|
On June 30 2011 15:20 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 15:12 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho. Have you ever tried to "incapacitate" someone? It is a hell of a lot less reliable than the movies make it look. A gun, however, requires considerably less finesse/luck to remove a threat from the equation. Yes, but that potential thread has a high chance of being dead after that. Well, maybe it's really the country as the poster before you suggests, but i would never, ever use force that has the potential of being deadly. When in doubt, i'd rather die and let the murderer rot in prison later than risk killing someone who never was a threat in the first place.
Maybe you don't mean what you said but I doubt you would really never use potentially lethal force and if you really meant that, I think you're an incredibly weak human being. What if you are completely sure that the person plans on killing you and very much has the ability to kill you if you do not kill him? Would you never launch an artillery shell in the unlikely situation that a foreign country is invading your country?
As for when there is doubt, I think it's insane that you would risk your life (family's life?) over someone who has chosen to put themselves in the threatening of a burglar.
|
On June 30 2011 15:10 abominare wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho. For some reason your country tag makes me giggle about your response. Seriously though why should the burden fall on the victim to minimize the danger the criminal may be in? Granted crime and violent crime in Germany is most likely less than in the states, but hitting some one with a frying pan that potentially has a gun isn't exactly high on my list, I find that .45 acp injected from my 1911 wisens them up
Non sensical. You are afraid to hit burgular with gun, but not afraid to shoot him? If he is in range so are you, or are you willing to risk your life because you belive your a superior gunman compared to him?
|
With no doubt it is for almost every person a very scary situation to meet a burglar in their home. But I think that generally legalising to go as far as stabbing them goes too far.
Let's just take a totally extreme example: A professional heavy weight martial artist catches two young kids (who don't even match his weight combined) in his house and stabs them. Seriously necessary?
I don't mean to say that this was a normal case, but there have to be exeptions to still punish exceeded self defense.
|
On June 30 2011 15:29 teekesselchen wrote:
With no doubt it is for almost every person a very scary situation to meet a burglar in their home. But I think that generally legalising to go as far as stabbing them goes too far.
Let's just take a totally extreme example: A professional heavy weight martial artist catches two young kids (who don't even match his weight combined) in his house and stabs them. Seriously necessary?
I don't mean to say that this was a normal case, but there have to be exeptions to still punish exceeded self defense. In that case stabbing was showing mercy because the heavyweight's 2 fists would be way worse.
|
On June 30 2011 15:23 Gheed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 15:20 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 15:12 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho. Have you ever tried to "incapacitate" someone? It is a hell of a lot less reliable than the movies make it look. A gun, however, requires considerably less finesse/luck to remove a threat from the equation. Yes, but that potential thread has a high chance of being dead after that. Well, maybe it's really the country as the poster before you suggests, but i would never, ever use force that has the potential of being deadly. When in doubt, i'd rather die and let the murderer rot in prison later than risk killing someone who never was a threat in the first place. You'd rather die then kill someone that was trying to kill you? That's some pretty hardcore turning of the other cheek. Do you have kids? Family? People who like you? I'm pretty sure they'd value your life more than that of some asshole burglar.
If i'd kill someone only to later find out that he never was a threat (i.e. was unarmed), i couldn't live with it anyways and probably end up killing myself because of that.
Unless the person is actively shooting at me or trying to stab me (in which case i'd probably already be dead), deadly force is not an option for me, no matter who the other person is. Criminals don't just become criminals because they are born evil, they have a life too. Some of them even have a wife and children. Their life is in no way worth less than mine just because they got on the wrong path somewhere.
There are lots of options to scare intruders away or incapacitate them.
|
On June 30 2011 15:29 Sea_Food wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 15:10 abominare wrote:On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho. For some reason your country tag makes me giggle about your response. Seriously though why should the burden fall on the victim to minimize the danger the criminal may be in? Granted crime and violent crime in Germany is most likely less than in the states, but hitting some one with a frying pan that potentially has a gun isn't exactly high on my list, I find that .45 acp injected from my 1911 wisens them up Non sensical. You are afraid to hit burgular with gun, but not afraid to shoot him? If he is in range so are you, or are you willing to risk your life because you belive your a superior gunman compared to him?
