As I wait for the Hellgate Tokyo website to load I ran across this:
Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has said a householder who knifes a burglar will not have committed a criminal offence under plans to clarify the law on self-defence in England.
He told the BBC people were entitled to use "whatever force necessary" to protect themselves and their homes.
David Cameron recently said the issue should be put "beyond doubt".
Labour said the law was "already clear" and the remarks were a "smokescreen" to hide confusion over sentencing changes.
Essentially they plan to clarify 'reasonable force' in regards to home invasions (UK).
I think it's a good move; to know exactly what you can and can't do so you don't have to deal with bs later on. Also, in the words of someone or other "fuck the fucking fuckers".
Now if only they could prevent burglars from suing you when they hurt themselves breaking into your place.
Edit: Big love for the God Emperor Boxer! Stabbing rights against Boxer haters?
This is actually awesome and hopefully only results in positive things. This was always one of those laws that pissed me the fuck off when applicable. Absolute mockery of an already overwhelmed and often silly justice system.
i read this article this morning as well. good thing they're just clearing it up so people know they can actually defend themselves in a home invasion.
However does anybody know what the rule is about a theif running wth your stuff? you can shoot him in the back right? because your still defending your property which is in their posession...
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.
no it is not. you are only allowed to use equal force that they are using upon you. If they pull out a gun, then you are allowed to open fire. I wouldnt want to be on your property on accident!
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.
no it is not. you are only allowed to use equal force that they are using upon you. If they pull out a gun, then you are allowed to open fire. I wouldnt want to be on your property on accident!
Depends on the state and specific circumstances.
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.
Do you have enough valuables to make a plane ticket to New Zealand worth my time and money?
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.
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.
no it is not. you are only allowed to use equal force that they are using upon you. If they pull out a gun, then you are allowed to open fire. I wouldnt want to be on your property on accident!
There is the "stepping on front yard" type of trespassing, and the "get inside the house" type. If I have a gun I am not going to wait until you pull out that gun and show it: I may have shitty reflexes or I may panic at the sight of your gun. I am going to protect myself and act first.
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.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
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.
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.
exactly. God would not discriminate between burglars and friends, they are all his children. why are you?
All I can say is if someone ever broke into my apartment and came at me with a knife I wouldn't think twice about opening fire to defend myself over getting stabbed or killed. Good to see some of that is being cleared up for the UK at least.
The part that gets me though is when someone breaks into your house and then falls on a knife or something stupid and then wins after suing...that's just messed up.
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.
lol I had a good laugh
On June 30 2011 12:01 tomyoru wrote: all they are doing is clarifying?
that's good i guess....
It's the difference between only cleaning bloodstains off the floor and cleaning bloodstains AND going to prison/paying the burglars medical bills.
Cool, so I wanna kill someone, I just invite him at home, break a window and stab him ? As long as there is no witness it's fine. And even if there's a witness, since no charges will be pressed against me, it should be fine.
Even if someone saw me in the street opening the door and shaking my victim's hand, unless he specifically learns later in the newspaper that I killed that guy and is able to recognize both of us he has no reason to mention it to anyone.
edit : If a burglar enters your home with a knife and you stab him, it should be considered "right of self defense", right ?
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.
so the OP is talking about robbers and here you are making a ridiculous comment about "guests".
I hereby dub thee, Sir Troll of Trollington
On topic though, I think its about time that the justice system made clarification on these laws. Hearing stories about burglars suing the owners of the houses they break into is just so damn infuriating
On June 30 2011 12:15 endy wrote: Cool, so I wanna kill someone, I just invite him at home, break a window and stab him ? As long as there is no witness it's fine. And even if there's a witness, since no charges will be pressed against me, it should be fine.
Even if someone saw me in the street opening the door and shaking my victim's hand, unless he specifically learns later in the newspaper that I killed that guy and is able to recognize both of us he has no reason to mention it to anyone.
Dude...if there are no witnesses chances are you wont get caught anyway regardless of whether or not you invited him anywhere
And if there is a witness and he calls the cops, of course charges will be pressed against you
While this may sound like a good thing at first, I can't help to imagine grey area scenarios in abuse of this rule.
For example: A person invites someone over, kills him/her, then reports the victim as burglar.
Of course, they would probably investigate deeper to see if it's reasonable. But I'm just skeptical if it will really work that well. Often times there are some sort of loopholes in regulations.
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.
In my state in the US, you can only legally use lethal force against someone in your home if you can reasonably demonstrate that your own life was in danger. Other states though do have slightly less stringent requirements for lethal force. This is a little odd coming from the UK because of the decidedly smaller gun presence and stabbing a robber is extremely risky
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.
no it is not. you are only allowed to use equal force that they are using upon you. If they pull out a gun, then you are allowed to open fire. I wouldnt want to be on your property on accident!
Your statement does not apply to all of the United States. Certain states and jurisdictions have Castle Doctrine laws where the lawful occupant of a home is legally authorized to use deadly force against intruders. There is no equality of force requirement in those circumstances.
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.
no it is not. you are only allowed to use equal force that they are using upon you. If they pull out a gun, then you are allowed to open fire. I wouldnt want to be on your property on accident!
but if you're being belligerent and reaching in your pocket then i have reasonable cause to shoot you. but keep in mind, if you're dead who knows if this previous act took place? so what you said is correct, however, there are technicalities :x.
also seems like common sense to me :X but good thing it is clarified, hopefully this will deter people from burglary.
On June 30 2011 12:20 Ryshi wrote: While this may sound like a good thing at first, I can't help to imagine grey area scenarios in abuse of this rule.
For example: A person invites someone over, kills him/her, then reports the victim as burglar.
Of course, they would probably investigate deeper to see if it's reasonable. But I'm just skeptical if it will really work that well. Often times there are some sort of loopholes in regulations.
I doubt anyone has a person that they would both like to murder but is a stranger enough that they could convince people he was a random burglar.
Some states in america have really lax laws on this. the castle doctrine here in PA pretty much says you can kill any uninvited guests in your house as long as they pose a threat, regardless of the duty to retreat law. Also some states recognize the stand-you-ground law which means you can kill anyone in self defense as long as you feel threatened. Florida is kind of known for having the most relaxed stand-your-ground laws in the country. most states have a duty-to-retreat law in place which means you have to flew if its at all possible.
On June 30 2011 12:20 Ryshi wrote: While this may sound like a good thing at first, I can't help to imagine grey area scenarios in abuse of this rule.
For example: A person invites someone over, kills him/her, then reports the victim as burglar.
Of course, they would probably investigate deeper to see if it's reasonable. But I'm just skeptical if it will really work that well. Often times there are some sort of loopholes in regulations.
Police investigators aren't that stupid to realize things like the LACK of a broken window, or a door that's been forced open.
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.
Wow I laughed a lot... Thanks for that.
I'm not sure what I think about this law. Naturally it is good for the case in which you deem the person as a reasonable threat, but I always worry about "unintended consequences" of laws like this. I'm not sure I can really think of any but lawyers are pretty good about stuff like that.
On June 30 2011 12:15 endy wrote: Cool, so I wanna kill someone, I just invite him at home, break a window and stab him ? As long as there is no witness it's fine. And even if there's a witness, since no charges will be pressed against me, it should be fine.
Even if someone saw me in the street opening the door and shaking my victim's hand, unless he specifically learns later in the newspaper that I killed that guy and is able to recognize both of us he has no reason to mention it to anyone.
Dude...if there are no witnesses chances are you wont get caught anyway regardless of whether or not you invited him anywhere
If there's no witness, you still need to get rid of a body, which is imo the part of the crime where you will have the most chances to get caught. With that law, the police themselves will get rid of the body for you !
On June 30 2011 12:17 Supamang wrote: And if there is a witness and he calls the cops, of course charges will be pressed against you
I wasn't talking about someone who witnessed the crime directly, but a random guy in the street who sees you opening the door for your victim. He won't go spontaneously to the police station and say "Hi, I saw that guy opening the door to another guy" unless he learns specifically in the newspaper that there has been a crime there AND remember the exact address of a perfectly normal and uninteresting event (someone opening a door). And if the newspaper doesn't publish a picture of your or of the victim I doubt the witness will remember anything.
Just make sure that your neighbors who will be obviously questioned by police later don't see you opening him the door and you'll be fine
There are plenty of actual cases where innocent people are confused for burglars and are attacked or killed for trespassing.
And even besides that, how does a criminal deserve to die? They break the law. It is immoral. But killing a criminal on sight is also immoral. Your plasma tv isn't worth more than the life of a criminal.
On June 30 2011 12:15 endy wrote: Cool, so I wanna kill someone, I just invite him at home, break a window and stab him ? As long as there is no witness it's fine. And even if there's a witness, since no charges will be pressed against me, it should be fine.
Even if someone saw me in the street opening the door and shaking my victim's hand, unless he specifically learns later in the newspaper that I killed that guy and is able to recognize both of us he has no reason to mention it to anyone.
edit : If a burglar enters your home with a knife and you stab him, it should be considered "right of self defense", right ?
Wow you're so good at devising fool-proof murder plans.
On June 30 2011 12:20 Ryshi wrote: While this may sound like a good thing at first, I can't help to imagine grey area scenarios in abuse of this rule.
For example: A person invites someone over, kills him/her, then reports the victim as burglar.
Of course, they would probably investigate deeper to see if it's reasonable. But I'm just skeptical if it will really work that well. Often times there are some sort of loopholes in regulations.
Police investigators aren't that stupid to realize things like the LACK of a broken window, or a door that's been forced open.
I clearly said "reasonable". The murderer could also create false evidence you know, like attach gloves + break own window.
My example may not be completely applicable to the rule, but what I'm just trying to get at is there are times regulations fail to cover certain areas and was wondering if anyone could provide perhaps some insightful scenario instead of just accept a rule without much critical thinking.
On June 30 2011 12:20 Ryshi wrote: While this may sound like a good thing at first, I can't help to imagine grey area scenarios in abuse of this rule.
For example: A person invites someone over, kills him/her, then reports the victim as burglar.
Of course, they would probably investigate deeper to see if it's reasonable. But I'm just skeptical if it will really work that well. Often times there are some sort of loopholes in regulations.
I doubt anyone has a person that they would both like to murder but is a stranger enough that they could convince people he was a random burglar.
Well normally there isn't, but there are always the odd scenarios. (eg. random internet psychopaths influenced by some horror story). Of course, the regulations may be more detailed and cover these areas as I have not looked into the details.
On June 30 2011 12:32 Hekisui wrote: There are plenty of actual cases where innocent people are confused for burglars and are attacked or killed for trespassing.
Since a burglar is someone who breaks into a building with the purpose of committing a crime, I'm confused as to how you can confuse an innocent person for a burglar. That seems rather difficult to do. "Oh hey, person in my home that I don't know or remember inviting in, you must be a family member!"
And even besides that, how does a criminal deserve to die? They break the law. It is immoral. But killing a criminal on sight is also immoral. Your plasma tv isn't worth more than the life of a criminal.
Burglars deserve to die. They're pieces of shit who break INTO YOUR HOME, and intend to do God knows what. You want to break into my garage and steal my car, fine, you want to break into my home, I will fucking cut you.
I have a feeling this is more for the deterrent factor - if you know you can be legally stabbed in the face when you're burgling(?) a property, some people will think twice about doing it. Still, someone will end up being stabbed. Robberies will continue and it's laws like this that allow people to defend themselves. Someone asked what would happen if the thief was already running with your stuff - the Justice Minister stated that this would not be covered. Basically if you find yourself confronted by a thief in your home you can defend yourself. You don't have the right to chase him down.
Laws seem to vary from state to state in the US - some places have recorded cases of homeowners being sued because thieves have injured themselves when trying to steal their property, which seems grossly wrong. Other states have recorded incidences of people being shot for stepping on someone's front lawn, which likewise seems grotesque. Clarifications in the law like this seems like a sensible step forward.
It's stupid if someone breaks into your house and tries to steal your shit and you try to stop them, you should get punished. Seriously makes no sense to me. I'm glad at least some places are doing this.
On June 30 2011 12:15 endy wrote: Cool, so I wanna kill someone, I just invite him at home, break a window and stab him ? As long as there is no witness it's fine. And even if there's a witness, since no charges will be pressed against me, it should be fine.
Even if someone saw me in the street opening the door and shaking my victim's hand, unless he specifically learns later in the newspaper that I killed that guy and is able to recognize both of us he has no reason to mention it to anyone.
Dude...if there are no witnesses chances are you wont get caught anyway regardless of whether or not you invited him anywhere
If there's no witness, you still need to get rid of a body, which is imo the part of the crime where you will have the most chances to get caught. With that law, the police themselves will get rid of the body for you !
On June 30 2011 12:17 Supamang wrote: And if there is a witness and he calls the cops, of course charges will be pressed against you
I wasn't talking about someone who witnessed the crime directly, but a random guy in the street who sees you opening the door for your victim. He won't go spontaneously to the police station and say "Hi, I saw that guy opening the door to another guy" unless he learns specifically in the newspaper that there has been a crime there AND remember the exact address of a perfectly normal and uninteresting event (someone opening a door). And if the newspaper doesn't publish a picture of your or of the victim I doubt the witness will remember anything.
Just make sure that your neighbors who will be obviously questioned by police later don't see you opening him the door and you'll be fine
You seem to be suggesting that the police will take the killer's word as truth automatically. What happened to an investigation? Asking around the people who knew the victim and the killer about what motives either might have had for murder or robbery?
I dont know, I just dont see the police being fooled by this kind of scheme.
And the witness example you gave wouldnt affect a murder investigation regardless of this law
On June 30 2011 12:32 Hekisui wrote: There are plenty of actual cases where innocent people are confused for burglars and are attacked or killed for trespassing.
And even besides that, how does a criminal deserve to die? They break the law. It is immoral. But killing a criminal on sight is also immoral. Your plasma tv isn't worth more than the life of a criminal.
It's a criminal man, he may be armed. When you see a criminal in your house, you don't have the time to ask him for a cup of tea and talk shit over, there could be a hole between your eyes in mere seconds. Instincts say that your in danger when a criminal is in your home and you take action. Personally I would not shoot with the purpose to kill but rather put him down until cops arrive, if he dies though w/e can't be helped.
On June 30 2011 12:32 Hekisui wrote: There are plenty of actual cases where innocent people are confused for burglars and are attacked or killed for trespassing.
And even besides that, how does a criminal deserve to die? They break the law. It is immoral. But killing a criminal on sight is also immoral. Your plasma tv isn't worth more than the life of a criminal.
the shooter is only justified if the assailant broke into the home or attempted to commit some other property crime such as arson, and simple trespass is neither.-wikipedia (on Castle Law)
On June 30 2011 12:32 Hekisui wrote: There are plenty of actual cases where innocent people are confused for burglars and are attacked or killed for trespassing.
And even besides that, how does a criminal deserve to die? They break the law. It is immoral. But killing a criminal on sight is also immoral. Your plasma tv isn't worth more than the life of a criminal.
These laws are for when the intruder is a threat to your safety. Its illegal to hurt/kill someone when they are not a threat IE someone is going for your wallet on the counter and you blow him away.
On June 30 2011 12:37 Ryshi wrote: I clearly said "reasonable". The murderer could also create false evidence you know, like attach gloves + break own window.
My example may not be completely applicable to the rule, but what I'm just trying to get at is there are times regulations fail to cover certain areas and was wondering if anyone could provide perhaps some insightful scenario instead of just accept a rule without much critical thinking.
Your example is ridiculous. You certainly can't call the person you want to kill to invite him over (shows you had familiarity with the 'burglar', making it unlikely that he was a burglar), so you must invite him over via face to face discussion. If you did that, I doubt most people would randomly accept a stranger's invitation to their house. So that basically limits it to people you know. Burglars usually are NOT people you know, they're fucking lowlifes who break into homes with the intent of committing a crime.
1. It is very rare, a very small percentage of burglars committed are by people known familiarly to the victim. 2. Plenty of evidence can be lacking. example: lack of deceased's footprints by the door. lack of tools used to force entry on deceased's person. lack of fingerprints on tools. Your fingerprints/DNA on the tools. Unexplained time gaps between estimated time of death and you calling the police. Witness testimony from friends and family of deceased who will say "He was invited over, you're a lying sack of shit".
to people saying its immoral or some shit haven't seen what happens when burglaries go bad. A case near where i live 4 people broke into a guys house and duct taped him and his family to chairs. sad thing is that one of the men duct taped they're faces...they suffocated. someone breaks in, shot first. oh but make sure they're facing you.
On June 30 2011 12:32 Hekisui wrote: There are plenty of actual cases where innocent people are confused for burglars and are attacked or killed for trespassing.
And even besides that, how does a criminal deserve to die? They break the law. It is immoral. But killing a criminal on sight is also immoral. Your plasma tv isn't worth more than the life of a criminal.
These laws are for when the intruder is a threat to your safety. Its illegal to hurt/kill someone when they are not a threat IE someone is going for your wallet on the counter and you blow him away.
On June 30 2011 12:45 SC2Joker wrote: to people saying its immoral or some shit haven't seen what happens when burglaries go bad. A case near where i live 4 people broke into a guys house and duct taped him and his family to chairs. sad thing is that one of the men duct taped they're faces...they suffocated. someone breaks in, shot first. oh but make sure they're facing you.
I remember that case, the father was the only one alive, the mother got raped, and her and the children was still in the house when they lit it on fire(or did they stab them? I forgot)
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.
no it is not. you are only allowed to use equal force that they are using upon you. If they pull out a gun, then you are allowed to open fire. I wouldnt want to be on your property on accident!
sorry, it was dark, since the lights were out when he broke in (even if the lights were on, the lights were off..) and i thought i saw him reach for a gun, so i put three in him
On June 30 2011 12:15 endy wrote: Cool, so I wanna kill someone, I just invite him at home, break a window and stab him ? As long as there is no witness it's fine. And even if there's a witness, since no charges will be pressed against me, it should be fine.
Even if someone saw me in the street opening the door and shaking my victim's hand, unless he specifically learns later in the newspaper that I killed that guy and is able to recognize both of us he has no reason to mention it to anyone.
Dude...if there are no witnesses chances are you wont get caught anyway regardless of whether or not you invited him anywhere
If there's no witness, you still need to get rid of a body, which is imo the part of the crime where you will have the most chances to get caught. With that law, the police themselves will get rid of the body for you !
On June 30 2011 12:17 Supamang wrote: And if there is a witness and he calls the cops, of course charges will be pressed against you
I wasn't talking about someone who witnessed the crime directly, but a random guy in the street who sees you opening the door for your victim. He won't go spontaneously to the police station and say "Hi, I saw that guy opening the door to another guy" unless he learns specifically in the newspaper that there has been a crime there AND remember the exact address of a perfectly normal and uninteresting event (someone opening a door). And if the newspaper doesn't publish a picture of your or of the victim I doubt the witness will remember anything.
Just make sure that your neighbors who will be obviously questioned by police later don't see you opening him the door and you'll be fine
You seem to be suggesting that the police will take the killer's word as truth automatically. What happened to an investigation? Asking around the people who knew the victim and the killer about what motives either might have had for murder or robbery?
I dont know, I just dont see the police being fooled by this kind of scheme.
And the witness example you gave wouldnt affect a murder investigation regardless of this law
They won't take it as truth automatically, and obviously if the victim is someone who lives around, it's not gonna work. Regarding the investigation, I'm sure police will not make as much effort as they would if someone was missing and they were looking for the corpse.
Anyway, this law will not make it easy for anyone to kill someone else, but it sure creates a grey zone.
I wish I lived in a country with laws like that. I would get a nice sharp sword or a gun if its legal to own, since I wouldn't want to get into knife fighting range with a criminal who potentially could have HIV/diseases and infect you if they bleed on you during the fight.
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.
no it is not. you are only allowed to use equal force that they are using upon you. If they pull out a gun, then you are allowed to open fire. I wouldnt want to be on your property on accident!
Lawlz, the way you phrased your reply was hilarious! But yeah if it was my house, I would probably shoot them if I can unless its my neighbor and gardener since I have high fences and there is almost no way to accidentally "stumble" into my backyard.
On June 30 2011 12:15 endy wrote: Cool, so I wanna kill someone, I just invite him at home, break a window and stab him ? As long as there is no witness it's fine. And even if there's a witness, since no charges will be pressed against me, it should be fine.
Even if someone saw me in the street opening the door and shaking my victim's hand, unless he specifically learns later in the newspaper that I killed that guy and is able to recognize both of us he has no reason to mention it to anyone.
Dude...if there are no witnesses chances are you wont get caught anyway regardless of whether or not you invited him anywhere
If there's no witness, you still need to get rid of a body, which is imo the part of the crime where you will have the most chances to get caught. With that law, the police themselves will get rid of the body for you !
On June 30 2011 12:17 Supamang wrote: And if there is a witness and he calls the cops, of course charges will be pressed against you
I wasn't talking about someone who witnessed the crime directly, but a random guy in the street who sees you opening the door for your victim. He won't go spontaneously to the police station and say "Hi, I saw that guy opening the door to another guy" unless he learns specifically in the newspaper that there has been a crime there AND remember the exact address of a perfectly normal and uninteresting event (someone opening a door). And if the newspaper doesn't publish a picture of your or of the victim I doubt the witness will remember anything.
Just make sure that your neighbors who will be obviously questioned by police later don't see you opening him the door and you'll be fine
You seem to be suggesting that the police will take the killer's word as truth automatically. What happened to an investigation? Asking around the people who knew the victim and the killer about what motives either might have had for murder or robbery?
I dont know, I just dont see the police being fooled by this kind of scheme.
