|
On July 01 2011 15:35 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 14:55 GreatHate wrote:
Are you guys really that brainwashed by Fox news that you think a burglar wants something other than your property?
Not to mention, if this Fox news evil murdering criminal reality is true and they really wanted to hurt you, do you think a knife will stop it? I'm honestly baffled that the (apparent) majority of the TL community is this stupid. Property vs Life. This isn't counter strike you angry nerds, people don't respawn. Robbery is so exponentially less offensive and evil than murder, and if you don't understand this I hope someone shoots your brains out because they think you stole their watch.
Self defense laws exist for a reason. If you're in danger then by all means protect yourself. But just because someone walking out of your house with a TV in the middle of the night might scare you, they aren't a danger to your well being. You would need to be a selfish and overall despicable human being to choose ending someone's life over calling the police and your insurance company. Are you really under the impression that everyone that breaks into your house has the same moral ethics as apparently you do and won't just decide to kill you to protect his identity? This has absolutely nothing to do with fox news and everything to do with the fact that a strange man BROKE INTO YOUR HOUSE. For some reason this seems to be Okay for most people. I just don't understand this thought process. I am not willing to gamble my life that a burglar is coming into my house only to steal shit. If he is willing to break into my house in the middle of the night I have no clue what else that person is capable of. I am not talking about ending someone's life who is running away from my house. However, if he's inside my house, I confront him, and he doesnt proceed to leave the house he just forfeited his life. I am not going to gamble on the possibility that this guy that broke into my house is "nice." If he dies he shouldn't have broken into my house in the first place really.
It's not that I (and others who post the same) fear a robber being directly after my life, it's that I expect that if someone broke into my house while I was home, they would be likely to injure or kill me in order to avoid getting caught. Insurance covers theft, it doesn't cover my death.
|
What?
If someone breaks into your house and your home you expect him to kill you?
Ahm... There is still a diffrence between "breaking in" and "killing someone" when it comes to the persons performing it... Most criminals that get caught by the owner just run as fast as they can...
|
What?
If someone breaks into your house and your home you expect him to kill you?
Ahm... There is still a diffrence between "breaking in" and "killing someone" when it comes to the persons performing it... Most criminals that get caught by the owner just run as fast as they can...
Ahm... you're supposed to read a robber's mind at 2 in the morning when you peek down the stairs and there he is with a ski mask on?
|
On June 30 2011 12:01 Arishok wrote:
In the US it is legal to shoot intruders un-invited on our property if they are deemed a threat, AFAIK
Personally if someone broke into my house I wouldn't get close enough to them to use a knife, regardless of what was legal or not.
Well, in the UK most places might not have a gun.
If some one broke into my home, I would shoot them. I have no idea if they are armed, if they are really high on meth, if they have intentions of attacking me or my family, I mean, I have no idea. I would much rather take a risk that some one was there with intent to just steal my possessions and kill them, then take the risk of not shooting first and asking questions later, and ending up with a bullet in my chest. I think that my life and the lives of my loved ones is worth protecting, and if some one is going to endanger that, then I wont hesitate.
|
On July 01 2011 13:41 GreatHate wrote:
Seems to me that anyone who wants to KILL someone for robbing their house is an angry anti-social person who needs to get some perspective on life. I seriously hope that the people who hold this "shoot first ask questions later" mentality fall victim to it one day.
I'm not saying you shouldn't take a baseball bat to some asshole trying to steal your shit, but to support taking a knife or a gun to them? Your TV, that insurance will cover, is really worth more than this person's life?
Wait, so breaking into someone's house is not a reason for someone to kill them but thinking that it's okay to kill a burglar is reason for someone to kill you?
This isn't even about property. If someone breaks into my house I don't know what their capabilities or intentions are. Because they've chosen to put themselves in that threatening position I'm not going to take the risk of not killing them.
|
Echoing the sentiments of others who have posted - I too would attack an intruder on sight. Why? Because, if the invader can go as far to break into my home then I *have* (in short time given between detection and reaction) to assume their conscience is not what it should be, and that their intentions are the worst - not just theft, but murdering me and/or raping my family members.
My partner and I are martial artists and we're quite scared that what we've learned over the years might land us in jail should we ever try and defend our home. Even unarmed there is no telling what damage we could do for out training and it's hard to know if you can judge what 'appropriate force' is when you've just woken and are defending your home and family in the dark.