It's about incapacitating them in the safest way possible. That would be a gun. And yes, I do believe I know my house better than any burglar. What is your solution? Run? That is not an option when you have a family.
|
On June 30 2011 15:29 teekesselchen wrote:
With no doubt it is for almost every person a very scary situation to meet a burglar in their home. But I think that generally legalising to go as far as stabbing them goes too far.
Let's just take a totally extreme example: A professional heavy weight martial artist catches two young kids (who don't even match his weight combined) in his house and stabs them. Seriously necessary?
I don't mean to say that this was a normal case, but there have to be exeptions to still punish exceeded self defense.
The nice thing about blades and guns, is that they, in whole or in part, negate size and skill differences...
|
I live in a Castle Doctrine state. Also had to deal with a burglar, but I didn't shoot him. I was sleeping at about lunchtime and he broke in thinking nobody was home.
Edit: To clarify, had he not left immediately or made any dangerous move I would have filled him with 9mm rounds and slept soundly that night.
|
On June 30 2011 15:29 teekesselchen wrote:
With no doubt it is for almost every person a very scary situation to meet a burglar in their home. But I think that generally legalising to go as far as stabbing them goes too far.
Let's just take a totally extreme example: A professional heavy weight martial artist catches two young kids (who don't even match his weight combined) in his house and stabs them. Seriously necessary?
I don't mean to say that this was a normal case, but there have to be exeptions to still punish exceeded self defense.
He doesn't know if those kids are armed are not. He is justified.
|
I wish this was the case in my country too.
|
On June 30 2011 15:32 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 15:29 Sea_Food wrote:On June 30 2011 15:10 abominare wrote:On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho. For some reason your country tag makes me giggle about your response. Seriously though why should the burden fall on the victim to minimize the danger the criminal may be in? Granted crime and violent crime in Germany is most likely less than in the states, but hitting some one with a frying pan that potentially has a gun isn't exactly high on my list, I find that .45 acp injected from my 1911 wisens them up Non sensical. You are afraid to hit burgular with gun, but not afraid to shoot him? If he is in range so are you, or are you willing to risk your life because you belive your a superior gunman compared to him? It's about incapacitating them in the safest way possible. That would be a gun. And yes, I do believe I know my house better than any burglar. What is your solution? Run? That is not an option when you have a family.
Actually because i live in a nation where getting a personal gun is so hard I dont have the option to shoot the burglar, but if i did I still belive pretending to be asleep and calling police quietly is the safest option.
|
On June 30 2011 15:32 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 15:23 Gheed wrote:On June 30 2011 15:20 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 15:12 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho. Have you ever tried to "incapacitate" someone? It is a hell of a lot less reliable than the movies make it look. A gun, however, requires considerably less finesse/luck to remove a threat from the equation. Yes, but that potential thread has a high chance of being dead after that. Well, maybe it's really the country as the poster before you suggests, but i would never, ever use force that has the potential of being deadly. When in doubt, i'd rather die and let the murderer rot in prison later than risk killing someone who never was a threat in the first place. You'd rather die then kill someone that was trying to kill you? That's some pretty hardcore turning of the other cheek. Do you have kids? Family? People who like you? I'm pretty sure they'd value your life more than that of some asshole burglar. If i'd kill someone only to later find out that he never was a threat (i.e. was unarmed), i couldn't live with it anyways and probably end up killing myself because of that. Unless the person is actively shooting at me or trying to stab me (in which case i'd probably already be dead), deadly force is not an option for me, no matter who the other person is. Criminals don't just become criminals because they are born evil, they have a life too. Some of them even have a wife and children. Their life is in no way worth less than mine just because they got on the wrong path somewhere. There are lots of options to scare intruders away or incapacitate them.