And the witness example you gave wouldnt affect a murder investigation regardless of this law
They won't take it as truth automatically, and obviously if the victim is someone who lives around, it's not gonna work. Regarding the investigation, I'm sure police will not make as much effort as they would if someone was missing and they were looking for the corpse.
Anyway, this law will not make it easy for anyone to kill someone else, but it sure creates a grey zone.
You obviously don't watch videos where people suddenly out of no where pull a gun on you in a second and shoot you dead. If someone's in my house, I wouldn't be taking a chance like that. I can give you links to videos where this stuff happens if you want.
It's my house, I shoot first, ask questions later.
On June 30 2011 12:05 coZen wrote: no it is not. you are only allowed to use equal force that they are using upon you. If they pull out a gun, then you are allowed to open fire. I wouldnt want to be on your property on accident!
Actually, in most states you have free reign to cut off the head of a trespasser into your home at night. You are free to shoot him full of bullets if you want. You don't have to wait for him to do jack shit.
How do you know if a person is in your home with the intention to steal? And how do you prove this is the care or not in court?
There's a famous case of a tourist in Italy that went out the backside of a night club, partially drunk, returned to find the door closed, then wandered around and got onto a roof, since it was an area build on a hill slope, and then on someone's balcony. It turned out the person living there was a policeman who had a gun and he immediately shot the drunk tourist.
He then actually went ahead to forge false evidence.
There are more cases but I don't remember them clearly.
On June 30 2011 12:57 Hekisui wrote: How do you know if a person is in your home with the intention to steal? And how do you prove this is the care or not in court?
There's a famous case of a tourist in Italy that went out the backside of a night club, partially drunk, returned to find the door closed, then wandered around and got onto a roof, since it was an area build on a hill slope, and then on someone's balcony. It turned out the person living there was a policeman who had a gun and he immediately shot the drunk tourist.
He then actually went ahead to forge false evidence.
There are more cases but I don't remember them clearly.
Moral of the story? Don't drink more than you can handle.
On June 30 2011 12:55 RoosterSamurai wrote: Just make sure that if you do take action against would-be attackers, you kill them. Otherwise they'll just come back and sue you into oblivion.
A common misconception. You owe no duty to trespassers in your home -- no claim of negligent tort. You did shoot them, so that is the tort of battery. Claim self defense and move for summary judgment. Case closed.
On June 30 2011 13:05 duk3 wrote: Unfortunately, as much as I support these kind of laws allowing people to defend themselves, these kind of problems occur: http://newsok.com/article/3567368#disqus_thread
The funny thing is though, the law does not allow you to shoot at random people passing through on your property. That rancher was probably charged with attempted homicide (and I hope he was found guilty).
On June 30 2011 12:37 Ryshi wrote: I clearly said "reasonable". The murderer could also create false evidence you know, like attach gloves + break own window.
My example may not be completely applicable to the rule, but what I'm just trying to get at is there are times regulations fail to cover certain areas and was wondering if anyone could provide perhaps some insightful scenario instead of just accept a rule without much critical thinking.
Your example is ridiculous. You certainly can't call the person you want to kill to invite him over (shows you had familiarity with the 'burglar', making it unlikely that he was a burglar), so you must invite him over via face to face discussion. If you did that, I doubt most people would randomly accept a stranger's invitation to their house. So that basically limits it to people you know. Burglars usually are NOT people you know, they're fucking lowlifes who break into homes with the intent of committing a crime.
1. It is very rare, a very small percentage of burglars committed are by people known familiarly to the victim. 2. Plenty of evidence can be lacking. example: lack of deceased's footprints by the door. lack of tools used to force entry on deceased's person. lack of fingerprints on tools. Your fingerprints/DNA on the tools. Unexplained time gaps between estimated time of death and you calling the police. Witness testimony from friends and family of deceased who will say "He was invited over, you're a lying sack of shit".
I never said my example was a concrete, but I've been to a random stranger's house after looking at a stranger's ad on craigslist (a guitar amp) and I asked if I could test it, so I went in. In retrospect, it was quite dangerous, but I was young at the time. However, I do agree that this example is inapplicable because if I disappeared perhaps my email/phone exchanges could be traced and this person would be tracked down.
Your second point is quite convincing, and I may not be a smart enough to plan out the proper plot, but in case there is someone who can (then again, this person probably wouldn't need this rule at all and just kill the person without a trace of evidence). I don't mean to shoot down your opinions btw, in case you were feeling that way. As a graduate in audit, I'm just naturally skeptical, especially with my lack of knowledge with this regulation.
On June 30 2011 13:05 duk3 wrote: Unfortunately, as much as I support these kind of laws allowing people to defend themselves, these kind of problems occur: http://newsok.com/article/3567368#disqus_thread
The funny thing is though, the law does not allow you to shoot at random people passing through on your property. That rancher was probably charged with attempted homicide (and I hope he was found guilty).
You seem like a lawyer, how many cases do you come across where the burglars have a history of extreme violence against people, compared to burglars that don't. I'm guessing 95% of burglars have a history of violence.
This is a good clarification, but I feel that it has a significance outside of its ruling. First off, the ruling revealed the ridiculousness of the current court system and society in the terms of self defense. In relation to the U.S., it reveals the folly of trying to defend yourself because of the legal ramifications of injuring the "helpless" burglar. In the United Kingdom, I believe its illegal to own a gun, which rules out the possibility of shooting the criminal. However, guns are an entirely different issue, but the rule has now made it possible to defend yourself. No longer does one have to worry of the repercussions of assaulting somone who broke into your house. The law is solid, but if society thought with their brain, time could be spent fixing and improving the current system. (When I say society, I mean the people who do not understand why it is wrong to hurt a person who breaks into your house. No disrespect was intended towards any person who identifies themselves with society, because whether we like it or not, we are all part of this system.)
On June 30 2011 13:10 Greatness wrote: You seem like a lawyer, how many cases do you come across where the burglars have a history of extreme violence against people, compared to burglars that don't. I'm guessing 95% of burglars have a history of violence.
I'm not a lawyer...I did study criminal law a bit, though. I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of burglars break and enter with the intent to steal things. But a fairly good percentage do so with the intent of raping, or kidnapping, or killing the residents. I wouldn't take the chance -- nobody should. A resident should be allowed to use any force necessary to stop a burglar from taking another breath. Many states consider burglary to be on the same level as a violent crime, like assault, murder or rape, and for good reason.
On June 30 2011 12:32 Hekisui wrote: And even besides that, how does a criminal deserve to die? They break the law. It is immoral. But killing a criminal on sight is also immoral. Your plasma tv isn't worth more than the life of a criminal.
On June 30 2011 12:32 Hekisui wrote: And even besides that, how does a criminal deserve to die? They break the law. It is immoral. But killing a criminal on sight is also immoral. Your plasma tv isn't worth more than the life of a criminal.
I would actually value my plasma tv over a life of some criminal.
On June 30 2011 12:32 Hekisui wrote: And even besides that, how does a criminal deserve to die? They break the law. It is immoral. But killing a criminal on sight is also immoral. Your plasma tv isn't worth more than the life of a criminal.
I would actually value my plasma tv over a life of some criminal.
Then you are an immoral person and no better than a criminal yourself. You wouldn't value your own life over that of a plasma tv if you weren't yourself, it seems.
Also, all these fake though guys that claim they would like to kill someone, when you actually do you are going to have nightmares all your life. Enjoy.
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.
It depends on the jurisdiction. In some places, trespassing warrants the use of lethal force. In other areas the castle doctrine takes effect.
The castle doctrine basically states that you have no duty to retreat if you're threatened within the confines of your dwelling, and that if an intruder forces his or her way into said dwelling it's assumed they're there to do harm and thus lethal force is justified.
On June 30 2011 13:32 Hekisui wrote: Also, all these fake though guys that claim they would like to kill someone, when you actually do you are going to have nightmares all your life. Enjoy.
I'll have worse nightmares when a burglar breaks into my home and rapes my daughter because I didn't want to shoot him. Never mind her nightmares. You make a lot of sense.
This kind of legislation is very good. People should be know exactly what they are allowed to do to protect themselves. Here in Canada the Harper government promised to make clear what one is allowed to do to defend themselves, instead of just letting it sit at "reasonable force". Personally, I will always kill anyone who breaks into my home after a warning.
Unfortunately in the UK, while David Cameron may say citizens are allowed to use "whatever force necessary", they do not have the force often necessary to protect your family and home. I think people in the UK should be standing back to win back their gun rights.
On June 30 2011 13:43 Hekisui wrote: Potential rapist.
At least I don't advocate against killing burglars. there's only one reason someone would take such a position -- a burglar or wannabe burglar. You're the potential rapist, you want to sneak into people's homes at night, and rape everyone inside, without fear of reprisal.
On June 30 2011 13:32 Hekisui wrote: Also, all these fake though guys that claim they would like to kill someone, when you actually do you are going to have nightmares all your life. Enjoy.
I'll have worse nightmares when a burglar breaks into my home and rapes my daughter because I didn't want to shoot him. Never mind her nightmares. You make a lot of sense.
On June 30 2011 12:32 Hekisui wrote: And even besides that, how does a criminal deserve to die? They break the law. It is immoral. But killing a criminal on sight is also immoral. Your plasma tv isn't worth more than the life of a criminal.
I would actually value my plasma tv over a life of some criminal.
Then you are an immoral person and no better than a criminal yourself. You wouldn't value your own life over that of a plasma tv if you weren't yourself, it seems.
Also, all these fake though guys that claim they would like to kill someone, when you actually do you are going to have nightmares all your life. Enjoy.
You should watch the miniseries, Generation Kill, or read the book. You are wrong about people who want to kill, bluffing.
As for morality, I always value myself first and will always do what is in my best interest (my best interest may be the people I love's best interest btw) so long as I am not an initiator of force. In the case of a burgaler, he is the initiator of force by breaking into your home and choosing to put himself in a threatening position. I don't know if a burglar is breaking in to steal or to kill. If it is very clear I will only threaten them because that is better for me. If it is not, I will kill them regardless of their true intentions, as their true intentions can often not be known and it is not up to the victim to take the risk when it was the burglars choice.
On June 30 2011 13:36 Hekisui wrote: Burglars that rape daughters? You sound like a fear brainwashed American. Watch less tv.
What's ironic is that there are far more home invasions that result in rapes than are reported on mainstream news media, so calling him in a "brainwashed American" and then advising him to watch less television is asinine.
Pretty stupid in my opinion. There is nothing vague or unclear about "Reasonable force". It means that you can use as much force as is deemed necessary for the situation at hand. In some cases you might have to kill the guy/girl for him/her to stop, sometimes a slap on the cheek is enough. No need for a specific rule.
On June 30 2011 13:54 MozzarellaL wrote: It's not my fault you have the naivete of a five year old.
And you do? As I wrote in a previous post, "The majority of burglars break and enter with the intent to steal."
Following your naive 'moral principle', there'd be no moral people on the Earth, because they'd all be dead.
If we reduce violence to the minimum needed level, yes we will all be dead because of excess violence! Instead, we kill everyone who seems to be a threat. Sure!
Most people are raped by people they know. Most rapes are planned. Burglars want to steal your plasma tv or laptop. These people are petty criminals. If they were ruthless they wouldn't break into random homes at night. wtf does rape even come in to this whole thing? It's just a stupid thing you made up on the spot because you couldn't think of anything else to counter argue with
People that rape have a certain level of mental disorder. They aren't going to be the same people that are thieves.
On June 30 2011 13:56 LazyMacro wrote: What's ironic is that there are far more home invasions that result in rapes than are reported on mainstream news media, so calling him in a "brainwashed American" and then advising him to watch less television is asinine.
US is a well known case of a fear dominated society. His comment just makes zero sense. It has nothing to do with rapes being reported in the media or not. If it was, it would be at least partially rational.
On June 30 2011 13:57 Rabbitmaster wrote: Pretty stupid in my opinion. There is nothing vague or unclear about "Reasonable force". It means that you can use as much force as is deemed necessary for the situation at hand. In some cases you might have to kill the guy/girl for him/her to stop, sometimes a slap on the cheek is enough. No need for a specific rule.
sincerely, Rabbitmaster
With respect, your attitude itself is what I personally think is the issue. The phrase "reasonable force" is exemplary of rhetoric and politics at work.
What is reasonable to you is likely not the same as what I consider reasonable. The same goes with force. There are different levels of force and which is appropriate depends on a lot of variables.
It is important to define what things do and do not mean in a way that the layman can understand and apply it. If you misinterpet a law and then act out of that misunderstanding only to end up having your life ruined by legal bills and potential time in prison, I think you'd wish the laws had been more clear to begin with.
On June 30 2011 13:55 Cubu wrote: This topic has nothing to do with rape.
Current English law defining burglary: A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm or raping any person therein, or do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it.(section 9(1)(a))
Oh.
On June 30 2011 13:58 Hekisui wrote: If we reduce violence to the minimum needed level, yes we will all be dead because of excess violence! Instead, we kill everyone who seems to be a threat. Sure!
No you idiot, you will be dead because all the immoral people have no scruples to kill you, and they aren't going to wait for you to ascertain their intentions.
Most people are raped by people they know. Most rapes are planned.
Just because most people are raped by people they know does not mean that burglars do not have an intention to rape.
Burglars want to steal your plasma tv or laptop.
No, a robber wants to steal your plasma TV. A burglar is someone else entirely. Again, your naivete shows, because you don't even know what a burglar is.
These people are petty criminals. If they were ruthless they wouldn't break into random homes at night.
Really? Burglary is a FELONY. I wasn't aware felonious crimes counted as 'petty crimes'.
wtf does rape even come in to this whole thing? It's just a stupid thing you made up on the spot because you couldn't think of anything else to counter argue with
You're an idiot, read the UK law defining burglary. I'm done arguing with your ignorant mind, if you want to continue, please go educate yourself.
On June 30 2011 14:05 Hekisui wrote: The principle or proportionality is a universal moral principle. Not abiding or respecting it is a sigh of objective moral deficiency
NEWS FLASH: THE ENTIRETY OF ENGLISH COMMON LAW IS IMMORAL
On June 30 2011 14:08 Hekisui wrote: Yes, the solution to immoral people is to immorally violate their universal human rights and kill them. They might be rapists!
Btw, I am not dead yet. Maybe I would be if I met you. I seem to be a threat to you. But I think you need mental help, not capital punishment.
You're the one who needs mental help, you're pathologically stupid.
A knife isn't actually that effective anyway. Cutting someone doesn't stop them from moving, hitting someone with a frying pan slapstick style does. Other useful slapstick methods include, a two by four, a wok booby trap, pie made of questionable amounts of white goo, highly unstable nitroglycerin.
On June 30 2011 14:00 zZygote wrote: Get your FENCING SWORDS. You can poke but you can't slash!
I can see this being a great excuse to take one of the ancient arts of swordsmanship - fencing.
They really should clarify the legal defintion of burglary while they r at it. I (and at least half of us in this thread probably) was under the idea it was just robbing someone's house.
I'm just glad I live in a reasonable state wherein I can defend myself and my property without fear of prosecution. "Duty to retreat" laws are the stupidest statutes ever created. Protecting the rights of criminals in the process of committing criminal acts is laughable.
Criminals are humans too. They are protected by the universal human rights just as much as anyone else. These rights are inseparable. They can't be given up even lest alone taken away by others.
This will be struck down in the EU court even if it goes unchallenged in UK court.
Cameron said: 'Burglars give up any human rights' but in fact a person can't even give up his or her own human rights willingly. By definition of being human, you have these rights.
On June 30 2011 14:12 Hekisui wrote: Yes, you are right and I was wrong. Burglary actually means raping. Sorry. I don't know English.
You still don't have the dignity or integrity to admit you were wrong. I don't care how moral you claim to be, you aren't enough of a human being to sincerely admit you made a mistake. Pathetic. You instead resort to a laughable straw man in an attempt to save face
On June 30 2011 13:55 Cubu wrote: This topic has nothing to do with rape.
Current English law defining burglary: A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm or raping any person therein, or do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it.(section 9(1)(a))
On June 30 2011 13:58 Hekisui wrote: If we reduce violence to the minimum needed level, yes we will all be dead because of excess violence! Instead, we kill everyone who seems to be a threat. Sure!
No you idiot, you will be dead because all the immoral people have no scruples to kill you, and they aren't going to wait for you to ascertain their intentions.
No, a robber wants to steal your plasma TV. A burglar is someone else entirely. Again, your naivete shows, because you don't even know what a burglar is.
wtf does rape even come in to this whole thing? It's just a stupid thing you made up on the spot because you couldn't think of anything else to counter argue with
You're an idiot, read the UK law defining burglary. I'm done arguing with your ignorant mind, if you want to continue, please go educate yourself.
On June 30 2011 14:05 Hekisui wrote: The principle or proportionality is a universal moral principle. Not abiding or respecting it is a sigh of objective moral deficiency
NEWS FLASH: THE ENTIRETY OF ENGLISH COMMON LAW IS IMMORAL
I have no idea if you guys are serious or not. If so, take a long hard look at the argument you have just had and ask yourselves if it needed to be had, if you could have been less massively aggressive, and why you are so angry about something completely random and unrelated to the topic anyway. Then slap yourselves in the faces. Like...you're going mental over whether or not burglars are defined as potential rapists. You've been arguing it for 2 pages. Why?
On June 30 2011 14:12 Hekisui wrote: Yes, you are right and I was wrong. Burglary actually means raping. Sorry. I don't know English.
You still don't have the dignity or integrity to admit you were wrong. I don't care how moral you claim to be, you aren't enough of a human being to sincerely admit you made a mistake. Pathetic. You instead resort to a laughable straw man in an attempt to save face
On June 30 2011 14:08 Hekisui wrote: Yes, the solution to immoral people is to immorally violate their universal human rights and kill them. They might be rapists!
Btw, I am not dead yet. Maybe I would be if I met you. I seem to be a threat to you.
There is no way to tell the intentions of a criminal when he is in your house. If someone is in your house uninvited, then their intentions are not good 99.99999999% of the time. This person could be a murderer, burglar, rapist, whatever. It does not matter, because you shouldn't waste your time to find out. Your own life is worth more than a criminals, isn't it? Would you kill someone who is threatening your life? You would take the chance to see what the criminal does? Your logic is not logic at all, it is stupidity.
If a criminal is in your house he will either run away, or run at you. It's your decision what you do after that.
On June 30 2011 14:13 ComusLoM wrote: This is about time, people have gone to jail here for killing piece of shit burglars that deserve it.
Nothing is changing; this was already the case. The law currently is 'reasonable force' allowed, left openly ambiguous to cater for individual circumstance. The tories claim to be clarifying the law, really they're not doing much at all and claiming the credit.
On June 30 2011 14:15 Hekisui wrote: Criminals are humans too. They are protected by the universal human rights just as much as anyone else. These rights are inseparable. They can't be given up even lest alone taken away by others.
This will be struck down in the EU court even if it goes unchallenged in UK court.
Cameron said: 'Burglars give up any human rights' but in fact a person can't even give up his or her own human rights willingly. By definition of being human, you have these rights.
I agree with Cameron, criminals give up their human rights when they enter the house of someone else with the intent to harm them either through burglary or rape or murder or assault. And it is the innocent persons right to kill that intruder.
On June 30 2011 14:09 MozzarellaL wrote: You're the one who needs mental help, you're pathologically stupid.
Maybe if you repeat it a few more times, it will actually become true!
We're 6 pages into a thread about burglary, and you still haven't acknowledged that you were wrong about the definition of a burglar.
I don't need to repeat what I said about your intelligence, it's pretty self-explanatory.
Getting angry about something inconsequential and repeatedly insulting the person who disagreed with you may also say something about your intelligence.
On June 30 2011 14:15 The KY wrote: I have no idea if you guys are serious or not. If so, take a long hard look at the argument you have just had and ask yourselves if it needed to be had, if you could have been less massively aggressive, and why you are so angry about something completely random and unrelated to the topic anyway. Then slap yourselves in the faces. Like...you're going mental over whether or not burglars are defined as potential rapists. You've been arguing it for 2 pages. Why?
If you're not serious, shhhhh.
I'm just getting a kick out of flaming this person with the IQ of a post.
On June 30 2011 14:10 Cubu wrote: They really should clarify the legal defintion of burglary while they r at it. I (and at least half of us in this thread probably) was under the idea it was just robbing someone's house.
A reasonable mistake. Unfortunately some people are unable to realize that their initial impression was wrong.
On June 30 2011 14:08 Hekisui wrote: Yes, the solution to immoral people is to immorally violate their universal human rights and kill them. They might be rapists!
Btw, I am not dead yet. Maybe I would be if I met you. I seem to be a threat to you.
There is no way to tell the intentions of a criminal when he is in your house. If someone is in your house uninvited, then their intentions are not good 99.99999999% of the time. This person could be a murderer, burglar, rapist, whatever. It does not matter, because you shouldn't waste your time to find out. Your own life is worth more than a criminals, isn't it? Would you kill someone who is threatening your life? You would take the chance to see what the criminal does? Your logic is not logic at all, it is stupidity.
If a criminal is in your house he will either run away, or run at you. It's your decision what you do after that.
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. Under this principle you can use plenty of violence and the problem you describe never arises. Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional? If they are armed this almost always means that if the burglar is killed, you won't be found guilty of any crimes.
No, the debate is if a criminal gives up their human rights by choosing to be a criminal. Apparently, right wing lunatic Cameron thinks so. Why should other leaders of poorer countries, for example in Northern Africa, respect universal human rights when Cameron can make statements so much in defiance of the concept of universal inseparable human rights?
On June 30 2011 14:20 The KY wrote: Getting angry about something inconsequential and repeatedly insulting the person who disagreed with you may also say something about your intelligence.