That's why we've scattered our weapons throughout the house - hopefully a burglar will be stupid enough to pick up one of our swords so I can brain him with the claw hammer I keep next to the bed 
I'd like to add too, that I've been burgled twice before and it's horrible. It's not just 'stuff' they steal, it's your life they disrupt. Not everything is replaceable and when someone breaks into your home it really throws you off balance 
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 01 2011 03:18 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 02:35 Mackin wrote:
Some of the people on this thread seem to open to shooting burglars. Sure if a criminal has broke into your house you should be able to defend yourself, but the fact that people are so easily ready to pull a gun on someone strikes me as worrying.
Proportionality is the most important factor here. If the burglar is just out to steal from your house they will be much less likely to want to rape their way through the place, so I would consider someone who shoots a robber dead a horrible deed. I wouldnt mind shooting them if only to maim them or disable them from hurting me/ my family but thats it. So many of the responses say "Oh shoot first, ask q later" and that really annoys me.
If I seen a burglar with a weapon or if they seen me & were coming towards me I would think it OK to respond with force. If you really were in any threat im pretty sure you would know, and I mean if theyre anywhere near you it should be OK to do whatever, but like killing them would not be the first priority for me - knocking them out/disarming/disabling all seems fine.
However;
If they are running away with your valubles and you shoot them dead I would find you pretty insane, because thats just being way to trigger happy., although I understand people can and do react differently to these situations, so some leniancy would be understood. If you say you would shoot any intruder without question in any situation, you really make me worry about the human race, because that is just crazy. I can totally understand if you knocked them out to stop them, but murder is murder and I feel if you can so easily decide to kill anyone on sight you could be a very dangerous person.
It really does depend on the situation. And I can see why more Americans seem to be more worried for their safety and would be more "jumpy/quick to react" than people in Europe or the UK as guns are legal and in much more widespread use. I doubt most burglars here would have guns whereas in the US I have heard many stories of their easy accesibility compared to here.
Please dont flame me, its just my opinion that killing any intruder in any (must emphasise any) situation is wrong. You should think about what you would do if you knew the burglar wasnt a threat to your safety (and dont give me crap saying you can never know, because there are ALWAYS these possiblities) If someone was running away with your life savings, Your blood and sweat for years on end I think I should be able to put an arrow in him to retain my valuables. (I don't own a gun, but I will not hesitate to put an arrow in them if my posessions are threatened)
Sure you can put an arrow in him, but would it not make more sense to aim for his lets or lower torso that the head or chest? Killing someone for stealing your possesions is a bit too far I think, whereas hurting them or disabling them is fine as you arent doing anything that cant completely end their life and possibly ruin the lives of their family etc etc. People dont think of the wider situation and it is all proportionality as I said.
If they steal your TV, sure go ahead and knock the guy/girl out.
If they are stealing a ridculously expensive/ sentimental item fair enough you can shoot your arrow.
The only way I would justify killing them is if they are facing you and heading towards you and you feel you are in danger of being assaulted/ life is threatened.*
*Or any other suitable inpending threat - e.g to family etc
|
[+ Show Spoiler +QUOTE] On July 01 2011 18:13 Owarida wrote:On June 30 2011 12:01 Arishok wrote:
In the US it is legal to shoot intruders un-invited on our property if they are deemed a threat, AFAIK
Personally if someone broke into my house I wouldn't get close enough to them to use a knife, regardless of what was legal or not. Well, in the UK most places might not have a gun. If some one broke into my home, I would shoot them. I have no idea if they are armed, if they are really high on meth, if they have intentions of attacking me or my family, I mean, I have no idea. I would much rather take a risk that some one was there with intent to just steal my possessions and kill them, then take the risk of not shooting first and asking questions later, and ending up with a bullet in my chest. I think that my life and the lives of my loved ones is worth protecting, and if some one is going to endanger that, then I wont hesitate.
I mentioned before that I can see where US people are coming from witht the shoot first, ask later position because guns are legal, whereas there are REALLY strict gun laws where I'm from so no petty criminals would be house robbing me.
I can see why you would shoot first, but as I mentioned before would it not make more sense to disable them rather than shoot them dead? I assumed that to get a gun you had to recieve some form of training and I really hope they dont just teach you to shoot in the chest on sight - I feel anyone with a gun should be properly trained to aim for the key points, or even somewhere that will just disable the intruder and prevent them from being able to get close to you/hjave you in range of fire.
|
Unless a lot of DTs live in the UK i doubt people stabbing first asking questions later is doing to be an issue, you aren't going to have a chance to kill someone with a knife before they see you and know you are armed.
