat. And who's at fault when the bear tries something on you.
HE confronted the robber with the sword it is not self defense if anything the robber has more reason for self defense as he is unarmed and the kid is. This is not he walked in the guy attacked him he picked up the sword and killed him this is he had the sword in hand when he confronted the robber.
And you are saying he was defending his property
but wait it's self defense? What?
How can it be self defense and defending his property?
So what he is not attacking thus defending his property. Some how the use of the sword was not attacking to defend his property.
And what attack is self defense oh i see you are an idiot.
When is it self defense when you put yourself in a situation armed where you know you will use your weapon obviously then all wars are self defense they are defending their people (friends family) and the people are attacking them because they come at them with weapons i mean if i don't see the logic in that i must be brain dead.
On September 16 2009 12:49 Saddened Izzy wrote: [quote] You interpret the 2nd amendment way i interpret it another. Anyone who kills anyone when the other guy is not armed or made it crystal clear that he will kill you or people around you right now, cannot walk away scott free the kid should serve time just like a guy who accidentally kills a person walking down the street with a car. You say it's different? because one is something one does in defense vs something one does out of being inept? It is not, defending yourself is never an excuse to kill someone like that there was no struggle, no fight the kid killed him one slash, does it make what the robber was doing right to say it's wrong of the kid to do what he did? Of course not. what the hell is not want to be the hero go out and stop the bad guys go be a police officer. There was more then 1 way to handle that situation and guess what the kid chose one of the crappiest ways to go about it.
Oh so are you saying that the kid knew that the man was unarmed when IT WAS DARK AND HE ONLY CAUGHT A GLIMPSE OF THE THEIF. If the kid died, you'll probably go like why didn't he chop off the thief's head right there.
On September 16 2009 12:50 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: [quote] You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
I don't understand this. Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense.
Really you assume i believe in the death penalty? Well i don't you know what i would do remove his citizenship put him in jail for life.
It was dark and he only caught a glimpse of the thief? It was dark and he lied not to get into any bigger trouble then he already knows hes in for chopping a guy up is just as easy to say. And yes you endanger yourself by bringing weapons with you any time, guess what more people die and get hurt by their own chainsaw and gun then by someone else you saying a chain saw isn't as dangerous as a gun, fuck it's just a motorized saw which is a samuari sword to some extent in design. Guess what you own a weapon you better be prepared for the consequences of using it.
I don't understand the your mind set that the kid was going in to kill the guy. Why can't you see that he had the sword to protect himself. It was more like oh it the garage seems suspicious, I'll bring along something to defend myself just in case the worst case scenario happens and make sure everything is alright. This guys was charged like almost 30 times, he could be dangerous. The sword was probably the best weapon that he could find at the time and he brought it with him so that he could protect himself.
Guess what? I don't own a weapon.
And guess what? You need to stop being a stuck up bastard and admit that the kid wasn't bringing the sword to kill people.
How does calling me stuck up change anything?
The kid confronted the thief and it resulted in the kid using the sword and killing the man, you saying you shouldn't be call accounted for when you use a gun a weapon meant to kill, he was using a sword, all i'm saying when you have a deadly weapon and use it you are held accountable for what happens.
Guess what the kid should have done make sure everyone is already take that sword get everyone in the same room and wait it out only using it when the thief comes barging into that room, you think i'm so stuck up that if it happened to me i would be all on the other side. Guess what i've been mugged i have had work done to get my teeth and jaw all right again because i got hit in the jaw with brass knuckles got my mp3 player and wallet stolen if anything by your description i have even more of a right to kill the guys who jumped me as they made it clear they were going to hurt me after it's self defense. Guess what i don't i get my strong position from the reactions of people after the incident. Hell i still wear braces to move my teeth after my jaw and bite was redone.
If you got mugged, then thats too bad for you. As my teachers have taught me, under normal circumstances, if the man threatens you then you give into whatever the man wants. But if the man wants to kill you or it looks like hes about to kill you, then thats the time self-defense comes into play. The situation was clearly threatening to the kid. I'm not promoting killing, but the kid did right thing for protecting himself.
And it sounds like you didn't get mugged on your property. The whole private property thing just tips it in the favor of the kid more. And sounds like you got your ass handed to you by the mugger. You probably couldn't do shit.
As kev pointed out, stop using guess what. You suck at writing arguments.
Again you suck at reading
The kid confronted the thief he heard weird shit in garage he knew there was a string of burglaries in the neighborhood.
HE put himself in that situation knowing he would have to use the sword and it resulted in him killing a man over property.
This is the part i mull over he went confronted the robber with the sword the robber didn't confront him.
How the hell does anyone here think it's alright to kill another over property.
Maybe we should kill all sharks that take a bit out of humans for swimming were they feed. Face it you put yourself in the situation you pay the consequences.
Life to me is sacred and killing people over stupid decisions is never right.
Here is your problem. He wasn't killed over property. He was killed in self defense. The fact that he is a thief or burglar is irrelevant.
Again you see it as self defence
I see it as hes the idiot that walks into the bear cage covered in meat. And who's at fault when the bear tries something on you.
HE confronted the robber with the sword it is not self defense if anything the robber has more reason for self defense as he is unarmed and the kid is. This is not he walked in the guy attacked him he picked up the sword and killed him this is he had the sword in hand when he confronted the robber.
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.
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.
On September 16 2009 13:51 Saddened Izzy wrote: HE confronted the robber with the sword it is not self defense if anything the robber has more reason for self defense as he is unarmed and the kid is. This is not he walked in the guy attacked him he picked up the sword and killed him this is he had the sword in hand when he confronted the robber.
You're making it seem like he went "hiryaaaaaa!!!" and jumpslashed the robber while the robber just stood there. In that case, the robber would be legally allowed to defend himself. According to the student's account, the robber lunged at him. If that were true, he could possibly justify the killing as self-defense.
You saying if you robbed someone and saw them with a sword you wouldn't think about over powering the guy before he takes a chuck out of you. You know the guy is angry as he proved it by confronting you and he is willing to attack as proof of him confronting you. So as the robber the one already making bad decisions i should make the right one and run away instead of tiring something against the guy who is most likely going to take my arm off.
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
Should've gone for decapitation. That bastard had it coming.
On September 16 2009 12:40 MuffinDude wrote: [quote]
Thats funny, because why the fuck would there be the second amendment? A gun is the same as a sword, made only to kill. You take a gun with you because just in case theres a break in and you want to defend yourself. He brought a sword to protect himself and the man lunged at the student once the thief saw the student. Anybody would panic at the fact that theres a complete stranger in your house and is charging straight at you and you're not sure if he has a weapon or not.
[quote]
It sucks that johns hopkins is in a bad neighborhood.
You interpret the 2nd amendment way i interpret it another. Anyone who kills anyone when the other guy is not armed or made it crystal clear that he will kill you or people around you right now, cannot walk away scott free the kid should serve time just like a guy who accidentally kills a person walking down the street with a car. You say it's different? because one is something one does in defense vs something one does out of being inept? It is not, defending yourself is never an excuse to kill someone like that there was no struggle, no fight the kid killed him one slash, does it make what the robber was doing right to say it's wrong of the kid to do what he did? Of course not. what the hell is not want to be the hero go out and stop the bad guys go be a police officer. There was more then 1 way to handle that situation and guess what the kid chose one of the crappiest ways to go about it.
Oh so are you saying that the kid knew that the man was unarmed when IT WAS DARK AND HE ONLY CAUGHT A GLIMPSE OF THE THEIF. If the kid died, you'll probably go like why didn't he chop off the thief's head right there.
On September 16 2009 12:50 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
I don't understand this. Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense.
Really you assume i believe in the death penalty? Well i don't you know what i would do remove his citizenship put him in jail for life.
It was dark and he only caught a glimpse of the thief? It was dark and he lied not to get into any bigger trouble then he already knows hes in for chopping a guy up is just as easy to say. And yes you endanger yourself by bringing weapons with you any time, guess what more people die and get hurt by their own chainsaw and gun then by someone else you saying a chain saw isn't as dangerous as a gun, fuck it's just a motorized saw which is a samuari sword to some extent in design. Guess what you own a weapon you better be prepared for the consequences of using it.
I don't understand the your mind set that the kid was going in to kill the guy. Why can't you see that he had the sword to protect himself. It was more like oh it the garage seems suspicious, I'll bring along something to defend myself just in case the worst case scenario happens and make sure everything is alright. This guys was charged like almost 30 times, he could be dangerous. The sword was probably the best weapon that he could find at the time and he brought it with him so that he could protect himself.
Guess what? I don't own a weapon.
And guess what? You need to stop being a stuck up bastard and admit that the kid wasn't bringing the sword to kill people.
How does calling me stuck up change anything?
The kid confronted the thief and it resulted in the kid using the sword and killing the man, you saying you shouldn't be call accounted for when you use a gun a weapon meant to kill, he was using a sword, all i'm saying when you have a deadly weapon and use it you are held accountable for what happens.
Guess what the kid should have done make sure everyone is already take that sword get everyone in the same room and wait it out only using it when the thief comes barging into that room, you think i'm so stuck up that if it happened to me i would be all on the other side. Guess what i've been mugged i have had work done to get my teeth and jaw all right again because i got hit in the jaw with brass knuckles got my mp3 player and wallet stolen if anything by your description i have even more of a right to kill the guys who jumped me as they made it clear they were going to hurt me after it's self defense. Guess what i don't i get my strong position from the reactions of people after the incident. Hell i still wear braces to move my teeth after my jaw and bite was redone.
If you got mugged, then thats too bad for you. As my teachers have taught me, under normal circumstances, if the man threatens you then you give into whatever the man wants. But if the man wants to kill you or it looks like hes about to kill you, then thats the time self-defense comes into play. The situation was clearly threatening to the kid. I'm not promoting killing, but the kid did right thing for protecting himself.
And it sounds like you didn't get mugged on your property. The whole private property thing just tips it in the favor of the kid more. And sounds like you got your ass handed to you by the mugger. You probably couldn't do shit.
As kev pointed out, stop using guess what. You suck at writing arguments.
Again you suck at reading
The kid confronted the thief he heard weird shit in garage he knew there was a string of burglaries in the neighborhood.
HE put himself in that situation knowing he would have to use the sword and it resulted in him killing a man over property.
This is the part i mull over he went confronted the robber with the sword the robber didn't confront him.
How the hell does anyone here think it's alright to kill another over property.
Maybe we should kill all sharks that take a bit out of humans for swimming were they feed. Face it you put yourself in the situation you pay the consequences.