If you went back and read our exchange, you would note I only got angry when he began insulting me.
On June 30 2011 14:20 The KY wrote: Getting angry about something inconsequential and repeatedly insulting the person who disagreed with you may also say something about your intelligence.
If you went back and read our exchange, you would note I only got angry when he began insulting me.
And yet you continue to berate him long after the, ahem, conversation should have finished. Calling people stupid over and over again, funnily enough, doesn't give the impression of a genius.
Anyway I'm outta here, clearly no discussion on the actual topic is to be had...
I'm glad citizens of the U.K. will be able to exercise their universal human right defend themselves and their property from burglars without fear of prosecution.
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.
On June 30 2011 14:25 NovaTheFeared wrote: I'm glad citizens of the U.K. will be able to exercise their universal human right defend themselves and their property from burglars without fear of prosecution.
Agreed.
Its pathetic that the "human right" of a criminal to be safe while conducting a crime is of higher importance to "human right activists" than the right of a family to be safe within their own homes.
On June 30 2011 14:08 Hekisui wrote: Yes, the solution to immoral people is to immorally violate their universal human rights and kill them. They might be rapists!
Btw, I am not dead yet. Maybe I would be if I met you. I seem to be a threat to you.
There is no way to tell the intentions of a criminal when he is in your house. If someone is in your house uninvited, then their intentions are not good 99.99999999% of the time. This person could be a murderer, burglar, rapist, whatever. It does not matter, because you shouldn't waste your time to find out. Your own life is worth more than a criminals, isn't it? Would you kill someone who is threatening your life? You would take the chance to see what the criminal does? Your logic is not logic at all, it is stupidity.
If a criminal is in your house he will either run away, or run at you. It's your decision what you do after that.
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?
No, the debate is if a criminal gives up their human rights by choosing to be a criminal. Apparently, right wing lunatic Cameron thinks so. Why should other leaders of poorer countries, for example in Northern Africa, respect universal human rights when Cameron can make statements so much in defiance of the concept of universal inseparable human rights?
Most criminals are armed with a weapon, whether it be a knife or a gun. The point is, are you gonna wait for a criminal to be violent before you act? I've been robbed at gunpoint, and have caught a burglar in my house. The burglar ran, luckily for him, and the one with the gun of course got away, but was later caught and is where he belongs. It's very obvious you've never been in that kind of situation. I would've killed both of them at the time, if I had the option, but I didn't. The burglar is still out there, the other is in jail. Criminals don't deserve rights at the time of the crime.
On June 30 2011 14:25 NovaTheFeared wrote: I'm glad citizens of the U.K. will be able to exercise their universal human right defend themselves and their property from burglars without fear of prosecution.
Funny thing is, everything can be proclaimed a universal human right.
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.
Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has said a householder who knifes a burglar will not have committed a criminal offence under plans to clarify the law on self-defence in England.
He told the BBC people were entitled to use "whatever force necessary" to protect themselves and their homes.
David Cameron recently said the issue should be put "beyond doubt".
Labour said the law was "already clear" and the remarks were a "smokescreen" to hide confusion over sentencing changes.
Essentially they plan to clarify 'reasonable force' in regards to home invasions (UK).
I think it's a good move; to know exactly what you can and can't do so you don't have to deal with bs later on. Also, in the words of someone or other "fuck the fucking fuckers".
Now if only they could prevent burglars from suing you when they hurt themselves breaking into your place.
i am not that great of a law person, but how the heck does something like this get by? (like law it comes under etc.)
On June 30 2011 14:39 Phenny wrote: Why the hell is it not already legal? If someone is attempting to hurt myself, my loved ones or my property then they can expect a good stabbing.
It is already legal. If somebody pulls a gun on you and you kill them, you're not going to go to jail.
What a stupid law. Now on what burgulars will do is shoot the woken up victim instead of attempting to run away for self protection. I mean really if someone wants to kill you tjey wont break into your house, or are mmurderers really that stupid in britan? What is wrong with just calling police? Or does someone think that going to go stab the guy is safer?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe my buckshot won't kill him. That's as far as I'll go "in between". I know some people put birdshot as the first round in their shotgun but I'm not willing to do that.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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 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 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.
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 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 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 15:05 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 15:29 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 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.
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.
I've never talked about property. I don't get how you get that from my posts. I think I've made it very clear that I am not willing to take the risk that the person who has chosen to put themselves in a threatening position against me and my family, is not intending to kill. I'm talking about human lives and the human lives that matter most in the situation of a burglary are mine and my family. I'm not going to risk those lives on the chance that the person who is putting themselves in a threatening position isn't intending to harm or kill. Burglar is simply someone who is breaking into your house to commit a felony, maybe that is why you are misunderstanding me.
Also, I never said a burglary would turn into a hostage situation. I only described a separate situation that is morally identical but clearer. It is not even a hostage situation. It is a person who may simply be intending to kill your family with a gun that you don't know is real or fake. In both cases the person may or may not be intending to kill, may or may not be armed (the gun may be fake) and they are putting themselves in a threatening position. Yes, you could risk it and hope that they are only after possessions but there is no reason for you to take that risk if you don't have to.
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.
Woa, no one here would just randomly stab someone robbing their house. All this has to do with is the law acknowledging someone's right to defend themselves. If my house was being burglarized I would confront the criminal with a gun. Not with the intention of shooting them though. I would bring it for intimidation, and for my safety just in case they are hostile. In %99 percent of cases they will just run off. But if they turn out to be dangerous, and I feel compelled to defend myself, Its nice to know I will be safe from prosecution.
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.
Woa, no one here would just randomly stab someone robbing their house. All this has to do with is the law acknowledging someone's right to defend themselves. If my house was being burglarized I would confront the criminal with a gun. Not with the intention of shooting them though. I would bring it for intimidation, and for my safety just in case they are hostile. In %99 percent of cases they will just run off. But if they turn out to be dangerous, and I feel compelled to defend myself, Its nice to know I will be safe from prosecution.
If there was an intruder in my house and I had access to a firearm I would shoot him regardless of how threatening he was. Burglaries are terrifying violating experiences regardless of whether you're at home or not. They deserve to die and should be shot on sight. Imagine if people knew they had the right to do that in Britain, we would never have had to endure Oasis.
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.
:|
I was refering to one person being armed, and the other unarmed. A 5 year old with a hand gun, and all 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.
Woa, no one here would just randomly stab someone robbing their house. All this has to do with is the law acknowledging someone's right to defend themselves. If my house was being burglarized I would confront the criminal with a gun. Not with the intention of shooting them though. I would bring it for intimidation, and for my safety just in case they are hostile. In %99 percent of cases they will just run off. But if they turn out to be dangerous, and I feel compelled to defend myself, Its nice to know I will be safe from prosecution.
I would definitely attempt to harm, though not kill (unless the situation escallated to that level) anyone attempting to take my property.
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.
Woa, no one here would just randomly stab someone robbing their house. All this has to do with is the law acknowledging someone's right to defend themselves. If my house was being burglarized I would confront the criminal with a gun. Not with the intention of shooting them though. I would bring it for intimidation, and for my safety just in case they are hostile. In %99 percent of cases they will just run off. But if they turn out to be dangerous, and I feel compelled to defend myself, Its nice to know I will be safe from prosecution.
If there was an intruder in my house and I had access to a firearm I would shoot him regardless of how threatening he was. Burglaries are terrifying violating experiences regardless of whether you're at home or not. They deserve to die and should be shot on sight. Imagine if people knew they had the right to do that in Britain, we would never have had to endure Oasis.
It just seems like that's how you end up shooting a neighbor, or a family member getting a late night snack. Besides, most burglars are just punk kids who need a good scare to set them straight.
On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote: [quote] 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.
I've never talked about property. I don't get how you get that from my posts. I think I've made it very clear that I am not willing to take the risk that the person who has chosen to put themselves in a threatening position against me and my family, is not intending to kill. I'm talking about human lives and the human lives that matter most in the situation of a burglary are mine and my family. I'm not going to risk those lives on the chance that the person who is putting themselves in a threatening position isn't intending to harm or kill. Burglar is simply someone who is breaking into your house to commit a felony, maybe that is why you are misunderstanding me.
Also, I never said a burglary would turn into a hostage situation. I only described a separate situation that is morally identical but clearer. It is not even a hostage situation. It is a person who may simply be intending to kill your family with a gun that you don't know is real or fake. In both cases the person may or may not be intending to kill, may or may not be armed (the gun may be fake) and they are putting themselves in a threatening position. Yes, you could risk it and hope that they are only after possessions but there is no reason for you to take that risk if you don't have to.
If he would intend to kill, he wouldn't hold a gun to the head but simply shoot. If he holds a gun to the head he doesn't intead to kill but instead wants something else, usually your property. I guess that about 1 in 1000 (if not less) burglaries happen because the intruder wants to kill, so assuming that every burglar wants to kill you is simply wrong.
Well, maybe there is just less violence in germany so we are not as scared as you are.
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.
Woa, no one here would just randomly stab someone robbing their house. All this has to do with is the law acknowledging someone's right to defend themselves. If my house was being burglarized I would confront the criminal with a gun. Not with the intention of shooting them though. I would bring it for intimidation, and for my safety just in case they are hostile. In %99 percent of cases they will just run off. But if they turn out to be dangerous, and I feel compelled to defend myself, Its nice to know I will be safe from prosecution.
If there was an intruder in my house and I had access to a firearm I would shoot him regardless of how threatening he was. Burglaries are terrifying violating experiences regardless of whether you're at home or not. They deserve to die and should be shot on sight. Imagine if people knew they had the right to do that in Britain, we would never have had to endure Oasis.
It just seems like that's how you end up shooting a neighbor, or a family member getting a late night snack. Besides, most burglars are just punk kids who need a good scare to set them straight.
and what's more scary than being shot at with a firearm, or being stabbed? there are quite a few things but none are realistic.
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....
#6 buck can be relied on to incapacitate and never kill through two sheets of normal dry wall.
I remeber that there was in Czech republic one case, when a man killed burglar who broke into his farm for like 20th time. He was sentenced to like 10 years. Fortunately, our president removed his sentence, but I mean. This is pretty retarded justice.
Um, I think this can be summarized as some people think victims should be legally obligated to be at the mercy of intruders and others don't.
You could also say some people think victims must risk their lives by being unable to defend themselves with deadly force for the sake of the criminal being safer, others don't think the victim has that obligation.
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.
Woa, no one here would just randomly stab someone robbing their house. All this has to do with is the law acknowledging someone's right to defend themselves. If my house was being burglarized I would confront the criminal with a gun. Not with the intention of shooting them though. I would bring it for intimidation, and for my safety just in case they are hostile. In %99 percent of cases they will just run off. But if they turn out to be dangerous, and I feel compelled to defend myself, Its nice to know I will be safe from prosecution.
If there was an intruder in my house and I had access to a firearm I would shoot him regardless of how threatening he was. Burglaries are terrifying violating experiences regardless of whether you're at home or not. They deserve to die and should be shot on sight. Imagine if people knew they had the right to do that in Britain, we would never have had to endure Oasis.
It just seems like that's how you end up shooting a neighbor, or a family member getting a late night snack. Besides, most burglars are just punk kids who need a good scare to set them straight.
Why would a neighbour be in my house? And you can't commit more crime if you're dead so it's a win win really.
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.
Woa, no one here would just randomly stab someone robbing their house. All this has to do with is the law acknowledging someone's right to defend themselves. If my house was being burglarized I would confront the criminal with a gun. Not with the intention of shooting them though. I would bring it for intimidation, and for my safety just in case they are hostile. In %99 percent of cases they will just run off. But if they turn out to be dangerous, and I feel compelled to defend myself, Its nice to know I will be safe from prosecution.
If there was an intruder in my house and I had access to a firearm I would shoot him regardless of how threatening he was. Burglaries are terrifying violating experiences regardless of whether you're at home or not. They deserve to die and should be shot on sight. Imagine if people knew they had the right to do that in Britain, we would never have had to endure Oasis.
It just seems like that's how you end up shooting a neighbor, or a family member getting a late night snack. Besides, most burglars are just punk kids who need a good scare to set them straight.
Why would a neighbour be in my house? And you can't commit more crime if you're dead so it's a win win really.
So lets just kill every criminal. I believe that human life still has value even if they make mistakes.
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.
Woa, no one here would just randomly stab someone robbing their house. All this has to do with is the law acknowledging someone's right to defend themselves. If my house was being burglarized I would confront the criminal with a gun. Not with the intention of shooting them though. I would bring it for intimidation, and for my safety just in case they are hostile. In %99 percent of cases they will just run off. But if they turn out to be dangerous, and I feel compelled to defend myself, Its nice to know I will be safe from prosecution.
If there was an intruder in my house and I had access to a firearm I would shoot him regardless of how threatening he was. Burglaries are terrifying violating experiences regardless of whether you're at home or not. They deserve to die and should be shot on sight. Imagine if people knew they had the right to do that in Britain, we would never have had to endure Oasis.
It just seems like that's how you end up shooting a neighbor, or a family member getting a late night snack. Besides, most burglars are just punk kids who need a good scare to set them straight.
Why would a neighbour be in my house? And you can't commit more crime if you're dead so it's a win win really.
So lets just kill every criminal. I believe that human life still has value even if they make mistakes.
So virtuous. I wonder if you can say the same thing after some really horrible shit happens to you, or worse, your family/spouse/partner.
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.
Woa, no one here would just randomly stab someone robbing their house. All this has to do with is the law acknowledging someone's right to defend themselves. If my house was being burglarized I would confront the criminal with a gun. Not with the intention of shooting them though. I would bring it for intimidation, and for my safety just in case they are hostile. In %99 percent of cases they will just run off. But if they turn out to be dangerous, and I feel compelled to defend myself, Its nice to know I will be safe from prosecution.
If there was an intruder in my house and I had access to a firearm I would shoot him regardless of how threatening he was. Burglaries are terrifying violating experiences regardless of whether you're at home or not. They deserve to die and should be shot on sight. Imagine if people knew they had the right to do that in Britain, we would never have had to endure Oasis.
It just seems like that's how you end up shooting a neighbor, or a family member getting a late night snack. Besides, most burglars are just punk kids who need a good scare to set them straight.
Why would a neighbour be in my house? And you can't commit more crime if you're dead so it's a win win really.
I have neighbors in my house all the time, the potential circumstances are numerous. I'm going to be damn sure before I let lead fly.
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.
Woa, no one here would just randomly stab someone robbing their house. All this has to do with is the law acknowledging someone's right to defend themselves. If my house was being burglarized I would confront the criminal with a gun. Not with the intention of shooting them though. I would bring it for intimidation, and for my safety just in case they are hostile. In %99 percent of cases they will just run off. But if they turn out to be dangerous, and I feel compelled to defend myself, Its nice to know I will be safe from prosecution.
If there was an intruder in my house and I had access to a firearm I would shoot him regardless of how threatening he was. Burglaries are terrifying violating experiences regardless of whether you're at home or not. They deserve to die and should be shot on sight. Imagine if people knew they had the right to do that in Britain, we would never have had to endure Oasis.
It just seems like that's how you end up shooting a neighbor, or a family member getting a late night snack. Besides, most burglars are just punk kids who need a good scare to set them straight.
Why would a neighbour be in my house? And you can't commit more crime if you're dead so it's a win win really.
So lets just kill every criminal. I believe that human life still has value even if they make mistakes.
So virtuous. I wonder if you can say the same thing after some really horrible shit happens to you, or worse, your family/spouse/partner.
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.
Woa, no one here would just randomly stab someone robbing their house. All this has to do with is the law acknowledging someone's right to defend themselves. If my house was being burglarized I would confront the criminal with a gun. Not with the intention of shooting them though. I would bring it for intimidation, and for my safety just in case they are hostile. In %99 percent of cases they will just run off. But if they turn out to be dangerous, and I feel compelled to defend myself, Its nice to know I will be safe from prosecution.
If there was an intruder in my house and I had access to a firearm I would shoot him regardless of how threatening he was. Burglaries are terrifying violating experiences regardless of whether you're at home or not. They deserve to die and should be shot on sight. Imagine if people knew they had the right to do that in Britain, we would never have had to endure Oasis.
It just seems like that's how you end up shooting a neighbor, or a family member getting a late night snack. Besides, most burglars are just punk kids who need a good scare to set them straight.
Why would a neighbour be in my house? And you can't commit more crime if you're dead so it's a win win really.
So lets just kill every criminal. I believe that human life still has value even if they make mistakes.
So virtuous. I wonder if you can say the same thing after some really horrible shit happens to you, or worse, your family/spouse/partner.
You like if my cousin was a burglar who got shot?
I don't quite understand your sentence, but i mean like a burglar/burglars breaking into your home, steal stuff and rape the female(or even male, lol) members of your family/spouse/partner, right in front of you, taunting you while they do it; will you still believe they just made a "mistake"?
I suppose its no good asking you now, coz you'll just give some sweet, disney-like reply in your comfortable state in front of the pc.
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.
no it is not. you are only allowed to use equal force that they are using upon you. If they pull out a gun, then you are allowed to open fire. I wouldnt want to be on your property on accident!
Wrong. Most states have castle laws, that mean you do not have to use proportionate force if you believe your life and/or property is at risk.
On June 30 2011 12:15 endy wrote: Cool, so I wanna kill someone, I just invite him at home, break a window and stab him ? As long as there is no witness it's fine. And even if there's a witness, since no charges will be pressed against me, it should be fine.
Even if someone saw me in the street opening the door and shaking my victim's hand, unless he specifically learns later in the newspaper that I killed that guy and is able to recognize both of us he has no reason to mention it to anyone.
edit : If a burglar enters your home with a knife and you stab him, it should be considered "right of self defense", right ?
I would take about 5 seconds for the police to realize there was no forced entry if you just invited someone over to kill them. What's your pick up line? "Hey come break my front door open and smash some windows, also ignore my knife"
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.
Woa, no one here would just randomly stab someone robbing their house. All this has to do with is the law acknowledging someone's right to defend themselves. If my house was being burglarized I would confront the criminal with a gun. Not with the intention of shooting them though. I would bring it for intimidation, and for my safety just in case they are hostile. In %99 percent of cases they will just run off. But if they turn out to be dangerous, and I feel compelled to defend myself, Its nice to know I will be safe from prosecution.
If there was an intruder in my house and I had access to a firearm I would shoot him regardless of how threatening he was. Burglaries are terrifying violating experiences regardless of whether you're at home or not. They deserve to die and should be shot on sight. Imagine if people knew they had the right to do that in Britain, we would never have had to endure Oasis.
It just seems like that's how you end up shooting a neighbor, or a family member getting a late night snack. Besides, most burglars are just punk kids who need a good scare to set them straight.
Why would a neighbour be in my house? And you can't commit more crime if you're dead so it's a win win really.
So lets just kill every criminal. I believe that human life still has value even if they make mistakes.
So virtuous. I wonder if you can say the same thing after some really horrible shit happens to you, or worse, your family/spouse/partner.
You like if my cousin was a burglar who got shot?
I don't quite understand your sentence, but i mean like a burglar/burglars breaking into your home, steal stuff and rape the female(or even male, lol) members of your family/spouse/partner, right in front of you, taunting you while they do it; will you still believe they just made a "mistake"?
I suppose its no good asking you now, coz you'll just give some sweet, disney-like reply in your comfortable state in front of the pc.
Yeah lets insult each other, it will really help the discussion! Wait - no it wont.
I edited my sentence above for clarity. It can go both ways. Burglars have family too. And why are you talking about rapist now? It was about burglary.
And there still is a HUGE difference between instantly shooting him with a gun or threatning him first. And your country really failed, if someone is able to rape your family while your watching. Talking about downsizing the police or having no telephone-infrastructure. So your are saying there is no way in between the options "shoot to kill" and "letting him rape your family"?
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?
I rather hope the police to catch him than try to shoot a man i didnt club, because i assumed he had a gun. Besides, there is a reason why death penalty isnt allowed in most western areas, i find no reason why we should be allowed to kill someone even if they are doing a crime if tje state isnt allowed to, especially if like you said there are safer options.
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.
Woa, no one here would just randomly stab someone robbing their house. All this has to do with is the law acknowledging someone's right to defend themselves. If my house was being burglarized I would confront the criminal with a gun. Not with the intention of shooting them though. I would bring it for intimidation, and for my safety just in case they are hostile. In %99 percent of cases they will just run off. But if they turn out to be dangerous, and I feel compelled to defend myself, Its nice to know I will be safe from prosecution.
If there was an intruder in my house and I had access to a firearm I would shoot him regardless of how threatening he was. Burglaries are terrifying violating experiences regardless of whether you're at home or not. They deserve to die and should be shot on sight. Imagine if people knew they had the right to do that in Britain, we would never have had to endure Oasis.
It just seems like that's how you end up shooting a neighbor, or a family member getting a late night snack. Besides, most burglars are just punk kids who need a good scare to set them straight.
Why would a neighbour be in my house? And you can't commit more crime if you're dead so it's a win win really.
So lets just kill every criminal. I believe that human life still has value even if they make mistakes.
So virtuous. I wonder if you can say the same thing after some really horrible shit happens to you, or worse, your family/spouse/partner.
You like if my cousin was a burglar who got shot?
I don't quite understand your sentence, but i mean like a burglar/burglars breaking into your home, steal stuff and rape the female(or even male, lol) members of your family/spouse/partner, right in front of you, taunting you while they do it; will you still believe they just made a "mistake"?
I suppose its no good asking you now, coz you'll just give some sweet, disney-like reply in your comfortable state in front of the pc.