The vast majority of buglers are going to run when someone with a bladed weapon tells them to get off their property. If they don't their intention is obviously to fight; consequently they become a threat to the owners life by refusing to remove themselves from the situation and using potentially lethal force is fine.
|
On June 30 2011 12:07 naggerNZ wrote:
If someone enters your property, uninvited or not, they are your guest and should be treated as such. Stabbing people is not okay.
loool
nice one brah
|
Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 22:43 Mackin wrote:[ + Show Spoiler +QUOTE] On July 01 2011 18:13 Owarida wrote:On June 30 2011 12:01 Arishok wrote:
In the US it is legal to shoot intruders un-invited on our property if they are deemed a threat, AFAIK
Personally if someone broke into my house I wouldn't get close enough to them to use a knife, regardless of what was legal or not. Well, in the UK most places might not have a gun. If some one broke into my home, I would shoot them. I have no idea if they are armed, if they are really high on meth, if they have intentions of attacking me or my family, I mean, I have no idea. I would much rather take a risk that some one was there with intent to just steal my possessions and kill them, then take the risk of not shooting first and asking questions later, and ending up with a bullet in my chest. I think that my life and the lives of my loved ones is worth protecting, and if some one is going to endanger that, then I wont hesitate. I mentioned before that I can see where US people are coming from witht the shoot first, ask later position because guns are legal, whereas there are REALLY strict gun laws where I'm from so no petty criminals would be house robbing me. I can see why you would shoot first, but as I mentioned before would it not make more sense to disable them rather than shoot them dead? I assumed that to get a gun you had to recieve some form of training and I really hope they dont just teach you to shoot in the chest on sight - I feel anyone with a gun should be properly trained to aim for the key points, or even somewhere that will just disable the intruder and prevent them from being able to get close to you/hjave you in range of fire.
[/quote]
If you shoot him and you don't shoot to kill, and you end up injuring/crippling him, he will sue you. So for your sake, and your family's sake. Aim for the vitals.
|
On July 01 2011 14:04 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 13:41 GreatHate wrote:
Seems to me that anyone who wants to KILL someone for robbing their house is an angry anti-social person who needs to get some perspective on life. I seriously hope that the people who hold this "shoot first ask questions later" mentality fall victim to it one day.
I'm not saying you shouldn't take a baseball bat to some asshole trying to steal your shit, but to support taking a knife or a gun to them? Your TV, that insurance will cover, is really worth more than this person's life? "I hope people that support murder get murdered!" I don't understand this logic. That said, a home invasion isn't always "BREAK IN, TAKE THE TV, RUN LIKE HELL!" They play out closer to "Break in, go to the TV, find the home owner is home, beat him til the blood stops gushing, continue to take the TV."
How often do you think this happens? In 2009 in the US there were 2,199,125 burglaries and 15,241 murders. Even if every last one of those murders happened during a home invasion - which is clearly not the case - that still leaves you 99.31% of burglaries where there was no loss of life. There's a reason a home invasion ending in homicide makes the headlines, and it's not because it's common.
|
On July 01 2011 23:51 roosten wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 14:04 Chargelot wrote:On July 01 2011 13:41 GreatHate wrote:
Seems to me that anyone who wants to KILL someone for robbing their house is an angry anti-social person who needs to get some perspective on life. I seriously hope that the people who hold this "shoot first ask questions later" mentality fall victim to it one day.
I'm not saying you shouldn't take a baseball bat to some asshole trying to steal your shit, but to support taking a knife or a gun to them? Your TV, that insurance will cover, is really worth more than this person's life? "I hope people that support murder get murdered!" I don't understand this logic. That said, a home invasion isn't always "BREAK IN, TAKE THE TV, RUN LIKE HELL!" They play out closer to "Break in, go to the TV, find the home owner is home, beat him til the blood stops gushing, continue to take the TV." How often do you think this happens? In 2009 in the US there were 2,199,125 burglaries and 15,241 murders. Even if every last one of those murders happened during a home invasion - which is clearly not the case - that still leaves you 99.31% of burglaries where there was no loss of life. There's a reason a home invasion ending in homicide makes the headlines, and it's not because it's common.
Then how many of them ended in rape or assault?