Life to me is sacred and killing people over stupid decisions is never right.
Here is your problem. He wasn't killed over property. He was killed in self defense. The fact that he is a thief or burglar is irrelevant.
Again you see it as self defence
I see it as hes the idiot that walks into the bear cage covered in meat. And who's at fault when the bear tries something on you.
HE confronted the robber with the sword it is not self defense if anything the robber has more reason for self defense as he is unarmed and the kid is. This is not he walked in the guy attacked him he picked up the sword and killed him this is he had the sword in hand when he confronted the robber.
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 12:40 MuffinDude wrote: [quote]
Thats funny, because why the fuck would there be the second amendment? A gun is the same as a sword, made only to kill. You take a gun with you because just in case theres a break in and you want to defend yourself. He brought a sword to protect himself and the man lunged at the student once the thief saw the student. Anybody would panic at the fact that theres a complete stranger in your house and is charging straight at you and you're not sure if he has a weapon or not.
[quote]
It sucks that johns hopkins is in a bad neighborhood.
You interpret the 2nd amendment way i interpret it another. Anyone who kills anyone when the other guy is not armed or made it crystal clear that he will kill you or people around you right now, cannot walk away scott free the kid should serve time just like a guy who accidentally kills a person walking down the street with a car. You say it's different? because one is something one does in defense vs something one does out of being inept? It is not, defending yourself is never an excuse to kill someone like that there was no struggle, no fight the kid killed him one slash, does it make what the robber was doing right to say it's wrong of the kid to do what he did? Of course not. what the hell is not want to be the hero go out and stop the bad guys go be a police officer. There was more then 1 way to handle that situation and guess what the kid chose one of the crappiest ways to go about it.
Oh so are you saying that the kid knew that the man was unarmed when IT WAS DARK AND HE ONLY CAUGHT A GLIMPSE OF THE THEIF. If the kid died, you'll probably go like why didn't he chop off the thief's head right there.
On September 16 2009 12:50 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
I don't understand this. Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense.
Really you assume i believe in the death penalty? Well i don't you know what i would do remove his citizenship put him in jail for life.
It was dark and he only caught a glimpse of the thief? It was dark and he lied not to get into any bigger trouble then he already knows hes in for chopping a guy up is just as easy to say. And yes you endanger yourself by bringing weapons with you any time, guess what more people die and get hurt by their own chainsaw and gun then by someone else you saying a chain saw isn't as dangerous as a gun, fuck it's just a motorized saw which is a samuari sword to some extent in design. Guess what you own a weapon you better be prepared for the consequences of using it.
I don't understand the your mind set that the kid was going in to kill the guy. Why can't you see that he had the sword to protect himself. It was more like oh it the garage seems suspicious, I'll bring along something to defend myself just in case the worst case scenario happens and make sure everything is alright. This guys was charged like almost 30 times, he could be dangerous. The sword was probably the best weapon that he could find at the time and he brought it with him so that he could protect himself.
Guess what? I don't own a weapon.
And guess what? You need to stop being a stuck up bastard and admit that the kid wasn't bringing the sword to kill people.
How does calling me stuck up change anything?
The kid confronted the thief and it resulted in the kid using the sword and killing the man, you saying you shouldn't be call accounted for when you use a gun a weapon meant to kill, he was using a sword, all i'm saying when you have a deadly weapon and use it you are held accountable for what happens.
Guess what the kid should have done make sure everyone is already take that sword get everyone in the same room and wait it out only using it when the thief comes barging into that room, you think i'm so stuck up that if it happened to me i would be all on the other side. Guess what i've been mugged i have had work done to get my teeth and jaw all right again because i got hit in the jaw with brass knuckles got my mp3 player and wallet stolen if anything by your description i have even more of a right to kill the guys who jumped me as they made it clear they were going to hurt me after it's self defense. Guess what i don't i get my strong position from the reactions of people after the incident. Hell i still wear braces to move my teeth after my jaw and bite was redone.
If you got mugged, then thats too bad for you. As my teachers have taught me, under normal circumstances, if the man threatens you then you give into whatever the man wants. But if the man wants to kill you or it looks like hes about to kill you, then thats the time self-defense comes into play. The situation was clearly threatening to the kid. I'm not promoting killing, but the kid did right thing for protecting himself.
And it sounds like you didn't get mugged on your property. The whole private property thing just tips it in the favor of the kid more. And sounds like you got your ass handed to you by the mugger. You probably couldn't do shit.
As kev pointed out, stop using guess what. You suck at writing arguments.
Again you suck at reading
The kid confronted the thief he heard weird shit in garage he knew there was a string of burglaries in the neighborhood.
HE put himself in that situation knowing he would have to use the sword and it resulted in him killing a man over property.
This is the part i mull over he went confronted the robber with the sword the robber didn't confront him.
How the hell does anyone here think it's alright to kill another over property.
Maybe we should kill all sharks that take a bit out of humans for swimming were they feed. Face it you put yourself in the situation you pay the consequences.
Life to me is sacred and killing people over stupid decisions is never right.
Here is your problem. He wasn't killed over property. He was killed in self defense. The fact that he is a thief or burglar is irrelevant.
Again you see it as self defence
I see it as hes the idiot that walks into the bear cage covered in meat. And who's at fault when the bear tries something on you.
HE confronted the robber with the sword it is not self defense if anything the robber has more reason for self defense as he is unarmed and the kid is. This is not he walked in the guy attacked him he picked up the sword and killed him this is he had the sword in hand when he confronted the robber.
He confronted the robber, not the smartest thing to do, but the robber came pouncing on him instead of JUST SURRENDERING AND GOING TO JAIL. I don't see whats so hard about it. The kid probably wouldn't of killed the man if the thief didn't attack him and he had the chance of dieing if he didn't have the sword.
You must first accept that the robber died during the process of attacking the student, not the during the act of the student bringing a katana with him to meet up with the burglar.
The kid confronted the thief but the thief engaged the kid.
On September 16 2009 12:40 MuffinDude wrote: [quote]
Thats funny, because why the fuck would there be the second amendment? A gun is the same as a sword, made only to kill. You take a gun with you because just in case theres a break in and you want to defend yourself. He brought a sword to protect himself and the man lunged at the student once the thief saw the student. Anybody would panic at the fact that theres a complete stranger in your house and is charging straight at you and you're not sure if he has a weapon or not.
[quote]
It sucks that johns hopkins is in a bad neighborhood.
You interpret the 2nd amendment way i interpret it another. Anyone who kills anyone when the other guy is not armed or made it crystal clear that he will kill you or people around you right now, cannot walk away scott free the kid should serve time just like a guy who accidentally kills a person walking down the street with a car. You say it's different? because one is something one does in defense vs something one does out of being inept? It is not, defending yourself is never an excuse to kill someone like that there was no struggle, no fight the kid killed him one slash, does it make what the robber was doing right to say it's wrong of the kid to do what he did? Of course not. what the hell is not want to be the hero go out and stop the bad guys go be a police officer. There was more then 1 way to handle that situation and guess what the kid chose one of the crappiest ways to go about it.
Oh so are you saying that the kid knew that the man was unarmed when IT WAS DARK AND HE ONLY CAUGHT A GLIMPSE OF THE THEIF. If the kid died, you'll probably go like why didn't he chop off the thief's head right there.
On September 16 2009 12:50 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
On September 16 2009 12:48 MuffinDude wrote: I'll agree with you that we shouldn't be cheering, but he did the right thing in protecting himself. If a person is threatened, which the situation clearly was threatening to the student (a unknown man charging straight at you in the middle of night on YOUR property), he or she has all the right in the world to protect him or herself.
You are endangering your own life by approaching him with a weapon. With your mindset, which is accepted by law in America, you have more civilian victims, more burglar victims, more fear on the streets and probably a shitton of other negative things. Why would you want to hold on to this belief when it is obviously so bad for you and everyone else?
I don't understand this. Why would you not bring a weapon with you on your property during the middle of night? You're endangering your own life for not bringing an item of self defense.
Really you assume i believe in the death penalty? Well i don't you know what i would do remove his citizenship put him in jail for life.
It was dark and he only caught a glimpse of the thief? It was dark and he lied not to get into any bigger trouble then he already knows hes in for chopping a guy up is just as easy to say. And yes you endanger yourself by bringing weapons with you any time, guess what more people die and get hurt by their own chainsaw and gun then by someone else you saying a chain saw isn't as dangerous as a gun, fuck it's just a motorized saw which is a samuari sword to some extent in design. Guess what you own a weapon you better be prepared for the consequences of using it.
I don't understand the your mind set that the kid was going in to kill the guy. Why can't you see that he had the sword to protect himself. It was more like oh it the garage seems suspicious, I'll bring along something to defend myself just in case the worst case scenario happens and make sure everything is alright. This guys was charged like almost 30 times, he could be dangerous. The sword was probably the best weapon that he could find at the time and he brought it with him so that he could protect himself.
Guess what? I don't own a weapon.
And guess what? You need to stop being a stuck up bastard and admit that the kid wasn't bringing the sword to kill people.
How does calling me stuck up change anything?
The kid confronted the thief and it resulted in the kid using the sword and killing the man, you saying you shouldn't be call accounted for when you use a gun a weapon meant to kill, he was using a sword, all i'm saying when you have a deadly weapon and use it you are held accountable for what happens.
Guess what the kid should have done make sure everyone is already take that sword get everyone in the same room and wait it out only using it when the thief comes barging into that room, you think i'm so stuck up that if it happened to me i would be all on the other side. Guess what i've been mugged i have had work done to get my teeth and jaw all right again because i got hit in the jaw with brass knuckles got my mp3 player and wallet stolen if anything by your description i have even more of a right to kill the guys who jumped me as they made it clear they were going to hurt me after it's self defense. Guess what i don't i get my strong position from the reactions of people after the incident. Hell i still wear braces to move my teeth after my jaw and bite was redone.
If you got mugged, then thats too bad for you. As my teachers have taught me, under normal circumstances, if the man threatens you then you give into whatever the man wants. But if the man wants to kill you or it looks like hes about to kill you, then thats the time self-defense comes into play. The situation was clearly threatening to the kid. I'm not promoting killing, but the kid did right thing for protecting himself.
And it sounds like you didn't get mugged on your property. The whole private property thing just tips it in the favor of the kid more. And sounds like you got your ass handed to you by the mugger. You probably couldn't do shit.
As kev pointed out, stop using guess what. You suck at writing arguments.