Yeah lets insult each other, it will really help the discussion! Wait - no it wont.
I edited my sentence above for clarity. It can go both ways. Burglars have family too. And why are you talking about rapist now? It was about burglary.
And there still is a HUGE difference between instantly shooting him with a gun or threatning him first. And your country really failed, if someone is able to rape your family while your watching. Talking about downsizing the police or having no telephone-infrastructure. So your are saying there is no way in between the options "shoot to kill" and "letting him rape your family"?
Rape, burglary. Do you mean to tell me that a burglar isn't capable of rape, and vice versa?
Lol, police and telephone infrastucture; so you're saying police and telephone infrastructure totally wipes out the incidence of burglary/rape in germany. That's impressive indeed.
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?
I rather hope the police to catch him than try to shoot a man i didnt club, because i assumed he had a gun. Besides, there is a reason why death penalty isnt allowed in most western areas, i find no reason why we should be allowed to kill someone even if they are doing a crime if tje state isnt allowed to, especially if like you said there are safer options.
Killing in self defense =\= yanking a prisoner out of a cell to give them a lethal injection.
On June 30 2011 17:08 KryptoStorm wrote: Looks like every american TeamLiquidan owns a gun!
My school permits open carry in the classroom, hehehe. I love telling that to Europeans and watching their eyes get HUGE.
Well, that is one reason why the US has an "unintentional death by firearm" rate that rivals most third world countries (though i couldn't find any statistics newer than 2007, but might be just my bad google-fu).
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.
no it is not. you are only allowed to use equal force that they are using upon you. If they pull out a gun, then you are allowed to open fire. I wouldnt want to be on your property on accident!
It varies by state.
Anyway, this is rather offtopic since the thread is about the UK.
Woa, no one here would just randomly stab someone robbing their house. All this has to do with is the law acknowledging someone's right to defend themselves. If my house was being burglarized I would confront the criminal with a gun. Not with the intention of shooting them though. I would bring it for intimidation, and for my safety just in case they are hostile. In %99 percent of cases they will just run off. But if they turn out to be dangerous, and I feel compelled to defend myself, Its nice to know I will be safe from prosecution.
If there was an intruder in my house and I had access to a firearm I would shoot him regardless of how threatening he was. Burglaries are terrifying violating experiences regardless of whether you're at home or not. They deserve to die and should be shot on sight. Imagine if people knew they had the right to do that in Britain, we would never have had to endure Oasis.
It just seems like that's how you end up shooting a neighbor, or a family member getting a late night snack. Besides, most burglars are just punk kids who need a good scare to set them straight.
Why would a neighbour be in my house? And you can't commit more crime if you're dead so it's a win win really.
So lets just kill every criminal. I believe that human life still has value even if they make mistakes.
So virtuous. I wonder if you can say the same thing after some really horrible shit happens to you, or worse, your family/spouse/partner.
You like if my cousin was a burglar who got shot?
I don't quite understand your sentence, but i mean like a burglar/burglars breaking into your home, steal stuff and rape the female(or even male, lol) members of your family/spouse/partner, right in front of you, taunting you while they do it; will you still believe they just made a "mistake"?
I suppose its no good asking you now, coz you'll just give some sweet, disney-like reply in your comfortable state in front of the pc.
Yeah lets insult each other, it will really help the discussion! Wait - no it wont.
I edited my sentence above for clarity. It can go both ways. Burglars have family too. And why are you talking about rapist now? It was about burglary.
And there still is a HUGE difference between instantly shooting him with a gun or threatning him first. And your country really failed, if someone is able to rape your family while your watching. Talking about downsizing the police or having no telephone-infrastructure. So your are saying there is no way in between the options "shoot to kill" and "letting him rape your family"?
Rape, burglary. Do you mean to tell me that a burglar isn't capable of rape, and vice versa?
Lol, police and telephone infrastucture; so you're saying police and telephone infrastructure totally wipes out the incidence of burglary/rape in germany. That's impressive indeed.
On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote: [quote] 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 shouldx 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?
I rather hope the police to catch him than try to shoot a man i didnt club, because i assumed he had a gun. Besides, there is a reason why death penalty isnt allowed in most western areas, i find no reason why we should be allowed to kill someone even if they are doing a crime if tje state isnt allowed to, especially if like you said there are safer options.
Killing in self defense =\= yanking a prisoner out of a cell to give them a lethal injection.
Did you read the last 9 words of my post? Defending property =/= self defense.
On June 30 2011 17:08 KryptoStorm wrote: Looks like every american TeamLiquidan owns a gun!
My school permits open carry in the classroom, hehehe. I love telling that to Europeans and watching their eyes get HUGE.
Well, that is one reason why the US has an "unintentional death by firearm" rate that rivals most third world countries (though i couldn't find any statistics newer than 2007, but might be just my bad google-fu).
Yea, we probably have the highest gun ownership per capita, so such a statistic falls in line with blatant common sense.
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.
Yes my property is worth more than the asshole that broke into my house and is jacking my shit.
There, I said it. I also completely believe it.
That's not the real issue though. The real issue though is that some guy that just committed a felony is inside my house at night uninvited. I have no clue what the guy breaking into my house intends to do and I refuse to risk my family on a maybe. If the guy is in my house at night, and he shouldn't be, I honestly have no qualms with killing him. People who break into houses are not good people. Trust me.
As a Police officer I really admire your confidence in the police but the real fact of the matter is that house burglary victims rarely get their stuff back. Most of the time they depend on insurance to take care of it. That aside I am far more worried about my family than my stuff and I will use lethal force to protect them without a second thought. They are too important to risk otherwise.
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?
I rather hope the police to catch him than try to shoot a man i didnt club, because i assumed he had a gun. Besides, there is a reason why death penalty isnt allowed in most western areas, i find no reason why we should be allowed to kill someone even if they are doing a crime if tje state isnt allowed to, especially if like you said there are safer options.
I never said shoot him, I just said if you want to keep your stuff you need to confront the burglar. The police are not going to catch him, its just naive to think they will. If you're a police officer, and someone tells you their home was robbed, whats your next move? You might check for finger prints, which is useless if they wore gloves, and you'll ask them if they had any enemies. That's about it. Maybe ask some pawn shops what they bought recently. There's not much else they can do. Murderers are generally easier to catch because there's a much greater chance for forensic evidence, and there's usually a motive and relationship between the victim and perpetrator. Burglars generally just randomly pick a house that looks like it has some good shit in it. Also, the law doesn't say you can kill someone who is committing a crime, it says you can kill someone to defend yourself. Buddha said you can defend yourself. Can you grasp that? Mother fucking Buddha! Maybe that well put in perspective the level of crazy your spewing.
I think if someone breaks into your home at night and if you have a gun, you should first warn him to leave your house and force him to give your belongings back. If he does not comply, if he attacks you, and if he is unarmed/carries a melee weapon, you may shot him in the leg or so to immobilise him. Then, call the police.
However, if the guy is armed with a firearm, I believe you should shoot him. Doing otherwise would be taking a big risk.
In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful.
Sad to see the Americans caring more about their plasmas than the life of an individual. I have heard that in some places asking people directions in U.S is dangerous as people think you are a trespasser or sth. Americans only care for money and property.
On June 30 2011 16:07 ComusLoM wrote: [quote] If there was an intruder in my house and I had access to a firearm I would shoot him regardless of how threatening he was. Burglaries are terrifying violating experiences regardless of whether you're at home or not. They deserve to die and should be shot on sight. Imagine if people knew they had the right to do that in Britain, we would never have had to endure Oasis.
It just seems like that's how you end up shooting a neighbor, or a family member getting a late night snack. Besides, most burglars are just punk kids who need a good scare to set them straight.
Why would a neighbour be in my house? And you can't commit more crime if you're dead so it's a win win really.
So lets just kill every criminal. I believe that human life still has value even if they make mistakes.
So virtuous. I wonder if you can say the same thing after some really horrible shit happens to you, or worse, your family/spouse/partner.
You like if my cousin was a burglar who got shot?
I don't quite understand your sentence, but i mean like a burglar/burglars breaking into your home, steal stuff and rape the female(or even male, lol) members of your family/spouse/partner, right in front of you, taunting you while they do it; will you still believe they just made a "mistake"?
I suppose its no good asking you now, coz you'll just give some sweet, disney-like reply in your comfortable state in front of the pc.
Yeah lets insult each other, it will really help the discussion! Wait - no it wont.
I edited my sentence above for clarity. It can go both ways. Burglars have family too. And why are you talking about rapist now? It was about burglary.
And there still is a HUGE difference between instantly shooting him with a gun or threatning him first. And your country really failed, if someone is able to rape your family while your watching. Talking about downsizing the police or having no telephone-infrastructure. So your are saying there is no way in between the options "shoot to kill" and "letting him rape your family"?
Rape, burglary. Do you mean to tell me that a burglar isn't capable of rape, and vice versa?
Lol, police and telephone infrastucture; so you're saying police and telephone infrastructure totally wipes out the incidence of burglary/rape in germany. That's impressive indeed.
Nice trick to avoid my key point.
Your "key point" was so obscure, nonsensical and out of point that I didn't feel the need to address it.
Its such a broad topic, and it obviously depends on the circumstances. Looks like if 6 men invade your home(weapons unknown) and you have 1 gun, you're going to threaten first and let them gain the upper hand right.
Your posts are also so inconsistent that I've no idea what your stance on the topic is: "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"
So with your latest post you're saying gun usage is ok. Also, stabbing does not always result in death lol.
On June 30 2011 17:48 Bleak wrote: I think if someone breaks into your home at night and if you have a gun, you should first warn him to leave your house and force him to give your belongings back. If he does not comply, if he attacks you, and if he is unarmed/carries a melee weapon, you may shot him in the leg or so to immobilise him. Then, call the police.
However, if the guy is armed with a firearm, I believe you should shoot him. Doing otherwise would be taking a big risk.
In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful.
Sad to see the Americans caring more about their plasmas than the life of an individual. I have heard that in some places asking people directions in U.S is dangerous as people think you are a trespasser or sth. Americans only care for money and property.
Never happening.
Firing a handgun is difficult enough when you are perfectly calm, aiming for center mass, and have time to put your sights on the target.
When your adrenaline is spiking because someone just broke into your house who may or may not be carrying a weapon? Good luck, it's not going to happen. Do not underestimate what stress does to your body. Trained people have a hard enough time aiming at a LARGE target under stress and most people simply aren't trained in stress inoculation.
Keep in mind that I completely agree that you should announce yourself and tell the burglar to get the hell out of the house. For me though? He gets one chance. If he doesn't start leaving I am shooting. Reaction gets beating by pro action every single time so if he's hiding some weapon in his waist band then I better act first.
Defense of habitation; (here habitation means dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business) A person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
1. A person is breaking\has broken into your home in a violent and tumultuous manner, and you think that the intruder is going to assault you or someone else living there. 2. A person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters the residence and you know it is an unlawful entry. 3. The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
So, hypothetical break-in at my house.
I will shoot the burglar with my very first good opportunity. Why? He has broken in, and I do think he intends to assault me, because if he wins a violent confrontation (and I do plan on confronting him, there's no law that describes how you approach the intruder aka I'm choosing not to call the police and hide), he can avoid going to prison for years at the low low price of beating my ass, and he WILL have to beat my ass or draw a gun in order to disable and escape me. Sounds reasonable enough.
And I do find it necessary to shoot him, inflicting lethal injury, because I have no reason to suspect that anything but a lethal injury would permanently keep the intruder from attacking me with a weapon (gun) that he may have. I would also like to point out that aggravated battery is indeed a felony, so I find it necessary to maintain a non-melee range with the intruder (even though him shooting at me would also be considered aggravated battery), and use a gun to disable him, in order to prevent the reasonably expected battery from occurring.
I'm not going to argue with anyone. I'm just putting out there what I would do, personally, in case of a break in at my house after reviewing my state laws. Do with this what you will, only note that I will not change my stance. Like I said, I'm just presenting my perspective (to anyone who cares) on the situation with respect to my laws.
On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote: [quote] 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.
Yes my property is worth more than the asshole that broke into my house and is jacking my shit.
There, I said it. I also completely believe it.
That's not the real issue though. The real issue though is that some guy that just committed a felony is inside my house at night uninvited. I have no clue what the guy breaking into my house intends to do and I refuse to risk my family on a maybe. If the guy is in my house at night, and he shouldn't be, I honestly have no qualms with killing him. People who break into houses are not good people. Trust me.
As a Police officer I really admire your confidence in the police but the real fact of the matter is that house burglary victims rarely get their stuff back. Most of the time they depend on insurance to take care of it. That aside I am far more worried about my family than my stuff and I will use lethal force to protect them without a second thought. They are too important to risk otherwise.
What if you go searching for the burglar your gun up, then the burglar you did not see, or even a secong burglar you did not know were there kills you because they were afraid? Who then is left to defend your family? Just because you felt your property is worth more than life of a criminal.
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.
Yes my property is worth more than the asshole that broke into my house and is jacking my shit.
There, I said it. I also completely believe it.
That's not the real issue though. The real issue though is that some guy that just committed a felony is inside my house at night uninvited. I have no clue what the guy breaking into my house intends to do and I refuse to risk my family on a maybe. If the guy is in my house at night, and he shouldn't be, I honestly have no qualms with killing him. People who break into houses are not good people. Trust me.
As a Police officer I really admire your confidence in the police but the real fact of the matter is that house burglary victims rarely get their stuff back. Most of the time they depend on insurance to take care of it. That aside I am far more worried about my family than my stuff and I will use lethal force to protect them without a second thought. They are too important to risk otherwise.
What if you go searching for the burglar your gun up, then the burglar you did not see, or even a secong burglar you did not know were there kills you because they were afraid? Who then is left to defend your family? Just because you felt your property is worth more than life of a criminal.
Uh what kind of hypothetical nonsense is this?
What if a comet hits my house and kills everyone inside? Problem is solved that way too. What if that second burglar is going to shoot or stab REGARDLESS of what I do?
Sorry this argument doesn't really work well at all.
Again it's not even the property. I can replace that. I just stated that it is worth more than the guy breaking into my house...frankly.
Conversely said burglar could completely avoid getting shot by not BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE.
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.
Yes my property is worth more than the asshole that broke into my house and is jacking my shit.
There, I said it. I also completely believe it.
That's not the real issue though. The real issue though is that some guy that just committed a felony is inside my house at night uninvited. I have no clue what the guy breaking into my house intends to do and I refuse to risk my family on a maybe. If the guy is in my house at night, and he shouldn't be, I honestly have no qualms with killing him. People who break into houses are not good people. Trust me.
As a Police officer I really admire your confidence in the police but the real fact of the matter is that house burglary victims rarely get their stuff back. Most of the time they depend on insurance to take care of it. That aside I am far more worried about my family than my stuff and I will use lethal force to protect them without a second thought. They are too important to risk otherwise.
What if you go searching for the burglar your gun up, then the burglar you did not see, or even a secong burglar you did not know were there kills you because they were afraid? Who then is left to defend your family? Just because you felt your property is worth more than life of a criminal.
That's alot of "what ifs". What if theres only one burglar, and that burglar plans to kill everyone in your home so he does not suffer any retaliation during the burglary.
On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote: [quote] 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?
I rather hope the police to catch him than try to shoot a man i didnt club, because i assumed he had a gun. Besides, there is a reason why death penalty isnt allowed in most western areas, i find no reason why we should be allowed to kill someone even if they are doing a crime if tje state isnt allowed to, especially if like you said there are safer options.
I never said shoot him, I just said if you want to keep your stuff you need to confront the burglar. The police are not going to catch him, its just naive to think they will. If you're a police officer, and someone tells you their home was robbed, whats your next move? You might check for finger prints, which is useless if they wore gloves, and you'll ask them if they had any enemies. That's about it. Maybe ask some pawn shops what they bought recently. There's not much else they can do. Murderers are generally easier to catch because there's a much greater chance for forensic evidence, and there's usually a motive and relationship between the victim and perpetrator. Burglars generally just randomly pick a house that looks like it has some good shit in it. Also, the law doesn't say you can kill someone who is committing a crime, it says you can kill someone to defend yourself. Buddha said you can defend yourself. Can you grasp that? Mother fucking Buddha! Maybe that well put in perspective the level of crazy your spewing.
How do i confront a guy with a guy while being safe? And like i said to other guy defendimg property =/= self defense. Also i ment i would call the policee when they are inside my house, people dont run fast with tvs in theyre bag.
On June 30 2011 17:48 Bleak wrote: I think if someone breaks into your home at night and if you have a gun, you should first warn him to leave your house and force him to give your belongings back. If he does not comply, if he attacks you, and if he is unarmed/carries a melee weapon, you may shot him in the leg or so to immobilise him. Then, call the police.
However, if the guy is armed with a firearm, I believe you should shoot him. Doing otherwise would be taking a big risk.
In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful.
Sad to see the Americans caring more about their plasmas than the life of an individual. I have heard that in some places asking people directions in U.S is dangerous as people think you are a trespasser or sth. Americans only care for money and property.
Don't be a tool, you just expressed the opinion of most Americans.
"In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful."
Yep, that's what its all about. Benefit of the doubt should go to the homeowner because no one else was in the situation they were in.
Asking directions in the U.S. is fine. Please come here before you spout any more shit about us.
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.
Yes my property is worth more than the asshole that broke into my house and is jacking my shit.
There, I said it. I also completely believe it.
That's not the real issue though. The real issue though is that some guy that just committed a felony is inside my house at night uninvited. I have no clue what the guy breaking into my house intends to do and I refuse to risk my family on a maybe. If the guy is in my house at night, and he shouldn't be, I honestly have no qualms with killing him. People who break into houses are not good people. Trust me.
As a Police officer I really admire your confidence in the police but the real fact of the matter is that house burglary victims rarely get their stuff back. Most of the time they depend on insurance to take care of it. That aside I am far more worried about my family than my stuff and I will use lethal force to protect them without a second thought. They are too important to risk otherwise.
What if you go searching for the burglar your gun up, then the burglar you did not see, or even a secong burglar you did not know were there kills you because they were afraid? Who then is left to defend your family? Just because you felt your property is worth more than life of a criminal.
That's alot of "what ifs". What if theres only one burglar, and that burglar plans to kill everyone in your home so he does not suffer any retaliation during the burglary.
Hey, there are always ifs. I just want to act as safe as possible and i do not find it likely that if someone wants to kill my family they would break into my house, when there are million times better ways.
I don't know what kind of gun control laws you have over on that side of the pond, but I think it's perfectly reasonable for it to be legal to shoot someone who breaks into your home (it is in my part of the States). You don't know if they're armed, you don't know how they'll react, and you don't know if they're alone. It's safer for you and for your family to either shout a warning then shoot if they seem hostile and/or make sudden moves or just shoot them, and it is very easy for the burglar to not get shot: they can simply not break in to your house. It should not be the homeowner's responsibility to confirm that the intruder is a threat before taking action, but the intruder's responsibility to demonstrate that they are not; someone who breaks into your house in the middle of the night has most certainly not demonstrated that they are benign.
How did this thread end up about America?.. The law is being past in the UK, Hardly anyone in the UK has a gun in there own home, and most burglar will also not have a gun in most cases they will run once they see you or an alarm goes off. This law just means that in the case they do no run you can defend yourself without going to prison. Also is if they intended to kill your possessions when they know you are in the house
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.
Yes my property is worth more than the asshole that broke into my house and is jacking my shit.
There, I said it. I also completely believe it.
That's not the real issue though. The real issue though is that some guy that just committed a felony is inside my house at night uninvited. I have no clue what the guy breaking into my house intends to do and I refuse to risk my family on a maybe. If the guy is in my house at night, and he shouldn't be, I honestly have no qualms with killing him. People who break into houses are not good people. Trust me.
As a Police officer I really admire your confidence in the police but the real fact of the matter is that house burglary victims rarely get their stuff back. Most of the time they depend on insurance to take care of it. That aside I am far more worried about my family than my stuff and I will use lethal force to protect them without a second thought. They are too important to risk otherwise.
What if you go searching for the burglar your gun up, then the burglar you did not see, or even a secong burglar you did not know were there kills you because they were afraid? Who then is left to defend your family? Just because you felt your property is worth more than life of a criminal.
Uh what kind of hypothetical nonsense is this?
What if a comet hits my house and kills everyone inside? Problem is solved that way too. What if that second burglar is going to shoot or stab REGARDLESS of what I do?
Sorry this argument doesn't really work well at all.
Again it's not even the property. I can replace that. I just stated that it is worth more than the guy breaking into my house...frankly.
Conversely said burglar could completely avoid getting shot by not BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE.
I alredy anwsered the if parts to other guy read that. But i will tell you why your last sentace is stupid. Well its because you could use the same argument in every situation. Example would you be ok of law that allows you to shoot anyone who insaults you bevause they could avoid being shot by not insaulting you.
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?
I rather hope the police to catch him than try to shoot a man i didnt club, because i assumed he had a gun. Besides, there is a reason why death penalty isnt allowed in most western areas, i find no reason why we should be allowed to kill someone even if they are doing a crime if tje state isnt allowed to, especially if like you said there are safer options.
I never said shoot him, I just said if you want to keep your stuff you need to confront the burglar. The police are not going to catch him, its just naive to think they will. If you're a police officer, and someone tells you their home was robbed, whats your next move? You might check for finger prints, which is useless if they wore gloves, and you'll ask them if they had any enemies. That's about it. Maybe ask some pawn shops what they bought recently. There's not much else they can do. Murderers are generally easier to catch because there's a much greater chance for forensic evidence, and there's usually a motive and relationship between the victim and perpetrator. Burglars generally just randomly pick a house that looks like it has some good shit in it. Also, the law doesn't say you can kill someone who is committing a crime, it says you can kill someone to defend yourself. Buddha said you can defend yourself. Can you grasp that? Mother fucking Buddha! Maybe that well put in perspective the level of crazy your spewing.