What if someone was holding a fake gun to your family. Would you feel bad over killing them? That is no different than someone who breaks into your house. They are putting themselves into a threatening position in which they have the potential to kill and it is not up to you to take the risk of assuming that they don't.
|
On June 30 2011 15:41 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 15:32 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 15:23 Gheed wrote:On June 30 2011 15:20 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 15:12 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho. Have you ever tried to "incapacitate" someone? It is a hell of a lot less reliable than the movies make it look. A gun, however, requires considerably less finesse/luck to remove a threat from the equation. Yes, but that potential thread has a high chance of being dead after that. Well, maybe it's really the country as the poster before you suggests, but i would never, ever use force that has the potential of being deadly. When in doubt, i'd rather die and let the murderer rot in prison later than risk killing someone who never was a threat in the first place. You'd rather die then kill someone that was trying to kill you? That's some pretty hardcore turning of the other cheek. Do you have kids? Family? People who like you? I'm pretty sure they'd value your life more than that of some asshole burglar. If i'd kill someone only to later find out that he never was a threat (i.e. was unarmed), i couldn't live with it anyways and probably end up killing myself because of that. Unless the person is actively shooting at me or trying to stab me (in which case i'd probably already be dead), deadly force is not an option for me, no matter who the other person is. Criminals don't just become criminals because they are born evil, they have a life too. Some of them even have a wife and children. Their life is in no way worth less than mine just because they got on the wrong path somewhere. There are lots of options to scare intruders away or incapacitate them. What if someone was holding a fake gun to your family. Would you feel bad over killing them? That is no different than someone who breaks into your house. They are putting themselves into a threatening position in which they have the potential to kill and it is not up to you to take the risk of assuming that they don't.
The typical strawman argument...
No, i still wouldn't use deadly force. Anyways, that situation is totally unrelated to this thread as a burglary usually doesn't turn into an hostage situation. If it does, give him what he wants and later call the police and get your stuff back and that guy into prison. If your property is worth more than a human life, your priorities are really messed up.
|
Edit: Wrong thread, why do I do this so often?
On topic: Seems like a pretty common sense law, glad to see this get "clarified." Were most British under the impression that stabbing a burgler was illegal before this?
|
Wow, its sad to see how few people here value human life. Or think that killing is the appropiate answer for stealing. Yes, stealing is wrong, but stabbing is way off.
|
On June 30 2011 15:40 Sea_Food wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 15:32 OsoVega wrote:On June 30 2011 15:29 Sea_Food wrote:On June 30 2011 15:10 abominare wrote:On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho. For some reason your country tag makes me giggle about your response. Seriously though why should the burden fall on the victim to minimize the danger the criminal may be in? Granted crime and violent crime in Germany is most likely less than in the states, but hitting some one with a frying pan that potentially has a gun isn't exactly high on my list, I find that .45 acp injected from my 1911 wisens them up Non sensical. You are afraid to hit burgular with gun, but not afraid to shoot him? If he is in range so are you, or are you willing to risk your life because you belive your a superior gunman compared to him? It's about incapacitating them in the safest way possible. That would be a gun. And yes, I do believe I know my house better than any burglar. What is your solution? Run? That is not an option when you have a family. Actually because i live in a nation where getting a personal gun is so hard I dont have the option to shoot the burglar, but if i did I still belive pretending to be asleep and calling police quietly is the safest option.
That's safe, but you'll likely never see your shit again. Do you have insurance for that?
|
|
|
On June 30 2011 15:54 Usul wrote:
Wow, its sad to see how few people here value human life. Or think that killing is the appropiate answer for stealing. Yes, stealing is wrong, but stabbing is way off.
You don't know what intruders in your home are planning on doing.
I'm surprised so many people (Europeans) have posted as if they believe police always solve crimes and get your stuff back and their response time to a call is 12 seconds while people who commit burglaries are completely safe to be around and even if they weren't you'd rather die than defend yourself.