Again you suck at reading
The kid confronted the thief he heard weird shit in garage he knew there was a string of burglaries in the neighborhood.
HE put himself in that situation knowing he would have to use the sword and it resulted in him killing a man over property.
This is the part i mull over he went confronted the robber with the sword the robber didn't confront him.
How the hell does anyone here think it's alright to kill another over property.
Maybe we should kill all sharks that take a bit out of humans for swimming were they feed. Face it you put yourself in the situation you pay the consequences.
Life to me is sacred and killing people over stupid decisions is never right.
Here is your problem. He wasn't killed over property. He was killed in self defense. The fact that he is a thief or burglar is irrelevant.
Again you see it as self defence
I see it as hes the idiot that walks into the bear cage covered in meat. And who's at fault when the bear tries something on you.
HE confronted the robber with the sword it is not self defense if anything the robber has more reason for self defense as he is unarmed and the kid is. This is not he walked in the guy attacked him he picked up the sword and killed him this is he had the sword in hand when he confronted the robber.
So all you have to do is prove that the robber had no escape route. I find it hard to believe that this robber that is so scared and ready to bolt at the slightest amount of noise isn't even able to exit the house before the kid comes down to "murder" him. Then you have to prove that the robber didn't actually lunge at the kid. Since it's unlikely that you are going to be able to prove either of these I suggest you work harder on getting the law changed instead of giving a completely inaccurate interpretation of self-defense.
On September 16 2009 13:46 piratebay wrote: it really depends on the burglars nazgul. where i live, when people come to mug you, they come armed and won't hesitate to harm you. my neighbor was being robbed back in the day, and the first action the fucker took was slice at the guy with a knife before trying to rob him.
every scenario is different, and i would rather prepare for worst case scenario than hope for the best in a situation. if you don't care for your property and can afford to take the hit, sure, call the police and let the fucker ransack your house. but not all of us can afford to lose everything we own just to get fucking tax credits from the government and an empty house to boot.
That's kind of my point though. You slice at a guy who holds a knife trying to rob you. Rob, not kill. That's not self protection that's self endangerment. Chances you will die have just become a lot bigger by doing that. It's just a macho-drive of hurting those who hurt you ran purely on emotion and not rational thinking of your best shot to survive a situation. It has no logical founding as self-defense whatsoever until the guy actually attacks you. Before that you're pretty much guaranteed to be safer by not showing aggression.
On September 16 2009 13:46 piratebay wrote: And sir, what I don't understand is why won't you bring one? If the kid didn't bring the sword, the guy would of tackled him, beat the living shit out of the kid. Whether a weapon endangers a person really depends on the situation. The whole problem is that we know that the thief had malicious intent, so to counter that I would bring a weapon. The only time a weapon would endanger you is if you bring a gun out to the public, then the police can accidently shoot you. But the kid knew that he could of lost his life if the thief had a weapon so he brought his own weapon to protect himself. I think that the your survival rate if you bring the weapon increases if you know that your life is at risk.
You seem to keep referring to this specific situation but once you walk out into that room with a weapon you have no idea what kind of robber you will meet. If you repeat this situation enough times with, he's going to have a gun every now and then as well. That means instead of 'tackling' him the kid would be dead.
On September 16 2009 13:51 Saddened Izzy wrote: HE confronted the robber with the sword it is not self defense if anything the robber has more reason for self defense as he is unarmed and the kid is. This is not he walked in the guy attacked him he picked up the sword and killed him this is he had the sword in hand when he confronted the robber.
You're making it seem like he went "hiryaaaaaa!!!" and jumpslashed the robber while the robber just stood there. In that case, the robber would be legally allowed to defend himself. According to the student's account, the robber lunged at him. If that were true, he could possibly justify the killing as self-defense.
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.
On September 16 2009 13:46 piratebay wrote: it really depends on the burglars nazgul. where i live, when people come to mug you, they come armed and won't hesitate to harm you. my neighbor was being robbed back in the day, and the first action the fucker took was slice at the guy with a knife before trying to rob him.
every scenario is different, and i would rather prepare for worst case scenario than hope for the best in a situation. if you don't care for your property and can afford to take the hit, sure, call the police and let the fucker ransack your house. but not all of us can afford to lose everything we own just to get fucking tax credits from the government and an empty house to boot.
That's kind of my point though. You slice at a guy who holds a knife trying to rob you. Rob, not kill. That's not self protection that's self endangerment. Chances you will die have just become a lot bigger by doing that. It's just a macho-drive of hurting those who hurt you ran purely on emotion and not rational thinking of your best shot to survive a situation. It has no logical founding as self-defense whatsoever until the guy actually attacks you. Before that you're pretty much guaranteed to be safer by not showing aggression.
You do know that the area johns hopkins is one of the worst neighborhood in the nation? I would be cautious as fuck if someone was in my house.
You know what else is a pretty good way to not get killed? Not breaking into houses and trying to steal shit. Murphy's law bro. Eventually you are going to get katana'd
On September 16 2009 14:00 keV. wrote: You know what else is a pretty good way to not get killed? Not breaking into houses and trying to steal shit. Murphy's law bro. Eventually you are going to get katana'd
I doubt anyone would dispute that, but that doesn't justify killing an intruder of any sort.
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.
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.
#1 We've been talking about someone confronting an intruder using a close range weapon with which he probably was not very experienced with. There's some serious potential for harm to come to the home owner here. #2 - How the hell am I supposed to know that (in bold)? OK maybe for you it isn't a gamble, but for the average schmoe American who keeps a weapon for self defense but is not a trophy shooter they are upping their own risk exponentially.
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.
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.
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 14:39 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 14:46 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 14:39 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.
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
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 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
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.
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.
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...
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 15:03 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.
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.
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.
Imagine the kid heard some noise and this bum was trying to sleep in his house and he started psycho cutting off limbs while he was sleeping.
On September 16 2009 15:09 SnK-Arcbound wrote: If you were a 50 year old man, and you had everything taken away from you. Money, family, property, they didn't take away your long years or work?
You keep your life-earnings under your pillow in your movable van where you sleep next to your wife and kids?
On September 16 2009 15:11 Shurax wrote: imho as long as he only swung once and did not stab the guy on the ground multiple times he should go free.
What *if* he entered through the only exit and blocked it so the guy couldn't leave the property. Guy storms not to attack but to pass through and run and he cuts him down. There are a million possible scenarios that do not excuse cutting a man down.
People, you have to careful about what you say. At most, you'll probably be losing 20,000, which is about the price of your car. Your life savings should be in the bank so you should be alright. And I'm pretty sure you won't have the chance to beat anyone up if they stole money from the bank.
A little known fact about the United States. I forgot the name but there is a law passed in which has a term that is defined like this. If someone comes on your property and you have a slight fear of your life you are allowed to defend yourself by all means, including killing them. I'm too lazy to look up the phrase, but all he has to say in court is "I was afraid for my life, blank blank blank phrase" Not guilty.
P.S if someone comes on my property in a threatening manner I'm blowing 33 holes in them. Empty clip. If you go on someone elses land, you are asking for it.
On September 16 2009 15:14 Game wrote: A little known fact about the United States. I forgot the name but there is a law passed in which has a term that is defined like this. If someone comes on your property and you have a slight fear of your life you are allowed to defend yourself by all means, including killing them. I'm too lazy to look up the phrase, but all he has to say in court is "I was afraid for my life, blank blank blank phrase" Not guilty.
yea, I was always under the impression that in situations such as
1) Someone is on your property, you tell them to get off and you'll shoot if they don't and they don't and you have an unbiased witness who saw you give the conditions
and
2) Someone is on your property with clear hostile intention
On September 16 2009 15:13 SnK-Arcbound wrote: They stole it from your bank account.
And you are also trying to avoid answering the question by point out possible inaccuracies.
If I took everything you own, or have possession of, and threw your bum ass out on the street naked, did I take away your life?
Stealing from your bank account doesn't exactly go hand in hand with the endangerment of your family. It's just an all out ridiculous thing to discuss because it is simply impossible. So you will never 'take' everything I own or possess. And in the purely impossible hypothetical situation where you merely ask me this to prove you being right; no because I will still have my friends, my mind and sanity, my life experiences, my achievements and my skills.
On September 16 2009 15:14 Game wrote: A little known fact about the United States. I forgot the name but there is a law passed in which has a term that is defined like this. If someone comes on your property and you have a slight fear of your life you are allowed to defend yourself by all means, including killing them. I'm too lazy to look up the phrase, but all he has to say in court is "I was afraid for my life, blank blank blank phrase" Not guilty.
P.S if someone comes on my property in a threatening manner I'm blowing 33 holes in them. Empty clip. If you go on someone elses land, you are asking for it.
On September 16 2009 14:47 armed_ wrote: 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 15:14 Game wrote: A little known fact about the United States. I forgot the name but there is a law passed in which has a term that is defined like this. If someone comes on your property and you have a slight fear of your life you are allowed to defend yourself by all means, including killing them. I'm too lazy to look up the phrase, but all he has to say in court is "I was afraid for my life, blank blank blank phrase" Not guilty.
P.S if someone comes on my property in a threatening manner I'm blowing 33 holes in them. Empty clip. If you go on someone elses land, you are asking for it.
'castle' is the term you are thinking of
As long as the burglar charged, which the investigation will reveal, there is no way the resident can be held responsible by the Castle Doctrine.
On September 16 2009 14:47 armed_ wrote: 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 15:17 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Stealing from your bank account doesn't exactly go hand in hand with the endangerment of your family. It's just an all out ridiculous thing to discuss because it is simply impossible. So you will never 'take' everything I own or possess. And in the purely impossible hypothetical situation where you merely ask me this to prove you being right; no because I will still have my friends, my mind and sanity, my life experiences, my achievements and my skills.
You try breaking the rules, by claiming I didn't take [i]everything[i] from you, even though I clearly stated I did. It is irrelevant if it is impossible, because it is equally impossible to determine if someone wants to just rob you, kill you, or maybe a little of a twofer. Because the answer is obvious. Instead of answering the question, you try to avoid truth, because it is unpleasant for you. That people can take away your life piece by piece, instead of in one whole, and get away with it. They can take it hour by hour, and when you die, you would have nothing to show for yourself.
But I'll break it down to sesame street level for you. You work 12 hours at 8 dollars an hour cash for washing dishes. you don't go deposit in a bank, or hide is in your anus, you keep it in your non-password protected wallet which is in your non-password protected pocket and can be stolen. You get robbed on your way home. What did you lose?