How do i confront a guy with a guy while being safe? And like i said to other guy defendimg property =/= self defense. Also i ment i would call the policee when they are inside my house, people dont run fast with tvs in theyre bag.
Do they drive fast with tv's in their car? Anyway, concerning defense of property, you guys can do what you wan't, but in English legal tradition, and by extension American legal tradition, a person has the right to defend both themselves and their property. That's just how we generally see things, because we've historically had to defend our property from those wishing to take it, much more so than other cultures have. Look at our history. There's a reason English, Canadian, American, and Australian people care more about this kind of stuff more than other people. That's not to speak for everyone in those countries, just that the populations in those countries trend more towards such ideas.
On June 30 2011 17:48 Bleak wrote: I think if someone breaks into your home at night and if you have a gun, you should first warn him to leave your house and force him to give your belongings back. If he does not comply, if he attacks you, and if he is unarmed/carries a melee weapon, you may shot him in the leg or so to immobilise him. Then, call the police.
However, if the guy is armed with a firearm, I believe you should shoot him. Doing otherwise would be taking a big risk.
In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful.
Sad to see the Americans caring more about their plasmas than the life of an individual. I have heard that in some places asking people directions in U.S is dangerous as people think you are a trespasser or sth. Americans only care for money and property.
Never happening.
Firing a handgun is difficult enough when you are perfectly calm, aiming for center mass, and have time to put your sights on the target.
When your adrenaline is spiking because someone just broke into your house who may or may not be carrying a weapon? Good luck, it's not going to happen. Do not underestimate what stress does to your body. Trained people have a hard enough time aiming at a LARGE target under stress and most people simply aren't trained in stress inoculation.
Keep in mind that I completely agree that you should announce yourself and tell the burglar to get the hell out of the house. For me though? He gets one chance. If he doesn't start leaving I am shooting. Reaction gets beating by pro action every single time so if he's hiding some weapon in his waist band then I better act first.
Agreed 100%, it would be unrealistic to think you could target a limb under the effects of stress and adrenaline, especially with low light visibility. It may not even work to immobilize him.
On June 30 2011 18:21 zdra wrote: How did this thread end up about America?.. The law is being past in the UK, Hardly anyone in the UK has a gun in there own home, and most burglar will also not have a gun in most cases they will run once they see you or an alarm goes off. This law just means that in the case they do no run you can defend yourself without going to prison. Also is if they intended to kill your possessions when they know you are in the house
Because the legal system in america is much more interesting topic than a law that allows you to do the stupidest thing ever which is getting in melee range of a burglar.
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.
Yes my property is worth more than the asshole that broke into my house and is jacking my shit.
There, I said it. I also completely believe it.
That's not the real issue though. The real issue though is that some guy that just committed a felony is inside my house at night uninvited. I have no clue what the guy breaking into my house intends to do and I refuse to risk my family on a maybe. If the guy is in my house at night, and he shouldn't be, I honestly have no qualms with killing him. People who break into houses are not good people. Trust me.
As a Police officer I really admire your confidence in the police but the real fact of the matter is that house burglary victims rarely get their stuff back. Most of the time they depend on insurance to take care of it. That aside I am far more worried about my family than my stuff and I will use lethal force to protect them without a second thought. They are too important to risk otherwise.
What if you go searching for the burglar your gun up, then the burglar you did not see, or even a secong burglar you did not know were there kills you because they were afraid? Who then is left to defend your family? Just because you felt your property is worth more than life of a criminal.
Uh what kind of hypothetical nonsense is this?
What if a comet hits my house and kills everyone inside? Problem is solved that way too. What if that second burglar is going to shoot or stab REGARDLESS of what I do?
Sorry this argument doesn't really work well at all.
Again it's not even the property. I can replace that. I just stated that it is worth more than the guy breaking into my house...frankly.
Conversely said burglar could completely avoid getting shot by not BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE.
I alredy anwsered the if parts to other guy read that. But i will tell you why your last sentace is stupid. Well its because you could use the same argument in every situation. Example would you be ok of law that allows you to shoot anyone who insaults you bevause they could avoid being shot by not insaulting you.
No you can't. Want to know why?
By using common sense. That aside there is no law that states I can shoot someone for insulting me so your argument just went out the window on that basis alone.
Really do you actually think what you typed somehow brings about a logical conclusion or even makes sense? Insulting me does not actually threaten my well being. Breaking into my house, especially at night, potentially does. Ergo my reaction to someone breaking into my house is going to be a lot more forceful than someone who insults me... This isn't a slippery slope here guy.
On June 30 2011 17:48 Bleak wrote: I think if someone breaks into your home at night and if you have a gun, you should first warn him to leave your house and force him to give your belongings back. If he does not comply, if he attacks you, and if he is unarmed/carries a melee weapon, you may shot him in the leg or so to immobilise him. Then, call the police.
However, if the guy is armed with a firearm, I believe you should shoot him. Doing otherwise would be taking a big risk.
In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful.
Sad to see the Americans caring more about their plasmas than the life of an individual. I have heard that in some places asking people directions in U.S is dangerous as people think you are a trespasser or sth. Americans only care for money and property.
Don't be a tool, you just expressed the opinion of most Americans.
"In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful."
Yep, that's what its all about. Benefit of the doubt should go to the homeowner because no one else was in the situation they were in.
Asking directions in the U.S. is fine. Please come here before you spout any more shit about us.
Don't get offended, i am aware there are idiots and geniuses in every society, it's just something I've heard that seemed funny to me. What I am trying to say is that (and I have heard it from Americans who live in Turkey) is that they are much more closed in terms of their personal space. My college teacher has talked about this before but it is really off topic.
So you wake up, realise that there is a burglar at your home, you grab your gun and move as silently as possible,. You find burglar the sitting room, checking the stuff around. He is not aware of you, his back is turned to you, you don't care he is armed or not and shoot the guy in torso with 4 bullets. Poor bastard dies right there.
Do you think this would constitute a proportional and necessary self defence case?
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.
Yes my property is worth more than the asshole that broke into my house and is jacking my shit.
There, I said it. I also completely believe it.
That's not the real issue though. The real issue though is that some guy that just committed a felony is inside my house at night uninvited. I have no clue what the guy breaking into my house intends to do and I refuse to risk my family on a maybe. If the guy is in my house at night, and he shouldn't be, I honestly have no qualms with killing him. People who break into houses are not good people. Trust me.
As a Police officer I really admire your confidence in the police but the real fact of the matter is that house burglary victims rarely get their stuff back. Most of the time they depend on insurance to take care of it. That aside I am far more worried about my family than my stuff and I will use lethal force to protect them without a second thought. They are too important to risk otherwise.
What if you go searching for the burglar your gun up, then the burglar you did not see, or even a secong burglar you did not know were there kills you because they were afraid? Who then is left to defend your family? Just because you felt your property is worth more than life of a criminal.
Uh what kind of hypothetical nonsense is this?
What if a comet hits my house and kills everyone inside? Problem is solved that way too. What if that second burglar is going to shoot or stab REGARDLESS of what I do?
Sorry this argument doesn't really work well at all.
Again it's not even the property. I can replace that. I just stated that it is worth more than the guy breaking into my house...frankly.
Conversely said burglar could completely avoid getting shot by not BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE.
I alredy anwsered the if parts to other guy read that. But i will tell you why your last sentace is stupid. Well its because you could use the same argument in every situation. Example would you be ok of law that allows you to shoot anyone who insaults you bevause they could avoid being shot by not insaulting you.
His last sentence wasn't stupid, your response to it is a fallacy. You are equating breaking into someone's house and posing a potential danger to them and their family with insulting him. You cannot equate things across orders of magnitude.
On June 30 2011 17:48 Bleak wrote: I think if someone breaks into your home at night and if you have a gun, you should first warn him to leave your house and force him to give your belongings back. If he does not comply, if he attacks you, and if he is unarmed/carries a melee weapon, you may shot him in the leg or so to immobilise him. Then, call the police.
However, if the guy is armed with a firearm, I believe you should shoot him. Doing otherwise would be taking a big risk.
In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful.
Sad to see the Americans caring more about their plasmas than the life of an individual. I have heard that in some places asking people directions in U.S is dangerous as people think you are a trespasser or sth. Americans only care for money and property.
Never happening.
Firing a handgun is difficult enough when you are perfectly calm, aiming for center mass, and have time to put your sights on the target.
When your adrenaline is spiking because someone just broke into your house who may or may not be carrying a weapon? Good luck, it's not going to happen. Do not underestimate what stress does to your body. Trained people have a hard enough time aiming at a LARGE target under stress and most people simply aren't trained in stress inoculation.
Keep in mind that I completely agree that you should announce yourself and tell the burglar to get the hell out of the house. For me though? He gets one chance. If he doesn't start leaving I am shooting. Reaction gets beating by pro action every single time so if he's hiding some weapon in his waist band then I better act first.
Agreed 100%, it would be unrealistic to think you could target a limb under the effects of stress and adrenaline, especially with low light visibility. It may not even work to immobilize him.
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.
Yes my property is worth more than the asshole that broke into my house and is jacking my shit.
There, I said it. I also completely believe it.
That's not the real issue though. The real issue though is that some guy that just committed a felony is inside my house at night uninvited. I have no clue what the guy breaking into my house intends to do and I refuse to risk my family on a maybe. If the guy is in my house at night, and he shouldn't be, I honestly have no qualms with killing him. People who break into houses are not good people. Trust me.
As a Police officer I really admire your confidence in the police but the real fact of the matter is that house burglary victims rarely get their stuff back. Most of the time they depend on insurance to take care of it. That aside I am far more worried about my family than my stuff and I will use lethal force to protect them without a second thought. They are too important to risk otherwise.
What if you go searching for the burglar your gun up, then the burglar you did not see, or even a secong burglar you did not know were there kills you because they were afraid? Who then is left to defend your family? Just because you felt your property is worth more than life of a criminal.
Uh what kind of hypothetical nonsense is this?
What if a comet hits my house and kills everyone inside? Problem is solved that way too. What if that second burglar is going to shoot or stab REGARDLESS of what I do?
Sorry this argument doesn't really work well at all.
Again it's not even the property. I can replace that. I just stated that it is worth more than the guy breaking into my house...frankly.
Conversely said burglar could completely avoid getting shot by not BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE.
I alredy anwsered the if parts to other guy read that. But i will tell you why your last sentace is stupid. Well its because you could use the same argument in every situation. Example would you be ok of law that allows you to shoot anyone who insaults you bevause they could avoid being shot by not insaulting you.
No you can't. Want to know why?
By using common sense. That aside there is no law that states I can shoot someone for insulting me so your argument just went out the window on that basis alone.
Really do you actually think what you typed somehow brings about a logical conclusion or even makes sense? Insulting me does not actually threaten my well being. Breaking into my house, especially at night, potentially does. Ergo my reaction to someone breaking into my house is going to be a lot more forceful than someone who insults me... This isn't a slippery slope here guy.
Well the common sence argument is also invalid because acording to my common sence a person that is taking my property or anyone elses property does not deserve death or possibly leathal injuries. So yeah its not universal common sence to do what you want either, elsewise harming burglars in fiinland would be legal. To further repeat what i said in this post saying crinals could avoid punishment X by not being criminals is imho stupid argument.
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.
Yes my property is worth more than the asshole that broke into my house and is jacking my shit.
There, I said it. I also completely believe it.
That's not the real issue though. The real issue though is that some guy that just committed a felony is inside my house at night uninvited. I have no clue what the guy breaking into my house intends to do and I refuse to risk my family on a maybe. If the guy is in my house at night, and he shouldn't be, I honestly have no qualms with killing him. People who break into houses are not good people. Trust me.
As a Police officer I really admire your confidence in the police but the real fact of the matter is that house burglary victims rarely get their stuff back. Most of the time they depend on insurance to take care of it. That aside I am far more worried about my family than my stuff and I will use lethal force to protect them without a second thought. They are too important to risk otherwise.
What if you go searching for the burglar your gun up, then the burglar you did not see, or even a secong burglar you did not know were there kills you because they were afraid? Who then is left to defend your family? Just because you felt your property is worth more than life of a criminal.
Uh what kind of hypothetical nonsense is this?
What if a comet hits my house and kills everyone inside? Problem is solved that way too. What if that second burglar is going to shoot or stab REGARDLESS of what I do?
Sorry this argument doesn't really work well at all.
Again it's not even the property. I can replace that. I just stated that it is worth more than the guy breaking into my house...frankly.
Conversely said burglar could completely avoid getting shot by not BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE.
I alredy anwsered the if parts to other guy read that. But i will tell you why your last sentace is stupid. Well its because you could use the same argument in every situation. Example would you be ok of law that allows you to shoot anyone who insaults you bevause they could avoid being shot by not insaulting you.
No you can't. Want to know why?
By using common sense. That aside there is no law that states I can shoot someone for insulting me so your argument just went out the window on that basis alone.
Really do you actually think what you typed somehow brings about a logical conclusion or even makes sense? Insulting me does not actually threaten my well being. Breaking into my house, especially at night, potentially does. Ergo my reaction to someone breaking into my house is going to be a lot more forceful than someone who insults me... This isn't a slippery slope here guy.
Well the common sence argument is also invalid because acording to my common sence a person that is taking my property or anyone elses property does not deserve death or possibly leathal injuries. So yeah its not universal common sence to do what you want either, elsewise harming burglars in fiinland would be legal. To further repeat what i said in this post saying crinals could avoid punishment X by not being criminals is imho stupid argument.
Your comparison was completely invalid and is still invalid. However, you can believe that someone doesn't deserve to die for theft.
I agree with you.
Burglary is not theft. I do not equate them at all as they are not the same thing. I do not feel like risking my family on the hope that the guy that broke into my house doesn't plan on harming me or anyone else in the house. You may find that risk acceptable. I do not.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect people not to break into my house. If it requires the risk of being shot for them to stop breaking into my house then so be it. I really fail to see the fallacy in that argument.
It's nice to know though that if someone breaks into your house in Finland you basically have to stand there and wait for them to take your shit. It's like you think the guy that broke into your house is somehow the victim if he gets hurt.
If you put it into relative numbers it sounds even worse: (Mostly random selection of countries) More than twice as many as South Korea Almost three times as many as Canada Almost four times as many as France and the UK More than four times as many as China, Greece and Italy About Five times as many as Denmark Almost six times as many as Spain, Sweden, Germany and Japan (All numbers per capita, not total)
Anyways, let's not derail this further.
Summary for this Thread: Shooting Burglars is bad. Stabbing them is bad, too. It's legal in the US and UK, but you still shouldn't do it. If you live in the US you'd probably do it anyways.
On June 30 2011 18:21 zdra wrote: How did this thread end up about America?.. The law is being past in the UK, Hardly anyone in the UK has a gun in there own home, and most burglar will also not have a gun in most cases they will run once they see you or an alarm goes off. This law just means that in the case they do no run you can defend yourself without going to prison. Also is if they intended to kill your possessions when they know you are in the house
Because the legal system in america is much more interesting topic than a law that allows you to do the stupidest thing ever which is getting in melee range of a burglar.
Once again, severe bias and misunderstanding of this law. What if THEY GET IN MELEE RANGE OF YOU?
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.
Yes my property is worth more than the asshole that broke into my house and is jacking my shit.
There, I said it. I also completely believe it.
That's not the real issue though. The real issue though is that some guy that just committed a felony is inside my house at night uninvited. I have no clue what the guy breaking into my house intends to do and I refuse to risk my family on a maybe. If the guy is in my house at night, and he shouldn't be, I honestly have no qualms with killing him. People who break into houses are not good people. Trust me.
As a Police officer I really admire your confidence in the police but the real fact of the matter is that house burglary victims rarely get their stuff back. Most of the time they depend on insurance to take care of it. That aside I am far more worried about my family than my stuff and I will use lethal force to protect them without a second thought. They are too important to risk otherwise.
What if you go searching for the burglar your gun up, then the burglar you did not see, or even a secong burglar you did not know were there kills you because they were afraid? Who then is left to defend your family? Just because you felt your property is worth more than life of a criminal.
Uh what kind of hypothetical nonsense is this?
What if a comet hits my house and kills everyone inside? Problem is solved that way too. What if that second burglar is going to shoot or stab REGARDLESS of what I do?
Sorry this argument doesn't really work well at all.
Again it's not even the property. I can replace that. I just stated that it is worth more than the guy breaking into my house...frankly.
Conversely said burglar could completely avoid getting shot by not BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE.
I alredy anwsered the if parts to other guy read that. But i will tell you why your last sentace is stupid. Well its because you could use the same argument in every situation. Example would you be ok of law that allows you to shoot anyone who insaults you bevause they could avoid being shot by not insaulting you.
No you can't. Want to know why?
By using common sense. That aside there is no law that states I can shoot someone for insulting me so your argument just went out the window on that basis alone.
Really do you actually think what you typed somehow brings about a logical conclusion or even makes sense? Insulting me does not actually threaten my well being. Breaking into my house, especially at night, potentially does. Ergo my reaction to someone breaking into my house is going to be a lot more forceful than someone who insults me... This isn't a slippery slope here guy.
Well the common sence argument is also invalid because acording to my common sence a person that is taking my property or anyone elses property does not deserve death or possibly leathal injuries. So yeah its not universal common sence to do what you want either, elsewise harming burglars in fiinland would be legal. To further repeat what i said in this post saying crinals could avoid punishment X by not being criminals is imho stupid argument.
Is it illegal to confront someone who is burglarizing your home in Finland? Maybe your gun control laws are a lot stricter than ours, but over here the guy in your sitting room could have a gun, which he could pull on you when you confront him; you have no way of knowing whether he's armed or not until the weapon is being used against you, so it is legal to shoot someone in your home in defense of your property (in some states, my state being one of them). And them being there only for your stuff and having no intentions of hurting anyone at all is the best-case scenario. Not everyone is a trained cop like Jayme, most people are just scared and irrational.
Using your thought process it would be better to simply not confront them and let them have your stuff; maybe that's what you would really do (I do hope you're well insured, though). All I do know is that I don't want someone to be able to sneak into my house, steal my stuff and get away with it; I want the legally-guaranteed ability to do something about it while making sure I and my family stay safe.
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.
Yes my property is worth more than the asshole that broke into my house and is jacking my shit.
There, I said it. I also completely believe it.
That's not the real issue though. The real issue though is that some guy that just committed a felony is inside my house at night uninvited. I have no clue what the guy breaking into my house intends to do and I refuse to risk my family on a maybe. If the guy is in my house at night, and he shouldn't be, I honestly have no qualms with killing him. People who break into houses are not good people. Trust me.
As a Police officer I really admire your confidence in the police but the real fact of the matter is that house burglary victims rarely get their stuff back. Most of the time they depend on insurance to take care of it. That aside I am far more worried about my family than my stuff and I will use lethal force to protect them without a second thought. They are too important to risk otherwise.
What if you go searching for the burglar your gun up, then the burglar you did not see, or even a secong burglar you did not know were there kills you because they were afraid? Who then is left to defend your family? Just because you felt your property is worth more than life of a criminal.
Uh what kind of hypothetical nonsense is this?
What if a comet hits my house and kills everyone inside? Problem is solved that way too. What if that second burglar is going to shoot or stab REGARDLESS of what I do?
Sorry this argument doesn't really work well at all.
Again it's not even the property. I can replace that. I just stated that it is worth more than the guy breaking into my house...frankly.
Conversely said burglar could completely avoid getting shot by not BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE.
I alredy anwsered the if parts to other guy read that. But i will tell you why your last sentace is stupid. Well its because you could use the same argument in every situation. Example would you be ok of law that allows you to shoot anyone who insaults you bevause they could avoid being shot by not insaulting you.
No you can't. Want to know why?
By using common sense. That aside there is no law that states I can shoot someone for insulting me so your argument just went out the window on that basis alone.
Really do you actually think what you typed somehow brings about a logical conclusion or even makes sense? Insulting me does not actually threaten my well being. Breaking into my house, especially at night, potentially does. Ergo my reaction to someone breaking into my house is going to be a lot more forceful than someone who insults me... This isn't a slippery slope here guy.
Well the common sence argument is also invalid because acording to my common sence a person that is taking my property or anyone elses property does not deserve death or possibly leathal injuries. So yeah its not universal common sence to do what you want either, elsewise harming burglars in fiinland would be legal. To further repeat what i said in this post saying crinals could avoid punishment X by not being criminals is imho stupid argument.
Your comparison was completely invalid and is still invalid. However, you can believe that someone doesn't deserve to die for theft.
I agree with you.
Burglary is not theft. I do not equate them at all as they are not the same thing. I do not feel like risking my family on the hope that the guy that broke into my house doesn't plan on harming me or anyone else in the house. You may find that risk acceptable. I do not.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect people not to break into my house. If it requires the risk of being shot for them to stop breaking into my house then so be it. I really fail to see the fallacy in that argument.
It's nice to know though that if someone breaks into your house in Finland you basically have to stand there and wait for them to take your shit. It's like you think the guy that broke into your house is somehow the victim if he gets hurt.
I dont need to stand there I can do anything that does not imjure him like take my stuff back or grable him untill the police arrives, if he wants to figth before giving my stuff back i can figth back in self defense. If i think the burlar iis too strong for me or If the burglar attempts to run away with my stuff i would follow him and give directions to cops as they make a surround. And here the possibilities of the burlar having a gun is bacicly zero so here we dont have towrry about that. Its not a perfect system but then again there are not alot of burlars here.