That said, I will admit to valuing the life of someone breaking into my home very little.
|
On June 30 2011 15:20 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 15:12 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho. Have you ever tried to "incapacitate" someone? It is a hell of a lot less reliable than the movies make it look. A gun, however, requires considerably less finesse/luck to remove a threat from the equation. Yes, but that potential thread has a high chance of being dead after that. Well, maybe it's really the country as the poster before you suggests, but i would never, ever use force that has the potential of being deadly. When in doubt, i'd rather die and let the murderer rot in prison later than risk killing someone who never was a threat in the first place.
That is your view and I respect it. However, I believe that the law does and should allow me to exercise my own right to self-defense against a potential threat in my home. I'd be haunted forever after killing someone, I'm sure, but I'd rather live after shooting a confused sleepwalker than die after hesitating to put one in a serial killer. Differences in disposition, I suppose.
|
On June 30 2011 15:16 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 15:05 exog wrote:
Ive thought a bit about house defence. I think knife is a bad option because if you bring it to a chaotic fight in darkness with a stranger it is very possible to have two unfavourable outcomes:
1. He takes the knife and kills you/hurt you bad.
2. You kill him when he stole a bread and go to prison for using excessive force. (A bit dumb example for this thread, but a relevant point in basically every civilized country).
Gun also has many disadvantages, with bullets hurting others through the walls, also see point 2 above. Guns and knives have little "in-between" options, maim or kill is basically random with a stab/shot.
up to me to
I concluded that some form of metal-club should be the best, where you can maintain distance, but be able to bash him bad without killing him. Buckshot generally, won't penetrate a wall but it depends. I would not use FMJ pistol rounds, rifle rounds or slugs to defend my home. You should also train yourself never to shoot without being completely aware of your target and what's behind it, even in stressful situations. Guns do have an in between, the sound of a round being racked into the chamber and your voice. If they aren't running at that point, it is foolish not to shoot to kill them. To me, not killing the person is hardly a concern when my life may be in imminent danger as he is the one who chose to put himself in a threatening position and it is not up to me to take the risk. Your scenario with a bat has an unfavorable outcome too. 1. He kills you.
Are we talking about standard fare drywall? Buckshot will go through 6 normal sized sheets easily. If it won't go though drywall it probably shouldnt be relied on to stop a person....
On June 30 2011 15:33 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 15:29 teekesselchen wrote:
With no doubt it is for almost every person a very scary situation to meet a burglar in their home. But I think that generally legalising to go as far as stabbing them goes too far.
Let's just take a totally extreme example: A professional heavy weight martial artist catches two young kids (who don't even match his weight combined) in his house and stabs them. Seriously necessary?
I don't mean to say that this was a normal case, but there have to be exeptions to still punish exceeded self defense. The nice thing about blades and guns, is that they, in whole or in part, negate size and skill differences...
Not really. They magnify skill difference. But it always gives the underdog a chance, even if the other person is far more skilled. If I went hand to hand with Travis Haley he would win 100% of the time. If we went with guns, i would have 1 chance out of 10,000.
On June 30 2011 15:29 Sea_Food wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 15:10 abominare wrote:On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho. For some reason your country tag makes me giggle about your response. Seriously though why should the burden fall on the victim to minimize the danger the criminal may be in? Granted crime and violent crime in Germany is most likely less than in the states, but hitting some one with a frying pan that potentially has a gun isn't exactly high on my list, I find that .45 acp injected from my 1911 wisens them up Non sensical. You are afraid to hit burgular with gun, but not afraid to shoot him? If he is in range so are you, or are you willing to risk your life because you belive your a superior gunman compared to him?
Bro, would you prefer to be in 10 feet away from a guy with a gun and have to be 1-2 feet away to be able to take action or 10 feet away with both of you able to take measures immediately?
Most owners of firearms for defensive purposes have trained with them in some measure (even if only going to the range every other month) and most burglars do not have a regular training or maintenance regimen. Not only that, the homeowner has defenders advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