Are you going to claim you still have 12 hours worth of dish washing experience? Maybe some imaginary friends you made up to make yourself happy, or your worthless sanity?
It seems like the mindset of this kid was a result of the mindset of America, with our Second Amendment and all. However, I don't think it was the incorrect mindset because most people that do home invasions have done many before those and it's incredibly likely that they will have stolen a firearm from a home. I'm pretty sure that's the most common way illegal guns or whatever get into the system because so many people buy them and they are stolen out of their dressers or something.
That being said, I do not agree with pursuing a burglar with a weapon, especially not a deadly weapon. I have a night stick under my bed, but am I really going to go after some guy in my house with it? I'd probably just call 9-1-1, kick the screen out and split, not like I have anything worth stealing anyway. If someone actually lunged at me and I had my night stick on me or a kitchen knife, yeah I'd probably use it, so it's hard to blame the kid for using the sword when he got jumped. But like we say in aviation: (this quote is butchered) "good pilots can execute the crazy cross-wind landings, but the best pilots make the correct decisions to avoid the situation all -together". I don't think that's a very unreasonable parallel, because it's good that he didn't freeze and used the weapon to defend himself instead letting himself get disarmed, however he should not have gotten himself into that predicament in the first place, regardless of whether his home was being invaded.
On September 16 2009 15:34 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Did you really go from a post about money equaling life, to losing your mind and friends in a robbery?
Did you both serious not answer the question (again).
If I take the money that you earned in a work day, did I take away those 12(eight, whatever) hours of your life or not?
No, because work isn't just about the money earned, it's also about fulfilling some need of self worth that everyone feels in their life, and shooting the shit with your buds at your job, and whatever other social needs you fulfill through it. If you believe otherwise then your concept of what constitutes your "life" leaves you in a more fragile state than us.
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 think that the kid was justified in killing that guy.
The story says that the garage door was pried open (meaning he had some kind of tool, like a crowbar), the guy lunged at him, and it was all in self-defence. It's better that he brought the sword with him because if it wasn't the robber's life, it'd be his life.
Let this kid go...
EDIT: It also mentions this robber was charged with having weapons, specifically a gun.
On September 16 2009 15:48 Neos wrote: I think that the kid was justified in killing that guy.
The story says that the garage door was pried open (meaning he had some kind of tool, like a crowbar), the guy lunged at him, and it was all in self-defence. It's better that he brought the sword with him because if it wasn't the robber's life, it'd be his life.
the issue here isn't people caring about the burglar's life -- it's the fact that the student thought he'd risk his life to protect his stuff rather than calling the cops which would have easily been there in time as the burglar was unaware he had been found out -- and cops are everywhere near college campuses.
If someone wants to break into your house, then they should be aware of/accept the possible consequences. If someone breaks into your house, they are telling you "I'm a criminal." They are not telling you "I'm only a thief; I would not hurt someone." Your property is being taken and your life could be on the line, and people seriously want to split hairs over what is "acceptable" force...
If someone doesn't scope out your house well enough to know no one will be home, or they don't seem to care... you should be ready to defend yourself if you have the means to do so, and once adrenaline kicks in, it's "kill or be killed," not "let's make sure we only slap him on the wrist."
If you make your presence known and they don't run.. you shouldn't be at fault. If they run... then of course.. killing them wouldn't be "right."
On September 16 2009 15:48 Neos wrote: I think that the kid was justified in killing that guy.
The story says that the garage door was pried open (meaning he had some kind of tool, like a crowbar), the guy lunged at him, and it was all in self-defence. It's better that he brought the sword with him because if it wasn't the robber's life, it'd be his life.
the issue here isn't people caring about the burglar's life -- it's the fact that the student thought he'd risk his life to protect his stuff rather than calling the cops which would have easily been there in time as the burglar was unaware he had been found out -- and cops are everywhere near college campuses.
You don't know that. He's already stolen and gotten away with it before.
On September 16 2009 15:48 Neos wrote: I think that the kid was justified in killing that guy.
The story says that the garage door was pried open (meaning he had some kind of tool, like a crowbar), the guy lunged at him, and it was all in self-defence. It's better that he brought the sword with him because if it wasn't the robber's life, it'd be his life.
the issue here isn't people caring about the burglar's life -- it's the fact that the student thought he'd risk his life to protect his stuff rather than calling the cops which would have easily been there in time as the burglar was unaware he had been found out -- and cops are everywhere near college campuses.
I guess he was pretty impulsive to face a robber by going downstairs instead of going and calling the police, but that isn't what happened. The fact is he went into his garage with a sword, that's legal in his area apparently, and acted on self-defense; so the kid didn't break any laws, so he shouldn't be charged.
On September 16 2009 15:48 Neos wrote: I think that the kid was justified in killing that guy.
The story says that the garage door was pried open (meaning he had some kind of tool, like a crowbar), the guy lunged at him, and it was all in self-defence. It's better that he brought the sword with him because if it wasn't the robber's life, it'd be his life.
the issue here isn't people caring about the burglar's life -- it's the fact that the student thought he'd risk his life to protect his stuff rather than calling the cops which would have easily been there in time as the burglar was unaware he had been found out -- and cops are everywhere near college campuses.
You don't know that. He's already stolen and gotten away with it before.
i read that cops were already arriving on the scene from hearing the screams before he even hung up the phone 0_o
and besides, even if he did get away -- was it really worth risking your life?
On September 16 2009 15:48 Neos wrote: I think that the kid was justified in killing that guy.
The story says that the garage door was pried open (meaning he had some kind of tool, like a crowbar), the guy lunged at him, and it was all in self-defence. It's better that he brought the sword with him because if it wasn't the robber's life, it'd be his life.
the issue here isn't people caring about the burglar's life -- it's the fact that the student thought he'd risk his life to protect his stuff rather than calling the cops which would have easily been there in time as the burglar was unaware he had been found out -- and cops are everywhere near college campuses.
I guess he was pretty impulsive to face a robber by going downstairs instead of going and calling the police, but that isn't what happened. The fact is he went into his garage with a sword, that's legal in his area apparently, and acted on self-defense; so the kid didn't break any laws, so he shouldn't be charged.
right, he shouldn't be charged -- mostly everyone agrees.
im just saying he's dumb for doing what he did, and lucky he left that encounter unscathed.
That robber has had so many fucking charges its ridiculous. You think after 30 B and E's and weapons charges and shit he would just get locked up for life. Some people just never learn and some get cut to death by a ninja sword. Justice served.
justice served indeed. society lost nothing. it is the right of the resident who resided in the home how he wished to proceed. why shouldnt ppl have a right to protect their belongings? are we supposed to lay over like a slave and just take all the abuse? why cant we fight back against the criminals. and in this post, why cant we even INVESTIGATE what is going on in our own house armed due to suspicious behavior? u can choose to call the cops and hope they make it in time, or you can investigate the problem urself, its on the person to decide when they are in that moment. one option is much safer than the other, but it is not the students fault the dumbass lunged at someone with a sword.
the fucker shoulda learned after his 2nd, 3rd , hell his 30th offense for breaking and entering, but our society loves doting on the dumbasses who never learn. nothing like a good hanging, or saudi arabia style it up and chop off the idiots hand for stealing to set an example;
On September 16 2009 15:48 Neos wrote: I think that the kid was justified in killing that guy.
The story says that the garage door was pried open (meaning he had some kind of tool, like a crowbar), the guy lunged at him, and it was all in self-defence. It's better that he brought the sword with him because if it wasn't the robber's life, it'd be his life.
the issue here isn't people caring about the burglar's life -- it's the fact that the student thought he'd risk his life to protect his stuff rather than calling the cops which would have easily been there in time as the burglar was unaware he had been found out -- and cops are everywhere near college campuses.
This place is apparently a bad neighborhood. (I didn't know John Hopkins was a bad neighborhood either.) This guy had been arrested 29 times prior. The kid got his stuff stolen a week ago already and I'm imagining the cops were little help afterwards. Not to mention what his neighbors were saying about it. Suffice to say the neighborhood was shitty and the cops would have likely took their sweet time. Or arrested him for the 30th and he'd just rob the guy again, what does the fact that this guy got arrested 29 times and is still doing the same thing say about cops or crime here?
Even if the cops did arrive I'd imagine he'd be at the point where he'd think they wouldn't do anything.
You know, cops tend to arrive faster on more urgent things, like people screaming. Just letting you know. The cop would take his sweet ass time if the guys wasn't dieing.
On September 16 2009 12:24 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: You gotta be one shallow son of a bitch to think the protection of your property is worth a human life.
So you are saying that in any case when your in the heat of the moment, potentially scared for your life, your family, your friends, that you should roll over and die? This man seems desperate enough in the past to attempt to pull a gun on a police officer, granted not every "intruder" would be this far through the cracks. But there are many justifications for using deadly force and if you feel that under no circumstance should you attempt to defend yourself and your belongings on your own property just wait till perhaps you, or someone you know is put in the same situation. Today's society is so scared of conflict in the interest of self preservation that you would think they should atleast be able to defend themselves.
That man should be considered a hero.
It's simply not safer for your family when you carry a gun out to meet a burglar. It's fucking stupid and gets people killed it's like the most retarded misconception Americans have. Walk out without a weapon and you are more likely not to die and keep your family safe. Most burglars run when they get caught, but try pointing a gun at them see if they care about their life. I guarantee you they will fight to survive.
There is not a single justification to walk out with a sword or a gun to meet a burglar. And then to cut him down when he isn't carrying a weapon is downright nuts.
On September 16 2009 15:14 Game wrote: A little known fact about the United States. I forgot the name but there is a law passed in which has a term that is defined like this. If someone comes on your property and you have a slight fear of your life you are allowed to defend yourself by all means, including killing them. I'm too lazy to look up the phrase, but all he has to say in court is "I was afraid for my life, blank blank blank phrase" Not guilty.
P.S if someone comes on my property in a threatening manner I'm blowing 33 holes in them. Empty clip. If you go on someone elses land, you are asking for it.
Unfortunately no. Law states that you are not allowed to defend yourself unless someone comes at you with malicious intent, no matter what. Yes, even where you can clearly see a robber packing and making off with your stuff, you are not allowed to use dangerous or lethal force until he made an attempt/threat at you. In the Katko v. Briney case, the court decision that was handed down went with this: "the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights of property."