On June 30 2011 15:41 OsoVega wrote: [quote] 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.
Yes my property is worth more than the asshole that broke into my house and is jacking my shit.
There, I said it. I also completely believe it.
That's not the real issue though. The real issue though is that some guy that just committed a felony is inside my house at night uninvited. I have no clue what the guy breaking into my house intends to do and I refuse to risk my family on a maybe. If the guy is in my house at night, and he shouldn't be, I honestly have no qualms with killing him. People who break into houses are not good people. Trust me.
As a Police officer I really admire your confidence in the police but the real fact of the matter is that house burglary victims rarely get their stuff back. Most of the time they depend on insurance to take care of it. That aside I am far more worried about my family than my stuff and I will use lethal force to protect them without a second thought. They are too important to risk otherwise.
What if you go searching for the burglar your gun up, then the burglar you did not see, or even a secong burglar you did not know were there kills you because they were afraid? Who then is left to defend your family? Just because you felt your property is worth more than life of a criminal.
Uh what kind of hypothetical nonsense is this?
What if a comet hits my house and kills everyone inside? Problem is solved that way too. What if that second burglar is going to shoot or stab REGARDLESS of what I do?
Sorry this argument doesn't really work well at all.
Again it's not even the property. I can replace that. I just stated that it is worth more than the guy breaking into my house...frankly.
Conversely said burglar could completely avoid getting shot by not BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE.
I alredy anwsered the if parts to other guy read that. But i will tell you why your last sentace is stupid. Well its because you could use the same argument in every situation. Example would you be ok of law that allows you to shoot anyone who insaults you bevause they could avoid being shot by not insaulting you.
No you can't. Want to know why?
By using common sense. That aside there is no law that states I can shoot someone for insulting me so your argument just went out the window on that basis alone.
Really do you actually think what you typed somehow brings about a logical conclusion or even makes sense? Insulting me does not actually threaten my well being. Breaking into my house, especially at night, potentially does. Ergo my reaction to someone breaking into my house is going to be a lot more forceful than someone who insults me... This isn't a slippery slope here guy.
Well the common sence argument is also invalid because acording to my common sence a person that is taking my property or anyone elses property does not deserve death or possibly leathal injuries. So yeah its not universal common sence to do what you want either, elsewise harming burglars in fiinland would be legal. To further repeat what i said in this post saying crinals could avoid punishment X by not being criminals is imho stupid argument.
Your comparison was completely invalid and is still invalid. However, you can believe that someone doesn't deserve to die for theft.
I agree with you.
Burglary is not theft. I do not equate them at all as they are not the same thing. I do not feel like risking my family on the hope that the guy that broke into my house doesn't plan on harming me or anyone else in the house. You may find that risk acceptable. I do not.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect people not to break into my house. If it requires the risk of being shot for them to stop breaking into my house then so be it. I really fail to see the fallacy in that argument.
It's nice to know though that if someone breaks into your house in Finland you basically have to stand there and wait for them to take your shit. It's like you think the guy that broke into your house is somehow the victim if he gets hurt.
I dont need to stand there I can do anything that does not imjure him like take my stuff back or grable him untill the police arrives, if he wants to figth before giving my stuff back i can figth back in self defense. If i think the burlar iis too strong for me or If the burglar attempts to run away with my stuff i would follow him and give directions to cops as they make a surround. And here the possibilities of the burlar having a gun is bacicly zero so here we dont have towrry about that. Its not a perfect system but then again there are not alot of burlars here.
At this point I'm kind of curious, what's the average response time for Finnish police?
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.
no it is not. you are only allowed to use equal force that they are using upon you. If they pull out a gun, then you are allowed to open fire. I wouldnt want to be on your property on accident!
Even if that would be true, you gotta remember that America is America. -.-
On June 30 2011 17:48 Bleak wrote: I think if someone breaks into your home at night and if you have a gun, you should first warn him to leave your house and force him to give your belongings back. If he does not comply, if he attacks you, and if he is unarmed/carries a melee weapon, you may shot him in the leg or so to immobilise him. Then, call the police.
However, if the guy is armed with a firearm, I believe you should shoot him. Doing otherwise would be taking a big risk.
In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful.
Sad to see the Americans caring more about their plasmas than the life of an individual. I have heard that in some places asking people directions in U.S is dangerous as people think you are a trespasser or sth. Americans only care for money and property.
Don't be a tool, you just expressed the opinion of most Americans.
"In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful."
Yep, that's what its all about. Benefit of the doubt should go to the homeowner because no one else was in the situation they were in.
Asking directions in the U.S. is fine. Please come here before you spout any more shit about us.
Don't get offended, i am aware there are idiots and geniuses in every society, it's just something I've heard that seemed funny to me. What I am trying to say is that (and I have heard it from Americans who live in Turkey) is that they are much more closed in terms of their personal space. My college teacher has talked about this before but it is really off topic.
So you wake up, realise that there is a burglar at your home, you grab your gun and move as silently as possible,. You find burglar the sitting room, checking the stuff around. He is not aware of you, his back is turned to you, you don't care he is armed or not and shoot the guy in torso with 4 bullets. Poor bastard dies right there.
Do you think this would constitute a proportional and necessary self defence case?
I wouldn't do that personally for my own reasons but yes, that should hold up as self defense. It seems the person in that situation cared a great deal about whether or not that person was armed, hence explaining their action. Lets say your mother was in her home alone, and in her frightened state, she did EXACTLY what you described above. Would she deserve to go to prison? Or lets say she pointed the gun at him and yelled a warning, he jumps out of the way, draws his gun and kills her. Would you find solace knowing she did the "morally right" thing? Proportionality has no place in this argument. When someone initiates hostilities against you, you have the right to do whatever is necessary to feel safe.
If you put it into relative numbers it sounds even worse: (Mostly random selection of countries) More than twice as many as South Korea Almost three times as many as Canada Almost four times as many as France and the UK More than four times as many as China, Greece and Italy About Five times as many as Denmark Almost six times as many as Spain, Sweden, Germany and Japan (All numbers per capita, not total)
Anyways, let's not derail this further.
Summary for this Thread: Shooting Burglars is bad. Stabbing them is bad, too. It's legal in the US and UK, but you still shouldn't do it. If you live in the US you'd probably do it anyways.
I'm honestly not entirely sure that the murder rate has much to do with gun control laws in the United States.
Before I go on I just want to say this is my opinion and I don't proclaim to be an expert on this or anything but what I've noticed in the US is that the sheer meshing and diversity of culture around here leaves more room for tension and so violent crime is simply more common. Our population is also plain larger and while I understand those numbers you gave are Per Capita, the sheer amount of population actually does mean something and make a difference.
I think that and a combination of the drug trafficking that goes on in this country account for a large portion of the homicide rates we see. I am also not saying that other countries don't have the same problem, I just believe it's nowhere on the same scale.
The murders I go to are very very rarely between "upstanding" citizens. Usually it's because some guy trolled another selling drugs on the wrong turf and it got taken personally. Criminals are really stupid people and still say things like "mad doggin me" at the age of 30.
If you put it into relative numbers it sounds even worse: (Mostly random selection of countries) More than twice as many as South Korea Almost three times as many as Canada Almost four times as many as France and the UK More than four times as many as China, Greece and Italy About Five times as many as Denmark Almost six times as many as Spain, Sweden, Germany and Japan (All numbers per capita, not total)
Anyways, let's not derail this further.
Summary for this Thread: Shooting Burglars is bad. Stabbing them is bad, too. It's legal in the US and UK, but you still shouldn't do it. If you live in the US you'd probably do it anyways.
Okay, now prove causation. Look at the homicide rate in Mexico. Look at the homicide rate in Switzerland. Yeah, it's off topic, but what you posted is meaningless.
That's not a summary of this thread, it's a summary of your feelings. My feelings would be that you should be able to shoot burglars, you should be able to stab burglars.
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.
Yes my property is worth more than the asshole that broke into my house and is jacking my shit.
There, I said it. I also completely believe it.
That's not the real issue though. The real issue though is that some guy that just committed a felony is inside my house at night uninvited. I have no clue what the guy breaking into my house intends to do and I refuse to risk my family on a maybe. If the guy is in my house at night, and he shouldn't be, I honestly have no qualms with killing him. People who break into houses are not good people. Trust me.
As a Police officer I really admire your confidence in the police but the real fact of the matter is that house burglary victims rarely get their stuff back. Most of the time they depend on insurance to take care of it. That aside I am far more worried about my family than my stuff and I will use lethal force to protect them without a second thought. They are too important to risk otherwise.
What if you go searching for the burglar your gun up, then the burglar you did not see, or even a secong burglar you did not know were there kills you because they were afraid? Who then is left to defend your family? Just because you felt your property is worth more than life of a criminal.
Uh what kind of hypothetical nonsense is this?
What if a comet hits my house and kills everyone inside? Problem is solved that way too. What if that second burglar is going to shoot or stab REGARDLESS of what I do?
Sorry this argument doesn't really work well at all.
Again it's not even the property. I can replace that. I just stated that it is worth more than the guy breaking into my house...frankly.
Conversely said burglar could completely avoid getting shot by not BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE.
I alredy anwsered the if parts to other guy read that. But i will tell you why your last sentace is stupid. Well its because you could use the same argument in every situation. Example would you be ok of law that allows you to shoot anyone who insaults you bevause they could avoid being shot by not insaulting you.
No you can't. Want to know why?
By using common sense. That aside there is no law that states I can shoot someone for insulting me so your argument just went out the window on that basis alone.
Really do you actually think what you typed somehow brings about a logical conclusion or even makes sense? Insulting me does not actually threaten my well being. Breaking into my house, especially at night, potentially does. Ergo my reaction to someone breaking into my house is going to be a lot more forceful than someone who insults me... This isn't a slippery slope here guy.
Well the common sence argument is also invalid because acording to my common sence a person that is taking my property or anyone elses property does not deserve death or possibly leathal injuries. So yeah its not universal common sence to do what you want either, elsewise harming burglars in fiinland would be legal. To further repeat what i said in this post saying crinals could avoid punishment X by not being criminals is imho stupid argument.
Is it illegal to confront someone who is burglarizing your home in Finland? Maybe your gun control laws are a lot stricter than ours, but over here the guy in your sitting room could have a gun, which he could pull on you when you confront him; you have no way of knowing whether he's armed or not until the weapon is being used against you, so it is legal to shoot someone in your home in defense of your property (in some states, my state being one of them). And them being there only for your stuff and having no intentions of hurting anyone at all is the best-case scenario. Not everyone is a trained cop like Jayme, most people are just scared and irrational.
Using your thought process it would be better to simply not confront them and let them have your stuff; maybe that's what you would really do (I do hope you're well insured, though). All I do know is that I don't want someone to be able to sneak into my house, steal my stuff and get away with it; I want the legally-guaranteed ability to do something about it while making sure I and my family stay safe.
In most countries you can point a gun at him and confront him, but you are not allowed to harm him if he does not present a threat to you or someone else. The chance that a burglar will have a gun is very very small. Basically the only criminals having guns are drug-mafias and other criminal organizations. And they do not do burglaries or want to kill people other than members of rival organizations as that would make police concentrate on them.
A lot (not all) of that comes back to the number of guns in the society and the culture of gun usage. If you would magically strip all people in US of guns and made ban on owning guns privately, it would be pretty good as criminals would not have guns either (and no they won't get them easily, most of their guns are acquired from general population). But any gradual change in US gun laws will probably make things worse in short to medium term as you deprive citizens of means of self-defense while criminals still have enough guns to last for a time. It is kind of unescapable circle. And not everything is in guns, US seems to have much more violent culture at least in some places.
So in places where guns are scarce and violence also not high, the laws can be as in most of Europe as the chance of the criminal having a gun is really low. And that situation is in general better. However if guns are prevalent the laws have to account for that, and sadly I do not see an easy non-totalitarian way to transition into less armed society.
On June 30 2011 17:48 Bleak wrote: I think if someone breaks into your home at night and if you have a gun, you should first warn him to leave your house and force him to give your belongings back. If he does not comply, if he attacks you, and if he is unarmed/carries a melee weapon, you may shot him in the leg or so to immobilise him. Then, call the police.
However, if the guy is armed with a firearm, I believe you should shoot him. Doing otherwise would be taking a big risk.
In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful.
Sad to see the Americans caring more about their plasmas than the life of an individual. I have heard that in some places asking people directions in U.S is dangerous as people think you are a trespasser or sth. Americans only care for money and property.
Don't be a tool, you just expressed the opinion of most Americans.
"In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful."
Yep, that's what its all about. Benefit of the doubt should go to the homeowner because no one else was in the situation they were in.
Asking directions in the U.S. is fine. Please come here before you spout any more shit about us.
Don't get offended, i am aware there are idiots and geniuses in every society, it's just something I've heard that seemed funny to me. What I am trying to say is that (and I have heard it from Americans who live in Turkey) is that they are much more closed in terms of their personal space. My college teacher has talked about this before but it is really off topic.
So you wake up, realise that there is a burglar at your home, you grab your gun and move as silently as possible,. You find burglar the sitting room, checking the stuff around. He is not aware of you, his back is turned to you, you don't care he is armed or not and shoot the guy in torso with 4 bullets. Poor bastard dies right there.
Do you think this would constitute a proportional and necessary self defence case?
I wouldn't do that personally for my own reasons but yes, that should hold up as self defense. It seems the person in that situation cared a great deal about whether or not that person was armed, hence explaining their action. Lets say your mother was in her home alone, and in her frightened state, she did EXACTLY what you described above. Would she deserve to go to prison? Or lets say she pointed the gun at him and yelled a warning, he jumps out of the way, draws his gun and kills her. Would you find solace knowing she did the "morally right" thing? Proportionality has no place in this argument. When someone initiates hostilities against you, you have the right to do whatever is necessary to feel safe.
And what if my answer to your hypothetical questions is: In general yes, she would deserve to go to prison (there are a lot of "but"s in that, it depends on more details about the situation). No I would not find any solace, yet I still support the laws to be as they are.
And in my book burglar does not initiate hostilities against me by being in my house.
If you put it into relative numbers it sounds even worse: (Mostly random selection of countries) More than twice as many as South Korea Almost three times as many as Canada Almost four times as many as France and the UK More than four times as many as China, Greece and Italy About Five times as many as Denmark Almost six times as many as Spain, Sweden, Germany and Japan (All numbers per capita, not total)
Anyways, let's not derail this further.
Summary for this Thread: Shooting Burglars is bad. Stabbing them is bad, too. It's legal in the US and UK, but you still shouldn't do it. If you live in the US you'd probably do it anyways.
I'm honestly not entirely sure that the murder rate has much to do with gun control laws in the United States.
Before I go on I just want to say this is my opinion and I don't proclaim to be an expert on this or anything but what I've noticed in the US is that the sheer meshing and diversity of culture around here leaves more room for tension and so violent crime is simply more common. Our population is also plain larger and while I understand those numbers you gave are Per Capita, the sheer amount of population actually does mean something and make a difference.
I think that and a combination of the drug trafficking that goes on in this country account for a large portion of the homicide rates we see. I am also not saying that other countries don't have the same problem, I just believe it's nowhere on the same scale.
The murders I go to are very very rarely between "upstanding" citizens. Usually it's because some guy trolled another selling drugs on the wrong turf and it got taken personally. Criminals are really stupid people and still say things like "mad doggin me" at the age of 30.
Then again it could be the guns lol.
He also for example provided China (question is how trustworthy they are), which has somewhat bigger population and is not even a first world country, and those tend to have higher crime rates.
As for gun laws, yes, people saying that everything would be solved by gun control laws are wrong as it is not that simple. But the murders you talk about , the ones between criminals, they are eased by guns and criminals get guns from the citizens, so if citizens do not have them, criminals also have trouble getting them.
Shooting or stabbing a burglar that uses no force himself is retarded. How is your property worth more than the life of the burglar? Yes, if the burglar threatens you, or attacks you then go ahead.
Hope we get this in holland too. Someone got robbed in there own house, then hit the burglar in the legs with a mini baseball bat. Got sued and the burglar won. Crazy world.
I always wonder who lets burglars get away with suing.
Someone breaks into you home, slips on the mopped floor and onto a kitchen fork facing upwards in the dishwasher. What jury then says 'You know what, he should have all your money'?
Does this mean i can shoot them or is that excess force? Anyone who breaks into my house leaves his right to life at the door/window, ill tell them to put down my stuff and get out, but only once, after that its both barrels for those bastards. EDIT. The gun is registered, licensed and legal.
I would shoot a burglar in the mouth then go to sleep like a baby. Wouldn't even think twice about it. In fact, I'd be glad I shot him in the mouth so that his mom couldn't give him an open casket funeral.
On June 30 2011 12:32 Hekisui wrote: There are plenty of actual cases where innocent people are confused for burglars and are attacked or killed for trespassing.
And even besides that, how does a criminal deserve to die? They break the law. It is immoral. But killing a criminal on sight is also immoral. Your plasma tv isn't worth more than the life of a criminal.
property is worth much more than human life in the western world. didn't you know that?
On June 30 2011 12:32 Hekisui wrote: There are plenty of actual cases where innocent people are confused for burglars and are attacked or killed for trespassing.
And even besides that, how does a criminal deserve to die? They break the law. It is immoral. But killing a criminal on sight is also immoral. Your plasma tv isn't worth more than the life of a criminal.
property is worth much more than human life in the western world. didn't you know that?
Indeed. I ran over the last kid that ever keyed my car. That sure taught him!
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.
It's especially a loose term here in Florida. If someone is on my property, and I deem them a "threat", I can shoot them on the spot. Of course I can't invite people onto my yard and shoot them willy nilly, but if someone walks into my house or is fumbling with my car out front -- I can shoot him in the chest no problem.
On June 30 2011 12:04 Mykill wrote: i read this article this morning as well. good thing they're just clearing it up so people know they can actually defend themselves in a home invasion.
However does anybody know what the rule is about a theif running wth your stuff? you can shoot him in the back right? because your still defending your property which is in their posession...
No, you cannot use excessive force to obtain property that was taken from you. Shooting someone is absolutely excessive force. You can only use excessive force when you are in physical danger.
On June 30 2011 12:39 Sanctimonius wrote: Basically if you find yourself confronted by a thief in your home you can defend yourself. You don't have the right to chase him down..
This needs to be clarified. You absolutely can chase a thief down and beat the shit out of him for the purpose of getting your belongings back. However, you cannot use anything deemed as excessive force to do so in you aren't in physical danger. Such as stabbing, shooting, breaking his ribs, etc. in order to get your 20$ pair of shoes or SC2 CD key back. You can't continue to beat him into submission after you get your property back, either.
On June 30 2011 17:48 Bleak wrote: I think if someone breaks into your home at night and if you have a gun, you should first warn him to leave your house and force him to give your belongings back. If he does not comply, if he attacks you, and if he is unarmed/carries a melee weapon, you may shot him in the leg or so to immobilise him. Then, call the police.
However, if the guy is armed with a firearm, I believe you should shoot him. Doing otherwise would be taking a big risk.
In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful.
Sad to see the Americans caring more about their plasmas than the life of an individual. I have heard that in some places asking people directions in U.S is dangerous as people think you are a trespasser or sth. Americans only care for money and property.
Don't be a tool, you just expressed the opinion of most Americans.
"In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful."
Yep, that's what its all about. Benefit of the doubt should go to the homeowner because no one else was in the situation they were in.
Asking directions in the U.S. is fine. Please come here before you spout any more shit about us.
Don't get offended, i am aware there are idiots and geniuses in every society, it's just something I've heard that seemed funny to me. What I am trying to say is that (and I have heard it from Americans who live in Turkey) is that they are much more closed in terms of their personal space. My college teacher has talked about this before but it is really off topic.
So you wake up, realise that there is a burglar at your home, you grab your gun and move as silently as possible,. You find burglar the sitting room, checking the stuff around. He is not aware of you, his back is turned to you, you don't care he is armed or not and shoot the guy in torso with 4 bullets. Poor bastard dies right there.
Do you think this would constitute a proportional and necessary self defence case?
I wouldn't do that personally for my own reasons but yes, that should hold up as self defense. It seems the person in that situation cared a great deal about whether or not that person was armed, hence explaining their action. Lets say your mother was in her home alone, and in her frightened state, she did EXACTLY what you described above. Would she deserve to go to prison? Or lets say she pointed the gun at him and yelled a warning, he jumps out of the way, draws his gun and kills her. Would you find solace knowing she did the "morally right" thing? Proportionality has no place in this argument. When someone initiates hostilities against you, you have the right to do whatever is necessary to feel safe.
And what if my answer to your hypothetical questions is: In general yes, she would deserve to go to prison (there are a lot of "but"s in that, it depends on more details about the situation). No I would not find any solace, yet I still support the laws to be as they are.
And in my book burglar does not initiate hostilities against me by being in my house.
The clarification will be interesting. I mean 'necessary force' can incorporate a lot of possibilities - even manslaughter at the extreme.
Part of me is really torn on this because on the one hand, people should obviously be entitled to defend themselves against intruders...but being able to wield a knife and possibly kill someone? It could also inspire intruders themselves to bring weapons.
Laws restricting the legal action of the property owned are fairly illogical though . If someone walks into your house, possibly armed, the last thing you're going to be thinking about is 'what does the law allow me to do' - you're going to defend yourself and it's going to be largely down to the property owner to know what action is necessary to feel safe.
On June 30 2011 17:48 Bleak wrote: I think if someone breaks into your home at night and if you have a gun, you should first warn him to leave your house and force him to give your belongings back. If he does not comply, if he attacks you, and if he is unarmed/carries a melee weapon, you may shot him in the leg or so to immobilise him. Then, call the police.