Why should a home owner have to take the risk of being the victim of any of any of those outcomes? How about this- Don't break into someone's house, and you won't have to take the risk of getting killed. Sounds fair to me.
|
why is stabbing burgers illegal? How else are u supposed to check if they are cooked?
|
I'm not going against this, by all means, but judging by some of the reactions in here, you're now sitting ready with your knives out and camo paint in your face just waiting for the burglars to come. That's not cool, and not the intent of the law. There's a difference between "Thank god they cleared up my right to defend myself" and "HELL YEAH, A LOOPHOLE TO STAB PEOPLE LEGALLY!"
Whatever happened to human value? If someone takes my tv, as long as they're not violent, I don't see any reason to stab them, shoot them, or anything of the sorts. Do you really hate people that much?
|
This kind of sentencing should only be done in nations where inquiries about such self defense are able to be thoroughly investigated. I remember in Texas a drunk man ran around naked in his neighborhood, and once he crossed into a certain property owner's land he was promptly shot in the chest. He began to run away but was kicked in the back, forced to kneel and then shot by a 12 gauge shotgun in the head.
Such things should not be possible. Too many crimes are committed under the veneer of self defense, if such a thing becomes legal anywhere there must be ZERO doubt of lethal intent and ZERO tolerance for overstepping the boundaries of self defense. Not to mention a police force with the skill and equipment to THOROUGHLY investigate any and all deaths or injuries... I repeat myself for emphasis.
|
On July 01 2011 22:43 Mackin wrote:[ + Show Spoiler +QUOTE] On July 01 2011 18:13 Owarida wrote:On June 30 2011 12:01 Arishok wrote:
In the US it is legal to shoot intruders un-invited on our property if they are deemed a threat, AFAIK
Personally if someone broke into my house I wouldn't get close enough to them to use a knife, regardless of what was legal or not. Well, in the UK most places might not have a gun. If some one broke into my home, I would shoot them. I have no idea if they are armed, if they are really high on meth, if they have intentions of attacking me or my family, I mean, I have no idea. I would much rather take a risk that some one was there with intent to just steal my possessions and kill them, then take the risk of not shooting first and asking questions later, and ending up with a bullet in my chest. I think that my life and the lives of my loved ones is worth protecting, and if some one is going to endanger that, then I wont hesitate.
I mentioned before that I can see where US people are coming from witht the shoot first, ask later position because guns are legal, whereas there are REALLY strict gun laws where I'm from so no petty criminals would be house robbing me.
I can see why you would shoot first, but as I mentioned before would it not make more sense to disable them rather than shoot them dead? I assumed that to get a gun you had to recieve some form of training and I really hope they dont just teach you to shoot in the chest on sight - I feel anyone with a gun should be properly trained to aim for the key points, or even somewhere that will just disable the intruder and prevent them from being able to get close to you/hjave you in range of fire.[/QUOTE]
The key point you are taught to aim for to disable a threat is the center of mass. Trying to shoot for a limb is foolish and could get you killed. They don't teach to shoot for limbs, anywhere. Some professionals are taught to shoot around hostages but shooting for a limb is ridiculous.
|
On July 02 2011 01:55 ShatterZer0 wrote:
This kind of sentencing should only be done in nations where inquiries about such self defense are able to be thoroughly investigated. I remember in Texas a drunk man ran around naked in his neighborhood, and once he crossed into a certain property owner's land he was promptly shot in the chest. He began to run away but was kicked in the back, forced to kneel and then shot by a 12 gauge shotgun in the head.
Such things should not be possible. Too many crimes are committed under the veneer of self defense, if such a thing becomes legal anywhere there must be ZERO doubt of lethal intent and ZERO tolerance for overstepping the boundaries of self defense. Not to mention a police force with the skill and equipment to THOROUGHLY investigate any and all deaths or injuries... I repeat myself for emphasis.
And I am sure that man was charged appropriately. No where in the US is it legal to shoot for trespassing or shoot someone you have detained.
What is your alternative? Charge everyone who kills a home invader?
|
Recently a 50 + year old man was arrested in the UK for stabbing and killing a theif that was in his own home. Thats why this outcry has happened and the law is being changed, because he is going to be charged with murder now.
|
On July 01 2011 18:13 Owarida wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 12:01 Arishok wrote:
In the US it is legal to shoot intruders un-invited on our property if they are deemed a threat, AFAIK
Personally if someone broke into my house I wouldn't get close enough to them to use a knife, regardless of what was legal or not. Well, in the UK most places might not have a gun.
Owning a real gun in the UK is extremely difficult, to actually do so legally you need to have no criminal record, be validated by like 20 people and fill out infinite forms and such. And even then you can be told to fuck off even if you're completely clean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