You can attempt to subdue and impede the said thief, but you are not allowed to use lethal force. From the original story, it seems to me like the student heard a commotion and went downstairs to check. He found whomever it was there and accordingly, the guy lunged at him. The said thief lunging at him should be enough for a case for self defense, if it was truly what happened.
All the people that said he should have called the police first, well think about it. He did not know it was a thief, but he prepared himself for the worst. It could have been anything, as it was a simple commotion at first. It could have been many things....something falling, some stray animal getting in the house and running around, etc. You won't be calling the police right away for every little commotion that goes on.
Hello Mr Criminal would you be so kind as to fill in this questionnaire while your lunging at me:- Q.1 Intention tonight is to: a. Rape b. Kill c. Steal d. Torture/GBH e. All of the above Q.2 On your persons in sight or concealed do you have any weapons? a. Yes in hand and visible in this darkness as its got bright LED's on my gun & knifes b. No, well yes concealed in my pocket is my Glock and a blade in my other pocket c. No, my i'm built like a brick shithouse so my fists are my weapons(Fist of the North Star Yooo!)
So I got this criminal lunging at me in the dead of night and only after he fills in this questionnaire and I frisk him to check for weapons and get a witness to corroborate can I even defend myself. Yehhh, right....
I don't live in the US and we can't have guns here but I would definitely do everything in my power to eliminate any immediate threat to my family and home.
On September 16 2009 15:14 Game wrote: A little known fact about the United States. I forgot the name but there is a law passed in which has a term that is defined like this. If someone comes on your property and you have a slight fear of your life you are allowed to defend yourself by all means, including killing them. I'm too lazy to look up the phrase, but all he has to say in court is "I was afraid for my life, blank blank blank phrase" Not guilty.
P.S if someone comes on my property in a threatening manner I'm blowing 33 holes in them. Empty clip. If you go on someone elses land, you are asking for it.
Unfortunately no. Law states that you are not allowed to defend yourself unless someone comes at you with malicious intent, no matter what. Yes, even where you can clearly see a robber packing and making off with your stuff, you are not allowed to use dangerous or lethal force until he made an attempt/threat at you. In the Katko v. Briney case, the court decision that was handed down went with this: "the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights of property."
You can attempt to subdue and impede the said thief, but you are not allowed to use lethal force. From the original story, it seems to me like the student heard a commotion and went downstairs to check. He found whomever it was there and accordingly, the guy lunged at him. The said thief lunging at him should be enough for a case for self defense, if it was truly what happened.
All the people that said he should have called the police first, well think about it. He did not know it was a thief, but he prepared himself for the worst. It could have been anything, as it was a simple commotion at first. It could have been many things....something falling, some stray animal getting in the house and running around, etc. You won't be calling the police right away for every little commotion that goes on.
Katko vs. Briney has exactly zero relevance to this case seeing as the burglar wasn't burglaring unoccupied property but rather was lunging towards the homeowner.
What's with the (relatively few) idiots in this thread that want to press charges on this kid? He should be given a medal, a commendation, an honorary award.
Lets look at the situation.
First, The guy hears a commotion downstairs. At this point, he doesn't know if it's a stray cat or some prank, but he's still jittery. Why?
The kid was robbed just a few days ago, and this caused you to take extra precautions. -AND- The area was known for its violent crime infestation - something he definitely would've checked when he was first robbed.
As he opens the door to the stairs, the commotion he hears becomes banging, screams and scuffling.
Even someone with the most relaxed psyche in the world will be under extreme psychological duress in those kinds of situations.
All the above things probably ran through his mind, in a situation as tense as this. "How did he get in?" "Is he going to kill me?" He may have wondered. And as shown in the article, the burglar pried open the garage door in search of goods, so he was definitely capable of going to the extremes.
I hope you wouldn't be so naive as to say that he should have ignored his only method of self defense, a weapon, and went downstairs barehanded.
Under such psychological pressure, he opened the door. The first thing he saw was the big guy (as he must be, if he was strong enough to PRY open a closed garage door), definitely dangerous and possibly armed, just LUNGE at you. In his situation, will you seriously just submit to him and not defend yourself? With all the violent crimes that commonly occur in the area, and as someone who already was a victim of thievery just a few days ago, when such a man jumps you, you can't help but imagine the worst: that man will kill me.
Looking at the actual moment of contact, the student did the only thing anyone with the right instincts would do: swing at the "predator" that was jumping him with whatever he was holding in his hand. He didn't aim for the head, nor the heart, with the hopes of causing a mortal wound. There was no intent to kill here. It was a fight for survival.
Now lets look at the surrounding circumstances. This undergraduate was a university student, and a damn good one at that if he goes to Johns Hopkins. He has a bright future ahead of him. If he was crippled or befallen with some long term chronic illness because, as you suggest, he did not defend himself, it was clearly a great loss to himself, his future potential, and the society as a whole.
And lets look at the burglar. This guy is already nearly half a century old. He certainly was physically fit enough if he could pry the garage door open. He definitely had the capability throughout his life to, at the very worst, work his ass off in some physical labor and earn his living. And yet he made a conscious choice for over thirty years to live the life of a burglar. Further, look at his records. The university student was not wrong in judging him to be a danger to his LIFE, as the burglar had a record of pulling a gun onto the police officer. The last thing he ever did was to lunge at the victim of his burglary, to subdue him by force and get away with his crime.
Tell me now. Just what did the student do wrong here? The idiocy of (some) of you are pathetic. I hope someone high up there puts you in a similar situation next time and see if you would act your words.
On September 16 2009 15:14 Game wrote: A little known fact about the United States. I forgot the name but there is a law passed in which has a term that is defined like this. If someone comes on your property and you have a slight fear of your life you are allowed to defend yourself by all means, including killing them. I'm too lazy to look up the phrase, but all he has to say in court is "I was afraid for my life, blank blank blank phrase" Not guilty.
P.S if someone comes on my property in a threatening manner I'm blowing 33 holes in them. Empty clip. If you go on someone elses land, you are asking for it.
Unfortunately no. Law states that you are not allowed to defend yourself unless someone comes at you with malicious intent, no matter what. Yes, even where you can clearly see a robber packing and making off with your stuff, you are not allowed to use dangerous or lethal force until he made an attempt/threat at you. In the Katko v. Briney case, the court decision that was handed down went with this: "the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights of property."
You can attempt to subdue and impede the said thief, but you are not allowed to use lethal force. From the original story, it seems to me like the student heard a commotion and went downstairs to check. He found whomever it was there and accordingly, the guy lunged at him. The said thief lunging at him should be enough for a case for self defense, if it was truly what happened.
All the people that said he should have called the police first, well think about it. He did not know it was a thief, but he prepared himself for the worst. It could have been anything, as it was a simple commotion at first. It could have been many things....something falling, some stray animal getting in the house and running around, etc. You won't be calling the police right away for every little commotion that goes on.
Katko vs. Briney has exactly zero relevance to this case seeing as the burglar wasn't burglaring unoccupied property but rather was lunging towards the homeowner.
It was for all the people who said that they would do this or that if a robber/thief had come into their house. It was not aimed at dispelling whether the student had any right to use the force he did. That was dealt with later on in my post. Rather, I am just referring to the case to bring to light that even in the case of a thief, government will side with them if it is concerning their safety as well.
To those who think its a bad idea to defend yourself from not only a burglar, but also an attacker if it means greatly harming if not killing them i.e. just hide and call the cops please give me your address =) you won't mind people rolling in and taking things and maybe even harming you right?
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.
On September 16 2009 12:24 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: You gotta be one shallow son of a bitch to think the protection of your property is worth a human life.
So you are saying that in any case when your in the heat of the moment, potentially scared for your life, your family, your friends, that you should roll over and die? This man seems desperate enough in the past to attempt to pull a gun on a police officer, granted not every "intruder" would be this far through the cracks. But there are many justifications for using deadly force and if you feel that under no circumstance should you attempt to defend yourself and your belongings on your own property just wait till perhaps you, or someone you know is put in the same situation. Today's society is so scared of conflict in the interest of self preservation that you would think they should atleast be able to defend themselves.
That man should be considered a hero.
It's simply not safer for your family when you carry a gun out to meet a burglar. It's fucking stupid and gets people killed it's like the most retarded misconception Americans have. Walk out without a weapon and you are more likely not to die and keep your family safe. Most burglars run when they get caught, but try pointing a gun at them see if they care about their life. I guarantee you they will fight to survive.
There is not a single justification to walk out with a sword or a gun to meet a burglar. And then to cut him down when he isn't carrying a weapon is downright nuts.
try living in Baltimore Maryland
The problem is that the American society is ridiculously violent.
Elsewhere the average thief won't try to kill you. Guess why ? Because he knows that nobody will try to cut his head or shot him so he steals and leave.
On September 16 2009 17:55 orgolove wrote: few) idiots Lets look at the situation.
The kid was robbed just a few days ago, and this caused you to take extra precautions. -AND- The area was known for its violent crime infestation
he opens the door to the stairs, the commotion he hears becomes banging, screams and scuffling. Even someone with the most relaxed psyche in the world will be under extreme psychological duress in those kinds of situations.
"How did he get in?" "Is he going to kill me?"
Under such psychological pressure, he opened the door. The first thing he saw was the big guy (as he must be, if he was strong enough to PRY open a closed garage door), definitely dangerous and possibly armed
This undergraduate was a university student, and a damn good one at that if he goes to Johns Hopkins. He has a bright future ahead of him. If he was crippled or befallen with some long term chronic illness because ....it was clearly a great loss to himself, his future potential, and the society as a whole.
Tell me now. Just what did the student do wrong here?
Answer: He went into the room with a fucking weapon. People against his actions aren't necessarily idiots. Have a bloody think...
"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.
To those idiots that think this kid action was wrong, i hope you run into the similiar situation or worse and have the thief/robber tie you up, rape you, rape your...... and then you look back to see what would you have done to prevent that from happen to you and your family.
On September 16 2009 19:20 LeXz wrote: To those idiots that think this kid action was wrong, i hope you run into the similiar situation or worse and have the thief/robber tie you up, rape you, rape your...... and then you look back to see what would you have done to prevent that from happen to you and your family.
It is what it is. We live in a country where people rob/mug you with weapons. Unless there is some kind of major social revolution or something that pacifies everyone, you cant fault anyone for taking precautionary measures. Cops are usually useless in robbery cases. They dont catch shit. Its not like CSI.
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.
Even worse is the article clearly states that this has been happening to multiple residents in the area repeatedly. So I don't see where "calling the cops and hoping you get your shit back" is any help. Obviously the thieves keep stealing because they can get away with it.