However, if the guy is armed with a firearm, I believe you should shoot him. Doing otherwise would be taking a big risk.
In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful.
Sad to see the Americans caring more about their plasmas than the life of an individual. I have heard that in some places asking people directions in U.S is dangerous as people think you are a trespasser or sth. Americans only care for money and property.
Don't be a tool, you just expressed the opinion of most Americans.
"In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful."
Yep, that's what its all about. Benefit of the doubt should go to the homeowner because no one else was in the situation they were in.
Asking directions in the U.S. is fine. Please come here before you spout any more shit about us.
Don't get offended, i am aware there are idiots and geniuses in every society, it's just something I've heard that seemed funny to me. What I am trying to say is that (and I have heard it from Americans who live in Turkey) is that they are much more closed in terms of their personal space. My college teacher has talked about this before but it is really off topic.
So you wake up, realise that there is a burglar at your home, you grab your gun and move as silently as possible,. You find burglar the sitting room, checking the stuff around. He is not aware of you, his back is turned to you, you don't care he is armed or not and shoot the guy in torso with 4 bullets. Poor bastard dies right there.
Do you think this would constitute a proportional and necessary self defence case?
I wouldn't do that personally for my own reasons but yes, that should hold up as self defense. It seems the person in that situation cared a great deal about whether or not that person was armed, hence explaining their action. Lets say your mother was in her home alone, and in her frightened state, she did EXACTLY what you described above. Would she deserve to go to prison? Or lets say she pointed the gun at him and yelled a warning, he jumps out of the way, draws his gun and kills her. Would you find solace knowing she did the "morally right" thing? Proportionality has no place in this argument. When someone initiates hostilities against you, you have the right to do whatever is necessary to feel safe.
And what if my answer to your hypothetical questions is: In general yes, she would deserve to go to prison (there are a lot of "but"s in that, it depends on more details about the situation). No I would not find any solace, yet I still support the laws to be as they are.
And in my book burglar does not initiate hostilities against me by being in my house.
You are an evil person.
The same I can say about you. Could you provide some more content ? I suppose you see a problem with my first answer ? If the second, then I would point out that laws are mainly not here to provide solace to individuals.
On June 30 2011 12:32 Hekisui wrote: There are plenty of actual cases where innocent people are confused for burglars and are attacked or killed for trespassing.
And even besides that, how does a criminal deserve to die? They break the law. It is immoral. But killing a criminal on sight is also immoral. Your plasma tv isn't worth more than the life of a criminal.
property is worth much more than human life in the western world. didn't you know that?
It should be close to equal imo, no reason for it not to be.
For those of you bleeding-hearts defending the burglars, nobody is saying you have to defend yourself. If you want to, go ahead and sit there while they take or stuff and assault you. Its good that the rest of us have to right to self-defence.
On June 30 2011 23:42 iamho wrote: For those of you bleeding-hearts defending the burglars, nobody is saying you have to defend yourself. If you want to, go ahead and sit there while they take or stuff and assault you. Its good that the rest of us have to right to self-defence.
Shooting them while they are not using force is not acceptable. Your stuff is not worth more than their life. Obviously it's a different story if they come at you waving a gun or a knife.
On June 30 2011 21:06 FJ wrote: I always wonder who lets burglars get away with suing.
Someone breaks into you home, slips on the mopped floor and onto a kitchen fork facing upwards in the dishwasher. What jury then says 'You know what, he should have all your money'?
On June 30 2011 12:39 Sanctimonius wrote: ... some places have recorded cases of homeowners being sued because thieves have injured themselves when trying to steal their property ...
On June 30 2011 11:56 TMStarcraft wrote: Now if only they could prevent burglars from suing you when they hurt themselves breaking into your place.
On June 30 2011 12:13 Artik wrote: The part that gets me though is when someone breaks into your house and then falls on a knife or something stupid and then wins after suing...that's just messed up.
Amongst others. Have you got a cite of this actually happening, or is this a 'my friend knows a guy who had a friend who heard of something who sued a home owner for emotional distress because the lock on his house was too difficult to pick' sort of situation? The closest I can find is someone who sued a school after falling through a skylight, but you all seem to be suggesting that this is crimes committed on private property which is a whole different ball game. I am also not interested in examples of burglars suing after being attacked by home owners, which is also a different situation from the one you are all outlining. False stories abound.
I am prepared to be wrong, but this all sounds like so much scaremongering to me.
On June 30 2011 17:48 Bleak wrote: I think if someone breaks into your home at night and if you have a gun, you should first warn him to leave your house and force him to give your belongings back. If he does not comply, if he attacks you, and if he is unarmed/carries a melee weapon, you may shot him in the leg or so to immobilise him. Then, call the police.
However, if the guy is armed with a firearm, I believe you should shoot him. Doing otherwise would be taking a big risk.
In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful.
Sad to see the Americans caring more about their plasmas than the life of an individual. I have heard that in some places asking people directions in U.S is dangerous as people think you are a trespasser or sth. Americans only care for money and property.
Don't be a tool, you just expressed the opinion of most Americans.
"In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful."
Yep, that's what its all about. Benefit of the doubt should go to the homeowner because no one else was in the situation they were in.
Asking directions in the U.S. is fine. Please come here before you spout any more shit about us.
Don't get offended, i am aware there are idiots and geniuses in every society, it's just something I've heard that seemed funny to me. What I am trying to say is that (and I have heard it from Americans who live in Turkey) is that they are much more closed in terms of their personal space. My college teacher has talked about this before but it is really off topic.
So you wake up, realise that there is a burglar at your home, you grab your gun and move as silently as possible,. You find burglar the sitting room, checking the stuff around. He is not aware of you, his back is turned to you, you don't care he is armed or not and shoot the guy in torso with 4 bullets. Poor bastard dies right there.
Do you think this would constitute a proportional and necessary self defence case?
I wouldn't do that personally for my own reasons but yes, that should hold up as self defense. It seems the person in that situation cared a great deal about whether or not that person was armed, hence explaining their action. Lets say your mother was in her home alone, and in her frightened state, she did EXACTLY what you described above. Would she deserve to go to prison? Or lets say she pointed the gun at him and yelled a warning, he jumps out of the way, draws his gun and kills her. Would you find solace knowing she did the "morally right" thing? Proportionality has no place in this argument. When someone initiates hostilities against you, you have the right to do whatever is necessary to feel safe.
And what if my answer to your hypothetical questions is: In general yes, she would deserve to go to prison (there are a lot of "but"s in that, it depends on more details about the situation). No I would not find any solace, yet I still support the laws to be as they are.
And in my book burglar does not initiate hostilities against me by being in my house.
You are an evil person.
The same I can say about you. Could you provide some more content ? I suppose you see a problem with my first answer ? If the second, then I would point out that laws are mainly not here to provide solace to individuals.
A home invasion is a traumatizing and terrifying experience. I'm just baffled that you would send someone, who is concerned for their safety, and that of their families, to prison. Even if it was your own mother. This sheer inability to place yourself in the shoes of another reflects a heart of stone. I simply cannot see another explanation.
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.
LOL Ah good morning laugh....I think you missed the point by lightyears on end.
I fear for the signal value of this. If find that it encourages vigilantism. It's true that if someone wants to abuse this law to commit a murder, this way of defining the law shouldn't make it different from someone making it look like otherwise killing a burglar in self-defence. It would likely still be investigated; the only technical different would be in you planting a weapon to indicate that you were in danger. However, I'm afraid of the precedent of making the law "it's fine to kill people who break into your house" instead of "don't ever kill anyone, unless you have no other option to defend your own life". This way, it is likely that such events will be thought of a lot less severely, and instead of being horrified that someone has died and stopping to think about it, people will say "oh well, it was a break in". Or that someone who experiences a break-in will say "I have the right to defend my property!" and kill the intruder instead of avoiding conflict or choosing alternate solutions. This would be one step closer to making it more acceptable to kill other people, assuming such power over the existence of someone else, and would do as much damage to the death penalty currently does to the moral fibre of society.
The point of this law is not that it's in any way acceptable to kill anyone because they commit a crime or that it somehow make them less worthy to live, however that just might be the implications.
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.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
On June 30 2011 17:48 Bleak wrote: I think if someone breaks into your home at night and if you have a gun, you should first warn him to leave your house and force him to give your belongings back. If he does not comply, if he attacks you, and if he is unarmed/carries a melee weapon, you may shot him in the leg or so to immobilise him. Then, call the police.
However, if the guy is armed with a firearm, I believe you should shoot him. Doing otherwise would be taking a big risk.
In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful.
Sad to see the Americans caring more about their plasmas than the life of an individual. I have heard that in some places asking people directions in U.S is dangerous as people think you are a trespasser or sth. Americans only care for money and property.
Don't be a tool, you just expressed the opinion of most Americans.
"In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful."
Yep, that's what its all about. Benefit of the doubt should go to the homeowner because no one else was in the situation they were in.
Asking directions in the U.S. is fine. Please come here before you spout any more shit about us.
Don't get offended, i am aware there are idiots and geniuses in every society, it's just something I've heard that seemed funny to me. What I am trying to say is that (and I have heard it from Americans who live in Turkey) is that they are much more closed in terms of their personal space. My college teacher has talked about this before but it is really off topic.
So you wake up, realise that there is a burglar at your home, you grab your gun and move as silently as possible,. You find burglar the sitting room, checking the stuff around. He is not aware of you, his back is turned to you, you don't care he is armed or not and shoot the guy in torso with 4 bullets. Poor bastard dies right there.
Do you think this would constitute a proportional and necessary self defence case?
I wouldn't do that personally for my own reasons but yes, that should hold up as self defense. It seems the person in that situation cared a great deal about whether or not that person was armed, hence explaining their action. Lets say your mother was in her home alone, and in her frightened state, she did EXACTLY what you described above. Would she deserve to go to prison? Or lets say she pointed the gun at him and yelled a warning, he jumps out of the way, draws his gun and kills her. Would you find solace knowing she did the "morally right" thing? Proportionality has no place in this argument. When someone initiates hostilities against you, you have the right to do whatever is necessary to feel safe.
And what if my answer to your hypothetical questions is: In general yes, she would deserve to go to prison (there are a lot of "but"s in that, it depends on more details about the situation). No I would not find any solace, yet I still support the laws to be as they are.
And in my book burglar does not initiate hostilities against me by being in my house.
You are an evil person.
The same I can say about you. Could you provide some more content ? I suppose you see a problem with my first answer ? If the second, then I would point out that laws are mainly not here to provide solace to individuals.
A home invasion is a traumatizing and terrifying experience. I'm just baffled that you would send someone, who is concerned for their safety, and that of their families, to prison. Even if it was your own mother. This sheer inability to place yourself in the shoes of another reflects a heart of stone. I simply cannot see another explanation.
How is that inability to place myself in someone's place. I consider people who kill someone else in cold blood bad and I do not make exceptions for a family. And that is the scenario that Bleak described. You changed it quite a bit for your purpose, and that would change my answer somewhat as I noted in my post, that the answer depends on the details. If it was just a panic reaction like in your version I would say that no, she does not DESERVE to go to prison. The person who got shot also did not deserve to die. But I would still say she SHOULD go to prison, similarly as manslaughter caused by emotional distress is still often punished by jail, the emotional state may just lower the sentence. There is a lot of traumatizing and terrifying experiences and we do not allow people killing others because of it. Also your argument is kind of weak, you imply that people concerned for their safety, and that of their families are immune to prosecution and imprisonment ?
An just to note you asked what I would think, not what I would feel or do.
I love how people don't realize that violence fosters violence. Guess what doesn't happen in Sweden? People don't get shot and stabbed during burglaries. I understand that you feel a greater need to protect yourself, especially in the US, but that's because most of your robbers are armed and/or know that they will be harmed should they fail and thus will more easily result to using force. It's rather obvious. So keep up "defending yourself" and creating a slightly less pleasant society to live in.
Edit: And for the record, I'd much rather buy a new TV than kill a burglar or risk bodily harm to myself.
On July 01 2011 00:50 HellRoxYa wrote: I love how people don't realize that violence fosters violence. Guess what doesn't happen in Sweden? People don't get shot and stabbed during burglaries. I understand that you feel a greater need to protect yourself, especially in the US, but that's because most of your robbers are armed and/or know that they will be harmed should they fail and thus will more easily result to using force. It's rather obvious. So keep up "defending yourself" and creating a slightly less pleasant society to live in.
Edit: And for the record, I'd much rather buy a new TV than kill a burglar or risk bodily harm to myself.
It's easy to sit on your pedestal when you've got lower crime rates compared to the US, but the danger there is you delude yourself into thinking that there is no crime at all. Everyone who becomes a victim of these incidents instantly changes their opinion on home protection the moment it happens. It continues to baffle me how human beings on different sides of a giant body of water seem to think they're different somehow.
This article is misleading (I think). I'm pretty sure you aren't allowed to stab a burglar in the UK in many scenarios, such as if they enter your property through your front door - if you left the door open. I know in Canada there is a difference between a forceful entry and a non-forceful entry. A reasonable person would not use force causing harm for a non-forceful entry. So while you can physically remove the person from your property, you can't hurt him in the process (such as through stabbing them) unless the burglar threatens or escalates things further.
The examples they give could also be misleading. Saying "an old lady can stab a burglar" is different than saying "all people can stab a burglar". There could be a presumption in his statement that the old lady is much weaker than the burglar, so more serious protective measures are warranted since she probably feels more threatened than someone else would.
At any rate... now that this article has been published with quotes from government officials, even if you stab someone in an illegal instance, you could probably argue successfully that you were misled by an official and thus don't meet the mens rea requirements to be found guilty.
Alot of double standards here. It seems some people would love to punish burglar by death, yet people cry about when police used excessive force when dealing with criminal.
On July 01 2011 00:50 HellRoxYa wrote: I love how people don't realize that violence fosters violence. Guess what doesn't happen in Sweden? People don't get shot and stabbed during burglaries. I understand that you feel a greater need to protect yourself, especially in the US, but that's because most of your robbers are armed and/or know that they will be harmed should they fail and thus will more easily result to using force. It's rather obvious. So keep up "defending yourself" and creating a slightly less pleasant society to live in.
Edit: And for the record, I'd much rather buy a new TV than kill a burglar or risk bodily harm to myself.
It's easy to sit on your pedestal when you've got lower crime rates compared to the US, but the danger there is you delude yourself into thinking that there is no crime at all. Everyone who becomes a victim of these incidents instantly changes their opinion on home protection the moment it happens. It continues to baffle me how human beings on different sides of a giant body of water seem to think they're different somehow.
While it's true that extreme experiences often change people and dictate their stance towards something, what he's referring to is the culture of violence. In the United States, I often hear a very rough discourse in regards to criminals and, in tune with the individual utopia of "the American dream", a low regard for the "justified" misfortune of others. It's possible that this culture has developed because of the country's history and past hardships. He's saying that in Sweden, there is a different culture. There, it is more likely that the burglar would not consider the home owner an enemy, and might even be apologetic if caught, or that the home owner would try to reason with the burglar or even help him change his mind. This might change is Sweden becomes a violence-ridden wasteland, but that is because we humans are fickle creatures. We should not forget our humanity and what past history has told us, and that's why it's good that we have others to remind us.
While there is no way to generalize Americans, I do much more often see Europeans provide voices of reason whenever anything in regard to crime or war is discussed, while I tend to see more hatred and condemnation from the Americans.
On July 01 2011 01:13 furymonkey wrote: Alot of double standards here. It seems some people would love to punish burglar by death, yet people cry about when police used excessive force when dealing with criminal.
The problem with claiming a double-standard is you tend to assume both outcries are coming from the same people.
There are some people that feel as if 'thieves are people, too!', and others who feel that if someone stoops to the level of thievery, they've lost all faith in their ability to contribute to society. After all, the recidivism rates in almost every western country tend to be quite high and its difficult to narrow down the best way to fix the problem. The US system tends to focus on punishment, deterrence and just keeping them out of society's way, while European systems tend to focus on education and rehabilitation. California itself has adopted a similar system as most European countries in recent years, and yet the recidivism rate is still the highest in the entire country of something like 70% of criminals released get re-arrested within 3 years (saw that on the news a while back).
On July 01 2011 00:50 HellRoxYa wrote: I love how people don't realize that violence fosters violence. Guess what doesn't happen in Sweden? People don't get shot and stabbed during burglaries. I understand that you feel a greater need to protect yourself, especially in the US, but that's because most of your robbers are armed and/or know that they will be harmed should they fail and thus will more easily result to using force. It's rather obvious. So keep up "defending yourself" and creating a slightly less pleasant society to live in.
Edit: And for the record, I'd much rather buy a new TV than kill a burglar or risk bodily harm to myself.
It's easy to sit on your pedestal when you've got lower crime rates compared to the US, but the danger there is you delude yourself into thinking that there is no crime at all. Everyone who becomes a victim of these incidents instantly changes their opinion on home protection the moment it happens. It continues to baffle me how human beings on different sides of a giant body of water seem to think they're different somehow.
While it's true that extreme experiences often change people and dictate their stance towards something, what he's referring to is the culture of violence. In the United States, I often hear a very rough discourse in regards to criminals and, in tune with the individuals utopia of "the American dream", a low regard for the "justified" misfortune of others. It's possible that this culture has developed because of the county's history and past hardships. He's saying that in Sweden, there is a different culture. There, it is more likely that the burglar would not consider the home owner an enemy, and might even be apologetic if caught, or that the home owner would try to reason with the burglar or even help him change his mind. This might change is Sweden becomes a violence-ridden wasteland, but that is because we humans are fickle creatures. We should not forget our humanity and what past history has told us, and that's why it's good that we have others to remind us.
While there is no way to generalize Americans, I do much more often see Europeans provide voices of reason whenever anything in regard to crime or war is discussed, while I tend to see more hatred and condemnation from the Americans.
I grew up in England, so I know what differences in culture you're referring to, but I'd argue that it's a bad stance to adopt on the part of the victim. I've only lived in the States for 6 years, but its obvious that its a culture that highly values competition and striving for excellence, whereas in England, the competition is definitely just as prevalent, but the culture is often to take the stance of sitting back and accepting a loss, rather than knuckling down and fighting it.
If someone is breaking into my home, I'm going to shoot to kill. Like there is no debate here.
"I love how people don't realize that violence fosters violence. Guess what doesn't happen in Sweden? People don't get shot and stabbed during burglaries. I understand that you feel a greater need to protect yourself, especially in the US, but that's because most of your robbers are armed and/or know that they will be harmed should they fail and thus will more easily result to using force. It's rather obvious. So keep up "defending yourself" and creating a slightly less pleasant society to live in.
Edit: And for the record, I'd much rather buy a new TV than kill a burglar or risk bodily harm to myself."
you are seriously one of the worst kind of people, it's pathetic.
On July 01 2011 00:50 HellRoxYa wrote: I love how people don't realize that violence fosters violence. Guess what doesn't happen in Sweden? People don't get shot and stabbed during burglaries. I understand that you feel a greater need to protect yourself, especially in the US, but that's because most of your robbers are armed and/or know that they will be harmed should they fail and thus will more easily result to using force. It's rather obvious. So keep up "defending yourself" and creating a slightly less pleasant society to live in.
Edit: And for the record, I'd much rather buy a new TV than kill a burglar or risk bodily harm to myself.
It's easy to sit on your pedestal when you've got lower crime rates compared to the US, but the danger there is you delude yourself into thinking that there is no crime at all. Everyone who becomes a victim of these incidents instantly changes their opinion on home protection the moment it happens. It continues to baffle me how human beings on different sides of a giant body of water seem to think they're different somehow.
While it's true that extreme experiences often change people and dictate their stance towards something, what he's referring to is the culture of violence. In the United States, I often hear a very rough discourse in regards to criminals and, in tune with the individuals utopia of "the American dream", a low regard for the "justified" misfortune of others. It's possible that this culture has developed because of the county's history and past hardships. He's saying that in Sweden, there is a different culture. There, it is more likely that the burglar would not consider the home owner an enemy, and might even be apologetic if caught, or that the home owner would try to reason with the burglar or even help him change his mind. This might change is Sweden becomes a violence-ridden wasteland, but that is because we humans are fickle creatures. We should not forget our humanity and what past history has told us, and that's why it's good that we have others to remind us.
While there is no way to generalize Americans, I do much more often see Europeans provide voices of reason whenever anything in regard to crime or war is discussed, while I tend to see more hatred and condemnation from the Americans.
Pretty much this. Thank you for a very good post.
On July 01 2011 01:36 howerpower wrote: If someone is breaking into my home, I'm going to shoot to kill. Like there is no debate here.
"I love how people don't realize that violence fosters violence. Guess what doesn't happen in Sweden? People don't get shot and stabbed during burglaries. I understand that you feel a greater need to protect yourself, especially in the US, but that's because most of your robbers are armed and/or know that they will be harmed should they fail and thus will more easily result to using force. It's rather obvious. So keep up "defending yourself" and creating a slightly less pleasant society to live in.
Edit: And for the record, I'd much rather buy a new TV than kill a burglar or risk bodily harm to myself."
you are seriously one of the worst kind of people, it's pathetic.
And how is that? If anything I'd say I'm a lot better than you because I value human life, both my own and others. If you really want to take it to that level...
On June 30 2011 17:48 Bleak wrote: I think if someone breaks into your home at night and if you have a gun, you should first warn him to leave your house and force him to give your belongings back. If he does not comply, if he attacks you, and if he is unarmed/carries a melee weapon, you may shot him in the leg or so to immobilise him. Then, call the police.