IMO, if you break into someone's home, you better be ok with dying right there and then. No fucking way you can say anything to the student. If the student didn't kill him, the burglar would probly have killed the student.
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.
There's no way murder (atempted or not) is a necessary response to burglery. Not even if the burglar leaps at you. And there's no way the assumption "he would have done the same to you" makes this ethically right. I don't hope your attitude is shared by the majority of Americans, but judging by the American stereotype as it's portrayed here in Europe, i'm afraid it is. That's one point where our cultural difference is enormous.
I'm sorry if this has been sufficiently debated throughout the thread. I don't bother reading the whole thing, since most of the responses just piss me off.
On September 16 2009 19:20 LeXz wrote: To those idiots that think this kid action was wrong, i hope you run into the similiar situation or worse and have the thief/robber tie you up, rape you, rape your...... and then you look back to see what would you have done to prevent that from happen to you and your family.
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.
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.
Going downstairs with a sword to openly confront a thief who might very well have a gun doesn't sound very good for survival.
Locking yourself up in your room, then yelling that the cops are coming, and then keeping the sword ready to slash in case the guy tries to break into the room, is a much better option imo.
Note that I'm only speaking about survival here - not about preventing your stuff from being stolen. If you want to keep your stuff you have to act like the student did, that's why I don't criticize the student in any way. If it happens to me I'll chose the second option though because there's nothing in my apartment that I can't repay in one month anyway.
On September 16 2009 19:20 LeXz wrote: To those idiots that think this kid action was wrong, i hope you run into the similiar situation or worse and have the thief/robber tie you up, rape you, rape your...... and then you look back to see what would you have done to prevent that from happen to you and your family.
I like this post. Needs more attention.
Indeed, i honestly think its okay to kill intruders. They should atleast be fucking smart enough to know that they might get killed while trespassing and stealing. I myself would do the same thing if i was in the same situation, pressing charges against this dude would be super-stupid.
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.
Going downstairs with a sword to openly confront a thief who might very well have a gun doesn't sound very good for survival.
Locking yourself up in your room, then yelling that the cops are coming, and then keeping the sword ready to slash in case the guy tries to break into the room, is a much better option imo.
Note that I'm only speaking about survival here - not about preventing your stuff from being stolen, if you want to keep your stuff you have to act like the student did.
Well remember he lives in a house with roommates. He went to investigate the noise - not 100% sure it's a thief. Hence, it's better to go down there with some kind of weapon than nothing at all.
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.
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.
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.
Going downstairs with a sword to openly confront a thief who might very well have a gun doesn't sound very good for survival.
Locking yourself up in your room, then yelling that the cops are coming, and then keeping the sword ready to slash in case the guy tries to break into the room, is a much better option imo.
Note that I'm only speaking about survival here - not about preventing your stuff from being stolen, if you want to keep your stuff you have to act like the student did.
Well remember he lives in a house with roommates. He went to investigate the noise - not 100% sure it's a thief. Hence, it's better to go down there with some kind of weapon than nothing at all.
Yeah, I also think that's what happened. I actually did the same a few times, was just lucky enough that it weren't hostile people but just some friend/family/whatever.
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 21:34 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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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!
On September 17 2009 01:20 tYsopz wrote: 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.
Their deeds.
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.
All statistics show increased gun laws lead to increased crime.
On September 16 2009 17:55 orgolove wrote: few) idiots Lets look at the situation.
The kid was robbed just a few days ago, and this caused you to take extra precautions. -AND- The area was known for its violent crime infestation
he opens the door to the stairs, the commotion he hears becomes banging, screams and scuffling. Even someone with the most relaxed psyche in the world will be under extreme psychological duress in those kinds of situations.
"How did he get in?" "Is he going to kill me?"
Under such psychological pressure, he opened the door. The first thing he saw was the big guy (as he must be, if he was strong enough to PRY open a closed garage door), definitely dangerous and possibly armed
This undergraduate was a university student, and a damn good one at that if he goes to Johns Hopkins. He has a bright future ahead of him. If he was crippled or befallen with some long term chronic illness because ....it was clearly a great loss to himself, his future potential, and the society as a whole.
Tell me now. Just what did the student do wrong here?
Answer: He went into the room with a fucking weapon. People against his actions aren't necessarily idiots. Have a bloody think...
I think a better phrasing for your position would be "What the student did was stupid" instead of "What the student did was wrong." I think most people are perfectly fine with accepting the opinion that a few material things are not worth confronting someone over, but nobody on our side of the debate is going to accept the position that it's "wrong" to confront someone in their house that is stealing their possessions if they choose to take that risk. An armed citizen should have the right to uphold the law in his own home instead of having to pick up a phone and call other armed citizens and wait for them to do it for him.
also don't understand why people keep repeating "If thief had a gun studen would have been killed." Isn't that incredibly obvious?
the kid did the right thing. I don't think he should go to jail. the burglar is convicted, and dangerous felon.
I would be very dissapointed if the kid had to do anything, in fact, he should get some therapy paid for by the gov't for trauma that he has for killing someone.
On September 17 2009 01:54 arcology wrote: He didn't mean to kill him, sometimes you just roll a 20
Maybe he did? I wouldn't mind, another person robbed and who knows eventually maybe someone killed as a result of this dirtbag criminal walking the streets. There's sick fucks out there, ever read the story of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom? Its disturbing as all hell.
Point is there are wicked people out there, they made their choice, he made his. People die in this world, the bg died sooner than he'd of liked because of the path he chose.
On September 16 2009 17:55 orgolove wrote: few) idiots Lets look at the situation.
The kid was robbed just a few days ago, and this caused you to take extra precautions. -AND- The area was known for its violent crime infestation
he opens the door to the stairs, the commotion he hears becomes banging, screams and scuffling. Even someone with the most relaxed psyche in the world will be under extreme psychological duress in those kinds of situations.
"How did he get in?" "Is he going to kill me?"
Under such psychological pressure, he opened the door. The first thing he saw was the big guy (as he must be, if he was strong enough to PRY open a closed garage door), definitely dangerous and possibly armed
This undergraduate was a university student, and a damn good one at that if he goes to Johns Hopkins. He has a bright future ahead of him. If he was crippled or befallen with some long term chronic illness because ....it was clearly a great loss to himself, his future potential, and the society as a whole.
Tell me now. Just what did the student do wrong here?
Answer: He went into the room with a fucking weapon. People against his actions aren't necessarily idiots. Have a bloody think...
I think a better phrasing for your position would be "What the student did was stupid" instead of "What the student did was wrong." I think most people are perfectly fine with accepting the opinion that a few material things are not worth confronting someone over, but nobody on our side of the debate is going to accept the position that it's "wrong" to confront someone in their house that is stealing their possessions if they choose to take that risk. An armed citizen should have the right to uphold the law in his own home instead of having to pick up a phone and call other armed citizens and wait for them to do it for him.
also don't understand why people keep repeating "If thief had a gun studen would have been killed." Isn't that incredibly obvious?
They repeat that because it's annoying to hear "zomg i'd kill whoever entered my house, go go samurai student! you are awesome!"
when in reality the student had a death wish by going down there with a sword.
he shouldn't be convicted, he got lucky and killed some trash -- good for him.
On September 17 2009 01:54 arcology wrote: He didn't mean to kill him, sometimes you just roll a 20
haha win.
I can't believe people would defend the point that killing the burglar in self-defense is wrong. It's idiocy to suggest that can't protect your own life because of the law. You wanna talk about justifying the action of killing, well that is not the point. It's irrelevant if it's justified or not, because you can place a sure bet that the asshole robbing him would have done something to the kid, based on his record alone, if he just laid down and took it like you all suggest.
I mean come on, he pulled a fucking gun on an officer when approached? are you kidding me?!? You really think this guy would have just run off when the kid came in there or that he wasn't going to be violent? It's not like the kid hunted the guy down like Rambo with a blade. the thief obviously stayed to fight of his own volition. The man was garbage anyway. Actions speak volumes, and the actions of his life prior to that point show he was nothing but a piece of shit.
On September 17 2009 01:20 tYsopz wrote: 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.
All statistics show increased gun laws lead to increased crime.
This stark generalization isn't true, obviously, but there is pretty damning evidence to be found that gun laws only make the populace less safe. You take away a law-abiding citizens right to defend himself and all you have is sheep for those who don't play by the rules.
Everybody in Switzerland is required to have an assault rifle in their home for militia purposes. Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. What's this?
On September 17 2009 04:41 Caller wrote: Everybody in Switzerland is required to have an assault rifle in their home for militia purposes. Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. What's this?
On September 17 2009 04:41 Caller wrote: Everybody in Switzerland is required to have an assault rifle in their home for militia purposes. Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. What's this?
So does Japan -- where guns are illegal.
precisely my point
whether or not you legalize guns doesn't matter. crime happens because of culture and income disparities, not weapons.
Consider how japan has lots and lots of gratuitous sexual and violent things in its culture. Yet its crime rate is low, precisely because there are so many outs for people to indulge in whatever disturbing thing they're into. In America, on the other hand, not only are there not that many outs, but its also economically different.
Banning guns has no effect on crime. It only hurts industry to ban guns.
On September 17 2009 04:41 Caller wrote: Everybody in Switzerland is required to have an assault rifle in their home for militia purposes. Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. What's this?
So does Japan -- where guns are illegal.
precisely my point
whether or not you legalize guns doesn't matter. crime happens because of culture and income disparities, not weapons.
Consider how japan has lots and lots of gratuitous sexual and violent things in its culture. Yet its crime rate is low, precisely because there are so many outs for people to indulge in whatever disturbing thing they're into. In America, on the other hand, not only are there not that many outs, but its also economically different.
Banning guns has no effect on crime. It only hurts industry to ban guns.
i agree guns don't relate to crime, that's why i brought Japan up.
On September 17 2009 04:41 Caller wrote: Everybody in Switzerland is required to have an assault rifle in their home for militia purposes. Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. What's this?
if this is true. this is some pretty delicious irony.
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.
Wasn't the thief decapitated?
I read it like that at first too and wondered why people thought that it wasn't excessive force. But the article actually says that the hand was almost severed, otherwise the guy would had gone to jail 100% chance.
The deal is that neighbours heard terrified screams, that wouldn't had happened with a decapitation and this his story wouldn't had hold up. Also decapitating someone attacking you with bare hands is excessive force for sure, while just cutting his hand is not.
And you can save people who have lost their hands, you just have to tie something really really hard around the arm and then put a lot of cloth before the opening of the arm to save the blood.
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.
Wasn't the thief decapitated?
I read it like that at first too and wondered why people thought that it wasn't excessive force. But the article actually says that the hand was almost severed, otherwise the guy would had gone to jail 100% chance.
The deal is that neighbours heard terrified screams, that wouldn't had happened with a decapitation and this his story wouldn't had hold up. Also decapitating someone attacking you with bare hands is excessive force for sure, while just cutting his hand is not.
And you can save people who have lost their hands, you just have to tie something really really hard around the arm and then put a lot of cloth before the opening of the arm to save the blood.
It wouldn't make much of a difference if he swung and cut his head off or if he swung and cut his hand off. If he was being attacked, self-defense is self-defense regardless of how lethal it is.
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.
Wasn't the thief decapitated?
I read it like that at first too and wondered why people thought that it wasn't excessive force. But the article actually says that the hand was almost severed, otherwise the guy would had gone to jail 100% chance.
The deal is that neighbours heard terrified screams, that wouldn't had happened with a decapitation and this his story wouldn't had hold up. Also decapitating someone attacking you with bare hands is excessive force for sure, while just cutting his hand is not.
And you can save people who have lost their hands, you just have to tie something really really hard around the arm and then put a lot of cloth before the opening of the arm to save the blood.
so if someone is attacking you, you have to cut him just enough with a sword? or swing the bat just hard enough to break bones but not cripple him? do you realize how ridiculous an idea this is? why not argue that any physical contact is excessive force, you should just talk to him and convince him to leave and surrender to the police.
its 100% NOT excessive force to cut off a guy's hand who is attacking you. its not even excessive force if you cut off his head. excessive force is if you subdue him, tie him up, and stab him. or if hes running away from you and you shoot him in the back. but if the guy is rushing at you after breaking into your house, you can do whatever you want. there are a million factors that make it impossible for someone defending themselves to accurately use what you describe here as "not excessive" force.
How i see the optimal response to this situation. - Call the cops. - Lock your door ( or close it and put something behind if you can't lock it ). - Yell: " i have called the cops"
99% of the thieves should leave quickly and try to take some stuff with them ( but relax they won't stay long so they won't have the time to take your car, your skills, your memory and your minerals )
- Get something to defend yourself if he doesn't leave and try to attack you. But if he stays and doesn't try to open your door DON'T try to confront him even if you have a gun because it would be 50% - 50% if he has one too. Going at him with a bat or sword is even worse lol. Actually this would only work in Europe where most thieves don't have guns.
I don't fucking care if his move was legal or not. "Castle law" blablablablabla. Even if some idiots on TL think that he did the right thing and that he is an hero it was a clear EV- move.
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.
Wasn't the thief decapitated?
I read it like that at first too and wondered why people thought that it wasn't excessive force. But the article actually says that the hand was almost severed, otherwise the guy would had gone to jail 100% chance.
The deal is that neighbours heard terrified screams, that wouldn't had happened with a decapitation and this his story wouldn't had hold up. Also decapitating someone attacking you with bare hands is excessive force for sure, while just cutting his hand is not.
And you can save people who have lost their hands, you just have to tie something really really hard around the arm and then put a lot of cloth before the opening of the arm to save the blood.
so if someone is attacking you, you have to cut him just enough with a sword? or swing the bat just hard enough to break bones but not cripple him? do you realize how ridiculous an idea this is? why not argue that any physical contact is excessive force, you should just talk to him and convince him to leave and surrender to the police.
its 100% NOT excessive force to cut off a guy's hand who is attacking you. its not even excessive force if you cut off his head. excessive force is if you subdue him, tie him up, and stab him. or if hes running away from you and you shoot him in the back. but if the guy is rushing at you after breaking into your house, you can do whatever you want. there are a million factors that make it impossible for someone defending themselves to accurately use what you describe here as "not excessive" force.
Voice of reason in this stupidly long thread. Why is this still being discussed by anyone else? Where is the follow up article where it is showed that the student went psycho and chased the intruder halfway across the neighborhood before chopping him into itty bitty pieces and force feeding them to children?
This is not a controversial news item. Wtf are you guys thinking.
On September 17 2009 06:35 Boblion wrote: How i see the optimal response to this situation. - Call the cops. - Lock your door ( or close it and put something behind if you can't lock it ). - Yell: " i have called the cops"
99% of the thieves should leave quickly and try to take some stuff with them ( but relax they won't stay long so they won't have the time to take your car, your skills, your memory and your minerals )
- Get something to defend yourself if he doesn't leave and try to attack you. But if he stays and doesn't try to open your door DON'T try to confront him even if you have a gun because it would be 50% - 50% if he has one too. Going at him with a bat or sword is even worse lol. Actually this would only work in Europe where most thieves don't have guns.
I don't fucking care if his move was legal or not. "Castle law" blablablablabla. Even if some idiots on TL think that he did the right thing and that he is an hero it was a clear EV- move.
Donks.
Perfectly good suggestion for you to make to your family members since you don't want them increasing their risk of injury/dying... sure. But irrelevant in a discussion of whether or not he did something illegal... although I agree people should stop acting like he's some awesome bamf.
On September 17 2009 06:35 Boblion wrote: How i see the optimal response to this situation. - Call the cops. - Lock your door ( or close it and put something behind if you can't lock it ). - Yell: " i have called the cops"
99% of the thieves should leave quickly and try to take some stuff with them ( but relax they won't stay long so they won't have the time to take your car, your skills, your memory and your minerals )
- Get something to defend yourself if he doesn't leave and try to attack you. But if he stays and doesn't try to open your door DON'T try to confront him even if you have a gun because it would be 50% - 50% if he has one too. Going at him with a bat or sword is even worse lol. Actually this would only work in Europe where most thieves don't have guns.
I don't fucking care if his move was legal or not. "Castle law" blablablablabla. Even if some idiots on TL think that he did the right thing and that he is an hero it was a clear EV- move.
Donks.
Well that depends... by "turtling" you are
1. giving up the element of surprise 2. forgoing defense of any 'expansions' (ie other house members not in the same room.)
You do get a substantial defending advantage though... especially if you do have a gun/bat/sword and can defend if he comes through.
If there is nothing outside of your room worth defending, then it is probably a good strategy.
One side note... you are also risking a false alarm to the cops unless you check it out yourself... if it is say a rat or something that fell over, etc. And when you check it out, it is probably better to be armed in case an unarmed thief comes at you.
1 - Decide to check it out(DUMB MISTAKE, but not ILLEGAL) 2 -You bring a weapon with you(DUMB MISTAKE, but not ILLEGAL) 3 -You enter the garage, and the burglar PLUNGES at you, and in the heat of the moment you attack him with 1(ONE) slash(Still NOT ILLEGAL).
I don't have to say I agree with what the kid did. But I don't see how it is illegal under US law(From what I've gathered in this thread, I haven't read any of them myself).
On September 17 2009 06:35 Boblion wrote: How i see the optimal response to this situation. - Call the cops. - Lock your door ( or close it and put something behind if you can't lock it ). - Yell: " i have called the cops"
99% of the thieves should leave quickly and try to take some stuff with them ( but relax they won't stay long so they won't have the time to take your car, your skills, your memory and your minerals )
- Get something to defend yourself if he doesn't leave and try to attack you. But if he stays and doesn't try to open your door DON'T try to confront him even if you have a gun because it would be 50% - 50% if he has one too. Going at him with a bat or sword is even worse lol. Actually this would only work in Europe where most thieves don't have guns.
I don't fucking care if his move was legal or not. "Castle law" blablablablabla. Even if some idiots on TL think that he did the right thing and that he is an hero it was a clear EV- move.
Donks.
There are way too many variables to define this as EV-. One thing for sure is that getting robbed for the 2nd time in a week and not doing anything about it is definitely EV-. Otherwise who are you to determine if risking his life for material "gain" is worth it to him? People risk their lives for material gain all the time, that's why people go and become mercenaries in countries at war or fisherman in the arctic seas. The police officers that would eventually arrive would be risking their lives for material gain. The life expectancy of police officers in my country is 10-20 years less than the national average so clearly their career choice is EV- according to you.
On September 17 2009 06:35 Boblion wrote: How i see the optimal response to this situation. - Call the cops. - Lock your door ( or close it and put something behind if you can't lock it ). - Yell: " i have called the cops"
99% of the thieves should leave quickly and try to take some stuff with them ( but relax they won't stay long so they won't have the time to take your car, your skills, your memory and your minerals )
- Get something to defend yourself if he doesn't leave and try to attack you. But if he stays and doesn't try to open your door DON'T try to confront him even if you have a gun because it would be 50% - 50% if he has one too. Going at him with a bat or sword is even worse lol. Actually this would only work in Europe where most thieves don't have guns.
I don't fucking care if his move was legal or not. "Castle law" blablablablabla. Even if some idiots on TL think that he did the right thing and that he is an hero it was a clear EV- move.
Donks.
There are way too many variables to define this as EV-. One thing for sure is that getting robbed for the 2nd time in a week and not doing anything about it is definitely EV-. Otherwise who are you to determine if risking his life for material "gain" is worth it to him? People risk their lives for material gain all the time, that's why people go and become mercenaries in countries at war or fisherman in the arctic seas.
Right maybe you want to play a game with me. Russian roulette you know ? Put a bullet into your gun ( i'm sure you have one, but it needs a cylinder ). Aim your head and fire. I will give you money if you don't die. I will give you 100$. Great deal right ? Clear Ev+ move bro ~
The fact that he lost already small amounts of money because of thieves doesn't mean that he should endanger his life ( which is the most valued thing for an human being ). That's like if a random poker noob tried nosebleed after losing few bi at Nl2. Chasing losses yea ! That's retarded.
On September 17 2009 07:33 BlackJack wrote: The police officers that would eventually arrive would be risking their lives for material gain. The life expectancy of police officers in my country is 10-20 years less than the national average so clearly their career choice is EV- according to you.
God bless the US seriously... Elsewhere they have the same life expectancy. However they are cops. They are armed, they are trained and they are paid to do this job and they made the choice. It is not like a 20 years old trying to be a samurai over some random goods. Yea it was his choice. But it was bad. It is not like if he would have been fired or whatever.
On September 17 2009 06:35 Boblion wrote: How i see the optimal response to this situation. - Call the cops. - Lock your door ( or close it and put something behind if you can't lock it ). - Yell: " i have called the cops"
99% of the thieves should leave quickly and try to take some stuff with them ( but relax they won't stay long so they won't have the time to take your car, your skills, your memory and your minerals )
- Get something to defend yourself if he doesn't leave and try to attack you. But if he stays and doesn't try to open your door DON'T try to confront him even if you have a gun because it would be 50% - 50% if he has one too. Going at him with a bat or sword is even worse lol. Actually this would only work in Europe where most thieves don't have guns.
I don't fucking care if his move was legal or not. "Castle law" blablablablabla. Even if some idiots on TL think that he did the right thing and that he is an hero it was a clear EV- move.
Donks.
Well that depends... by "turtling" you are
1. giving up the element of surprise 2. forgoing defense of any 'expansions' (ie other house members not in the same room.)
You do get a substantial defending advantage though... especially if you do have a gun/bat/sword and can defend if he comes through.
If there is nothing outside of your room worth defending, then it is probably a good strategy.
One side note... you are also risking a false alarm to the cops unless you check it out yourself... if it is say a rat or something that fell over, etc. And when you check it out, it is probably better to be armed in case an unarmed thief comes at you.
He is a student uh. Also close your fucking doors and windows. Rat noises =/= infraction ( broken window / door ) noise.
Interesting how American law lacks a "Duty to retreat" clause in some states. Also hot bid i believe there is a duty to retreat clause in Maryland self defense law as Maryland is not listed as having an official castle doctrine.
On a side note I live in California i still believe in reform although sentiments have been more swaying to locking which also has away people forever.
Poll: What do you belive in for repeat criminals (Vote): Reform (Vote): Lock them away throw away the key
On September 17 2009 07:57 BlackJack wrote: Your analogies are terrible
Yea probably but your ideas are terrible too Risking your life because someone took your phone or your comp the previous week is really stupid. That's complete gambling.
edit: I'm done. I think Nazgul / Brett / HotBid + few more have already said everything anyway.
On September 17 2009 07:57 BlackJack wrote: Your analogies are terrible
Yea probably but your ideas are terrible too Risking your life because someone took your phone or your comp the previous week is really stupid. That's complete gambling.
Don't get me wrong, there is no way I would confront the dude. But chances are this guy is breaking into my house next week so I'd rather not see him get away without a fight if that kid chooses to risk his life :D
and to be brutally honest, I would rather see a guy with 29 prior convictions be killed than go free. I guess nobody getting hurt and him being detained would be ideal, but if those are the only 2 options...
Think for a second what went through his head. You hear some shit in the garage, you are not sure what it is. It could be his roommates being obnoxious or something. Naturally you would go check it out. But he had reasons to suspect that it could be a robber, so he takes a weapon with him just in case. This is something that most people would do. If you hear some shit downstairs, do you immediately call the cops and yell out loud? In this case, the chacnes that it was an intruder was on the high side, but there is still the uncertainty.
I doubt he was thinking 'oh this is probably that thief, ima go slice this fucker. I hope he doesnt have a gun.' It was probably closer to 'what is this noise? It might be that buglar, i better grab this weapon just in case.'
On September 17 2009 06:35 Boblion wrote: How i see the optimal response to this situation. - Call the cops. - Lock your door ( or close it and put something behind if you can't lock it ). - Yell: " i have called the cops"
99% of the thieves should leave quickly and try to take some stuff with them ( but relax they won't stay long so they won't have the time to take your car, your skills, your memory and your minerals )
- Get something to defend yourself if he doesn't leave and try to attack you. But if he stays and doesn't try to open your door DON'T try to confront him even if you have a gun because it would be 50% - 50% if he has one too. Going at him with a bat or sword is even worse lol. Actually this would only work in Europe where most thieves don't have guns.
I don't fucking care if his move was legal or not. "Castle law" blablablablabla. Even if some idiots on TL think that he did the right thing and that he is an hero it was a clear EV- move.
Donks.
There are way too many variables to define this as EV-. One thing for sure is that getting robbed for the 2nd time in a week and not doing anything about it is definitely EV-. Otherwise who are you to determine if risking his life for material "gain" is worth it to him? People risk their lives for material gain all the time, that's why people go and become mercenaries in countries at war or fisherman in the arctic seas.
Right maybe you want to play a game with me. Russian roulette you know ? Put a bullet into your gun ( i'm sure you have one, but it needs a cylinder ). Aim your head and fire. I will give you money if you don't die. I will give you 100$. Great deal right ? Clear Ev+ move bro ~
The fact that he lost already small amounts of money because of thieves doesn't mean that he should endanger his life ( which is the most valued thing for an human being ). That's like if a random poker noob tried nosebleed after losing few bi at Nl2. Chasing losses yea ! That's retarded.
On September 17 2009 07:33 BlackJack wrote: The police officers that would eventually arrive would be risking their lives for material gain. The life expectancy of police officers in my country is 10-20 years less than the national average so clearly their career choice is EV- according to you.
God bless the US seriously... Elsewhere they have the same life expectancy. However they are cops. They are armed, they are trained and they are paid to do this job and they made the choice. It is not like a 20 years old trying to be a samurai over some random goods. Yea it was his choice. But it was bad. It is not like if he would have been fired or whatever.
On September 17 2009 06:35 Boblion wrote: How i see the optimal response to this situation. - Call the cops. - Lock your door ( or close it and put something behind if you can't lock it ). - Yell: " i have called the cops"
99% of the thieves should leave quickly and try to take some stuff with them ( but relax they won't stay long so they won't have the time to take your car, your skills, your memory and your minerals )
- Get something to defend yourself if he doesn't leave and try to attack you. But if he stays and doesn't try to open your door DON'T try to confront him even if you have a gun because it would be 50% - 50% if he has one too. Going at him with a bat or sword is even worse lol. Actually this would only work in Europe where most thieves don't have guns.
I don't fucking care if his move was legal or not. "Castle law" blablablablabla. Even if some idiots on TL think that he did the right thing and that he is an hero it was a clear EV- move.
Donks.
Well that depends... by "turtling" you are
1. giving up the element of surprise 2. forgoing defense of any 'expansions' (ie other house members not in the same room.)
You do get a substantial defending advantage though... especially if you do have a gun/bat/sword and can defend if he comes through.
If there is nothing outside of your room worth defending, then it is probably a good strategy.
One side note... you are also risking a false alarm to the cops unless you check it out yourself... if it is say a rat or something that fell over, etc. And when you check it out, it is probably better to be armed in case an unarmed thief comes at you.
He is a student uh. Also close your fucking doors and windows. Rat noises =/= infraction ( broken window / door ) noise.
As a student he doesn't have others to protect, but I was generalizing. Same for the rat noises... something gets knocked over...basically it could be some type of an accident... or a burglar.
Now in the option that you know for sure that it is someone that broke in), and you don't have anything vital to protect that is easy to harm/take out there, then its probably a stupid move to leave the room... and the "call the cops" and letting them know is probably the right strategy.
On September 17 2009 06:54 micronesia wrote: Perfectly good suggestion for you to make to your family members since you don't want them increasing their risk of injury/dying... sure. But irrelevant in a discussion of whether or not he did something illegal... although I agree people should stop acting like he's some awesome bamf.
If you read the entire thread and the facts we gradually learn he is pretty awesome.
If it's just a guy killing a burglar that's kinda fucked up.
Then you learn that burglar got arrested 29 times. Then you learn that kid just got robbed a week ago, maybe by the same guy. Then you learn that kid goes to John Hopkin's, then you learn John Hopkin's is in a horrible horrible neighborhood. Then you learn after the kid catches him there in his garage stealing his shit the burglar lunges at him seeing full well this kid is holding a samurai sword. This guy robs houses and isn't even afraid of getting in melee range of a samurai sword. The chance that I'd expect someone in his position to have some sort of weapon is very god damn high especially considering his attitude toward an armed person. When the kid cuts him, he slices the guy's wrist, a non vital point when the body is obviously a much larger target as well as harder to avoid hitting when someone is lunging at you. Then you find out the neighbor's reactions, they seem pretty supportive of that kid. There's more of course, this is just a summary.
What I'm wondering is how many times did that burglar get cut? I couldn't see how he'd just die from a wrist wound. Also why the fuck did the burglar get in melee range of a samurai sword. Even if he had a weapon himself, he's a burglar, pretty obvious he's not gonna have insurance, if he got cut anywhere on the body he woulda died if not there then from not being able to get it fixed. That burglar should have been begging the guy to call the police to get arrested for the 30th time, ran for the exit or jumped through a window to get out. Unless the burglar had a gun and had a real reason to believe he could stop the kid without a scratch from himself he just about picked the worst possible course of action. If that was his plan he shoulda just hanged himself at home and saved everyone the trouble. It's very obvious this burglar cannot play Starcraft because strategically he'd be a D------- player.
Something that would scare me about this is that if he stabbed this guy in the dark he'd have no idea whether this guy was just some prankster or an actually robber. He could stab someone and turn on the lights and it could be his best friend lying in a pool of blood on the ground. Damn, I'm pessimistic.
Well the guy did Lunge at him. (and its not certain if the robber could see that the student had a sword.. poor luck on his part)
You Lunge at someone in the dark who does not know who you are.... you are asking to get hit at least...in that case it would be case of Really Stupid prankster friend.
If he presses charges without finding any other information that this was excessive force I'm going to rage. The guy had a sword, the retard lunged at him. What are you supposed to do, put the sword down and try to talk it over with him while hes beating your face in?
I would have done the same thing if I were put in that position. I'm sure most anyone would.
I'm sure I'm merely paraphrasing what has been said many times on these 18 pages, but the world is better off with the loss of this gentleman and it would be absurd, in my eyes, to press charges. Criminals don't often self-impose limits on the ways they may attack me; why should limits be imposed on my self-defense?
On September 17 2009 12:20 IHurtMyBackHo wrote: If he presses charges without finding any other information that this was excessive force I'm going to rage. The guy had a sword, the retard lunged at him. What are you supposed to do, put the sword down and try to talk it over with him while hes beating your face in? I would have done the same thing if I were put in that position. I'm sure most anyone would.
Of course. There's also the issue, when deadly weapons are involved, that what you do not use to protect yourself may be used against you.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.dailyinfo.co.uk/images/cinema/last-samurai.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.vincentchow.net/images/cat-lion.jpg)
(and it's probably a good thing)![[image loading]](http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr314/kvan1917/FacePalm_picard.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://theinfosphere.org/images/thumb/e/eb/Scruffy_2.jpg/225px-Scruffy_2.jpg)