However, if the guy is armed with a firearm, I believe you should shoot him. Doing otherwise would be taking a big risk.
In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful.
Sad to see the Americans caring more about their plasmas than the life of an individual. I have heard that in some places asking people directions in U.S is dangerous as people think you are a trespasser or sth. Americans only care for money and property.
Don't be a tool, you just expressed the opinion of most Americans.
"In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful."
Yep, that's what its all about. Benefit of the doubt should go to the homeowner because no one else was in the situation they were in.
Asking directions in the U.S. is fine. Please come here before you spout any more shit about us.
Don't get offended, i am aware there are idiots and geniuses in every society, it's just something I've heard that seemed funny to me. What I am trying to say is that (and I have heard it from Americans who live in Turkey) is that they are much more closed in terms of their personal space. My college teacher has talked about this before but it is really off topic.
So you wake up, realise that there is a burglar at your home, you grab your gun and move as silently as possible,. You find burglar the sitting room, checking the stuff around. He is not aware of you, his back is turned to you, you don't care he is armed or not and shoot the guy in torso with 4 bullets. Poor bastard dies right there.
Do you think this would constitute a proportional and necessary self defence case?
I wouldn't do that personally for my own reasons but yes, that should hold up as self defense. It seems the person in that situation cared a great deal about whether or not that person was armed, hence explaining their action. Lets say your mother was in her home alone, and in her frightened state, she did EXACTLY what you described above. Would she deserve to go to prison? Or lets say she pointed the gun at him and yelled a warning, he jumps out of the way, draws his gun and kills her. Would you find solace knowing she did the "morally right" thing? Proportionality has no place in this argument. When someone initiates hostilities against you, you have the right to do whatever is necessary to feel safe.
And what if my answer to your hypothetical questions is: In general yes, she would deserve to go to prison (there are a lot of "but"s in that, it depends on more details about the situation). No I would not find any solace, yet I still support the laws to be as they are.
And in my book burglar does not initiate hostilities against me by being in my house.
You are an evil person.
The same I can say about you. Could you provide some more content ? I suppose you see a problem with my first answer ? If the second, then I would point out that laws are mainly not here to provide solace to individuals.
A home invasion is a traumatizing and terrifying experience. I'm just baffled that you would send someone, who is concerned for their safety, and that of their families, to prison. Even if it was your own mother. This sheer inability to place yourself in the shoes of another reflects a heart of stone. I simply cannot see another explanation.
How is that inability to place myself in someone's place. I consider people who kill someone else in cold blood bad and I do not make exceptions for a family. And that is the scenario that Bleak described. You changed it quite a bit for your purpose, and that would change my answer somewhat as I noted in my post, that the answer depends on the details. If it was just a panic reaction like in your version I would say that no, she does not DESERVE to go to prison. The person who got shot also did not deserve to die. But I would still say she SHOULD go to prison, similarly as manslaughter caused by emotional distress is still often punished by jail, the emotional state may just lower the sentence. There is a lot of traumatizing and terrifying experiences and we do not allow people killing others because of it. Also your argument is kind of weak, you imply that people concerned for their safety, and that of their families are immune to prosecution and imprisonment ?
An just to note you asked what I would think, not what I would feel or do.
Yes, people defending themselves are immune from prosecution and imprisonment. Christ. You may actually be a sociopath, in which case you don't actually care for the burglars life, you just wan't to see innocent people go to prison.
On July 01 2011 01:13 furymonkey wrote: Alot of double standards here. It seems some people would love to punish burglar by death, yet people cry about when police used excessive force when dealing with criminal.
The problem with claiming a double-standard is you tend to assume both outcries are coming from the same people.
I assume so based on the number of people taking side in these kind of threads. It's easy to spot people with double standard by looking at the majority supports.
On July 01 2011 01:13 furymonkey wrote: Alot of double standards here. It seems some people would love to punish burglar by death, yet people cry about when police used excessive force when dealing with criminal.
The problem with claiming a double-standard is you tend to assume both outcries are coming from the same people.
There are some people that feel as if 'thieves are people, too!', and others who feel that if someone stoops to the level of thievery, they've lost all faith in their ability to contribute to society. After all, the recidivism rates in almost every western country tend to be quite high and its difficult to narrow down the best way to fix the problem. The US system tends to focus on punishment, deterrence and just keeping them out of society's way, while European systems tend to focus on education and rehabilitation. California itself has adopted a similar system as most European countries in recent years, and yet the recidivism rate is still the highest in the entire country of something like 70% of criminals released get re-arrested within 3 years (saw that on the news a while back).
You should argue for the death penalty and not vigilanteism.
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.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means.
On July 01 2011 01:13 furymonkey wrote: Alot of double standards here. It seems some people would love to punish burglar by death, yet people cry about when police used excessive force when dealing with criminal.
The problem with claiming a double-standard is you tend to assume both outcries are coming from the same people.
There are some people that feel as if 'thieves are people, too!', and others who feel that if someone stoops to the level of thievery, they've lost all faith in their ability to contribute to society. After all, the recidivism rates in almost every western country tend to be quite high and its difficult to narrow down the best way to fix the problem. The US system tends to focus on punishment, deterrence and just keeping them out of society's way, while European systems tend to focus on education and rehabilitation. California itself has adopted a similar system as most European countries in recent years, and yet the recidivism rate is still the highest in the entire country of something like 70% of criminals released get re-arrested within 3 years (saw that on the news a while back).
You should argue for the death penalty and not vigilanteism.
That's in the most extreme of cases. Contrary to what prejudices you might have, people still generally value life in the US.
They want to protect everything they've spent their entire life competing to build. Their possessions, their home, and most importantly, their family.
On July 01 2011 00:50 HellRoxYa wrote: I love how people don't realize that violence fosters violence. Guess what doesn't happen in Sweden? People don't get shot and stabbed during burglaries. I understand that you feel a greater need to protect yourself, especially in the US, but that's because most of your robbers are armed and/or know that they will be harmed should they fail and thus will more easily result to using force. It's rather obvious. So keep up "defending yourself" and creating a slightly less pleasant society to live in.
Edit: And for the record, I'd much rather buy a new TV than kill a burglar or risk bodily harm to myself.
It's easy to sit on your pedestal when you've got lower crime rates compared to the US, but the danger there is you delude yourself into thinking that there is no crime at all. Everyone who becomes a victim of these incidents instantly changes their opinion on home protection the moment it happens. It continues to baffle me how human beings on different sides of a giant body of water seem to think they're different somehow.
While it's true that extreme experiences often change people and dictate their stance towards something, what he's referring to is the culture of violence. In the United States, I often hear a very rough discourse in regards to criminals and, in tune with the individuals utopia of "the American dream", a low regard for the "justified" misfortune of others. It's possible that this culture has developed because of the county's history and past hardships. He's saying that in Sweden, there is a different culture. There, it is more likely that the burglar would not consider the home owner an enemy, and might even be apologetic if caught, or that the home owner would try to reason with the burglar or even help him change his mind. This might change is Sweden becomes a violence-ridden wasteland, but that is because we humans are fickle creatures. We should not forget our humanity and what past history has told us, and that's why it's good that we have others to remind us.
While there is no way to generalize Americans, I do much more often see Europeans provide voices of reason whenever anything in regard to crime or war is discussed, while I tend to see more hatred and condemnation from the Americans.
On July 01 2011 01:36 howerpower wrote: If someone is breaking into my home, I'm going to shoot to kill. Like there is no debate here.
"I love how people don't realize that violence fosters violence. Guess what doesn't happen in Sweden? People don't get shot and stabbed during burglaries. I understand that you feel a greater need to protect yourself, especially in the US, but that's because most of your robbers are armed and/or know that they will be harmed should they fail and thus will more easily result to using force. It's rather obvious. So keep up "defending yourself" and creating a slightly less pleasant society to live in.
Edit: And for the record, I'd much rather buy a new TV than kill a burglar or risk bodily harm to myself."
you are seriously one of the worst kind of people, it's pathetic.
And how is that? If anything I'd say I'm a lot better than you because I value human life, both my own and others. If you really want to take it to that level...
I value a law-abiding morally upright person's life over someone who has is commiting a crime which can potentially threaten the life of other's, even if they aren't armed it can be an emotially traumatizing experience, and completely shatter one's sense of security. Having lived in both the US and Europe for several years, I understand where you are coming from. I feel much safer living in Europe, crime rates are lower, and I don't worry about crime affecting me. It's different in some poverty and crime ridden areas of the US. If you lived there I'm fairly certain you'd change your mind. Anyway, I'm not advocating taking the criminal's life or that their life is worthless, but I find the idea that you should not defend yourself and your family quite ridiculous.
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.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means.
He probably meant "guns are pretty rare in Britain" instead of "there are no guns in Britain".
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.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
Around the palace all the police have MP5's and the red coats have an M4 variant, scary as fuck to have one of them eye balling you.
Personally though, pulling a gun on a burglar is what i would hope to be enough to scare them shitless, not to sure about getting close enough to knife. Regardless though it's wrong to kill someone but I can see with enough information (like if once you pull the gun they charge you or something) then I can see it being ok to open fire.
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.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
Around the palace all the police have MP5's and the red coats have an M4 variant, scary as fuck to have one of them eye balling you.
Personally though, pulling a gun on a burglar is what i would hope to be enough to scare them shitless, not to sure about getting close enough to knife. Regardless though it's wrong to kill someone but I can see with enough information (like if once you pull the gun they charge you or something) then I can see it being ok to open fire.
Exactly. You don't purchase a weapon for home protection with the INTENT to shoot every burglar you come across. You want something that gives you the power to thwart them in a worst-case scenario, and the peace of mind to know that if they escalate it, you have the right to defend your family without getting thrown in jail for it.
On July 01 2011 00:50 HellRoxYa wrote: I love how people don't realize that violence fosters violence. Guess what doesn't happen in Sweden? People don't get shot and stabbed during burglaries. I understand that you feel a greater need to protect yourself, especially in the US, but that's because most of your robbers are armed and/or know that they will be harmed should they fail and thus will more easily result to using force. It's rather obvious. So keep up "defending yourself" and creating a slightly less pleasant society to live in.
Edit: And for the record, I'd much rather buy a new TV than kill a burglar or risk bodily harm to myself.
It's easy to sit on your pedestal when you've got lower crime rates compared to the US, but the danger there is you delude yourself into thinking that there is no crime at all. Everyone who becomes a victim of these incidents instantly changes their opinion on home protection the moment it happens. It continues to baffle me how human beings on different sides of a giant body of water seem to think they're different somehow.
While it's true that extreme experiences often change people and dictate their stance towards something, what he's referring to is the culture of violence. In the United States, I often hear a very rough discourse in regards to criminals and, in tune with the individuals utopia of "the American dream", a low regard for the "justified" misfortune of others. It's possible that this culture has developed because of the county's history and past hardships. He's saying that in Sweden, there is a different culture. There, it is more likely that the burglar would not consider the home owner an enemy, and might even be apologetic if caught, or that the home owner would try to reason with the burglar or even help him change his mind. This might change is Sweden becomes a violence-ridden wasteland, but that is because we humans are fickle creatures. We should not forget our humanity and what past history has told us, and that's why it's good that we have others to remind us.
While there is no way to generalize Americans, I do much more often see Europeans provide voices of reason whenever anything in regard to crime or war is discussed, while I tend to see more hatred and condemnation from the Americans.
Pretty much this. Thank you for a very good post.
On July 01 2011 01:36 howerpower wrote: If someone is breaking into my home, I'm going to shoot to kill. Like there is no debate here.
"I love how people don't realize that violence fosters violence. Guess what doesn't happen in Sweden? People don't get shot and stabbed during burglaries. I understand that you feel a greater need to protect yourself, especially in the US, but that's because most of your robbers are armed and/or know that they will be harmed should they fail and thus will more easily result to using force. It's rather obvious. So keep up "defending yourself" and creating a slightly less pleasant society to live in.
Edit: And for the record, I'd much rather buy a new TV than kill a burglar or risk bodily harm to myself."
you are seriously one of the worst kind of people, it's pathetic.
And how is that? If anything I'd say I'm a lot better than you because I value human life, both my own and others. If you really want to take it to that level...
I value a law-abiding morally upright person's life over someone who has is commiting a crime which can potentially threaten the life of other's, even if they aren't armed it can be an emotially traumatizing experience, and completely shatter one's sense of security. Having lived in both the US and Europe for several years, I understand where you are coming from. I feel much safer living in Europe, crime rates are lower, and I don't worry about crime affecting me. It's different in some poverty and crime ridden areas of the US. If you lived there I'm fairly certain you'd change your mind. Anyway, I'm not advocating taking the criminal's life or that their life is worthless, but I find the idea that you should not defend yourself and your family quite ridiculous.
I never said anything about not defending yourself or your family. You're already allowed to do that (here)... should they try to assault you. Besides that, though, it doesn't matter if it's a traumatizing experience or not. I'm not arguing for the legality of burglary, but it's also already illegal. But I'll be leaving the punishment up to the police and judicial system and not myself and any weapon I might possess.
In the U.S., the ability to apply violence against intruders depends on the state you're living in.
For example, most states have what's called the Castle doctrine. That means that courts and the law go with the saying, "A man's home is his castle," and therefore a homeowner or resident has a right to protect him or herself through any means necessary. This includes the use of violence in places where an individual can expect to be safe from violence but is being attacked violently.
The reasoning behind this is that in one's home, one can expect safety and if that safety is threatened then the individual has a right to protect himself and that a victim cannot read the mind of the intruder for their intentions. Violence is the only qualifier for violence.
Other states expand this law outside the home into the public space.
Some states often have a "duty-to-retreat" clause that says that a home's residents cannot use deadly force unless they've gotten as far away from the danger as possible and the danger continues to approach them. They also have to give warning. New York has this requirement.
What's funny is that these sorts of laws originate in England and that it sounds like these laws were in place before this announcement. Canada also seems to have Castle doctrine in common law but doesn't have it on the books anywhere so it gets fuzzy.
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)
On July 01 2011 00:50 HellRoxYa wrote: I love how people don't realize that violence fosters violence. Guess what doesn't happen in Sweden? People don't get shot and stabbed during burglaries. I understand that you feel a greater need to protect yourself, especially in the US, but that's because most of your robbers are armed and/or know that they will be harmed should they fail and thus will more easily result to using force. It's rather obvious. So keep up "defending yourself" and creating a slightly less pleasant society to live in.
Edit: And for the record, I'd much rather buy a new TV than kill a burglar or risk bodily harm to myself.
It's easy to sit on your pedestal when you've got lower crime rates compared to the US, but the danger there is you delude yourself into thinking that there is no crime at all. Everyone who becomes a victim of these incidents instantly changes their opinion on home protection the moment it happens. It continues to baffle me how human beings on different sides of a giant body of water seem to think they're different somehow.
He did not say there is no crime, he said that people tend not to get shot or stabbed during them ?
On June 30 2011 17:48 Bleak wrote: I think if someone breaks into your home at night and if you have a gun, you should first warn him to leave your house and force him to give your belongings back. If he does not comply, if he attacks you, and if he is unarmed/carries a melee weapon, you may shot him in the leg or so to immobilise him. Then, call the police.
However, if the guy is armed with a firearm, I believe you should shoot him. Doing otherwise would be taking a big risk.
In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful.
Sad to see the Americans caring more about their plasmas than the life of an individual. I have heard that in some places asking people directions in U.S is dangerous as people think you are a trespasser or sth. Americans only care for money and property.
Don't be a tool, you just expressed the opinion of most Americans.
"In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful."
Yep, that's what its all about. Benefit of the doubt should go to the homeowner because no one else was in the situation they were in.
Asking directions in the U.S. is fine. Please come here before you spout any more shit about us.
Don't get offended, i am aware there are idiots and geniuses in every society, it's just something I've heard that seemed funny to me. What I am trying to say is that (and I have heard it from Americans who live in Turkey) is that they are much more closed in terms of their personal space. My college teacher has talked about this before but it is really off topic.
So you wake up, realise that there is a burglar at your home, you grab your gun and move as silently as possible,. You find burglar the sitting room, checking the stuff around. He is not aware of you, his back is turned to you, you don't care he is armed or not and shoot the guy in torso with 4 bullets. Poor bastard dies right there.
Do you think this would constitute a proportional and necessary self defence case?
I wouldn't do that personally for my own reasons but yes, that should hold up as self defense. It seems the person in that situation cared a great deal about whether or not that person was armed, hence explaining their action. Lets say your mother was in her home alone, and in her frightened state, she did EXACTLY what you described above. Would she deserve to go to prison? Or lets say she pointed the gun at him and yelled a warning, he jumps out of the way, draws his gun and kills her. Would you find solace knowing she did the "morally right" thing? Proportionality has no place in this argument. When someone initiates hostilities against you, you have the right to do whatever is necessary to feel safe.
And what if my answer to your hypothetical questions is: In general yes, she would deserve to go to prison (there are a lot of "but"s in that, it depends on more details about the situation). No I would not find any solace, yet I still support the laws to be as they are.
And in my book burglar does not initiate hostilities against me by being in my house.
You are an evil person.
The same I can say about you. Could you provide some more content ? I suppose you see a problem with my first answer ? If the second, then I would point out that laws are mainly not here to provide solace to individuals.
A home invasion is a traumatizing and terrifying experience. I'm just baffled that you would send someone, who is concerned for their safety, and that of their families, to prison. Even if it was your own mother. This sheer inability to place yourself in the shoes of another reflects a heart of stone. I simply cannot see another explanation.
How is that inability to place myself in someone's place. I consider people who kill someone else in cold blood bad and I do not make exceptions for a family. And that is the scenario that Bleak described. You changed it quite a bit for your purpose, and that would change my answer somewhat as I noted in my post, that the answer depends on the details. If it was just a panic reaction like in your version I would say that no, she does not DESERVE to go to prison. The person who got shot also did not deserve to die. But I would still say she SHOULD go to prison, similarly as manslaughter caused by emotional distress is still often punished by jail, the emotional state may just lower the sentence. There is a lot of traumatizing and terrifying experiences and we do not allow people killing others because of it. Also your argument is kind of weak, you imply that people concerned for their safety, and that of their families are immune to prosecution and imprisonment ?
An just to note you asked what I would think, not what I would feel or do.
Yes, people defending themselves are immune from prosecution and imprisonment. Christ. You may actually be a sociopath, in which case you don't actually care for the burglars life, you just wan't to see innocent people go to prison.
Nope, people defending themselves are not immune from prosecution in any country. It is also not what you said previously. Your previous statement implied that just being concerned for your safety makes anything you do ok.
Oh, continuing with namecalling, how fitting.
EDIT:Also people killing others even during crimes on their property are not in general innocent by standards of most justice systems around the world.
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.
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.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means.
Actually there is very few guns to be obtained through even illegal means as most of illegal guns are stolen legal guns. When there are none to steal, there are only the ones illegally imported, which is not that much.
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)
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.
no it is not. you are only allowed to use equal force that they are using upon you. If they pull out a gun, then you are allowed to open fire. I wouldnt want to be on your property on accident!
Not true. Each state is different. Texas is the most lenient of them all. You can shoot someone for being on your property uninvited if you wish too. Here in Tennessee, I have to feel that my life/someone elses life is in danger of harm or death, on my property of course.
On July 01 2011 01:13 furymonkey wrote: Alot of double standards here. It seems some people would love to punish burglar by death, yet people cry about when police used excessive force when dealing with criminal.
This is about self defense, not punishment. There's no double standard as self defense and limits on police authority are both consistent with the concept of individual rights.
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.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means.
He probably meant "guns are pretty rare in Britain" instead of "there are no guns in Britain".
Probably. I've actually met people, however, that think that gun control means guns simply cease to exist. T_T
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.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means.
Actually there is very few guns to be obtained through even illegal means as most of illegal guns are stolen legal guns. When there are none to steal, there are only the ones illegally imported, which is not that much.
And when there are none left to steal there are none left for the law abiding to use in defense against the deviant.
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.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means.
He probably meant "guns are pretty rare in Britain" instead of "there are no guns in Britain".
Obviously I don't mean nobody has any. That'd be absurd, the existence of the army would disprove that. But having a gun is very illegal except in very specific circumstances, pulling a gun is gonna be way worse for you than pretending you're asleep and just buying whatever they steal. It has it's advantages. People don't bring guns to home invasions, people don't accidentally kill each other in the moment as much (because it's harder to do so), gun crime is taken much more seriously.
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.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means.
He probably meant "guns are pretty rare in Britain" instead of "there are no guns in Britain".
Obviously I don't mean nobody has any. That'd be absurd, the existence of the army would disprove that. But having a gun is very illegal except in very specific circumstances, pulling a gun is gonna be way worse for you than pretending you're asleep and just buying whatever they steal. It has it's advantages. People don't bring guns to home invasions, people don't accidentally kill each other in the moment as much (because it's harder to do so), gun crime is taken much more seriously.
I thought that's what you meant, but I wasn't sure. To be fair, you did say that there were no guns.
The problem I have with what you list as "advantages" is that those crimes still happen. People still get robbed, raped, and murdered. Guns or no guns, those crimes still happen. It's not like removing guns from the equation solves the problem. So much focus is put on the guns when in reality the guns have almost nothing to do with it. To be fair, gun control was never about the crime anyways; it was about the guns.
It's certainly preferable that an intruder not be armed with a gun, but if he's armed with something else you're just as screwed.
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.
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.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means.
He probably meant "guns are pretty rare in Britain" instead of "there are no guns in Britain".
Obviously I don't mean nobody has any. That'd be absurd, the existence of the army would disprove that. But having a gun is very illegal except in very specific circumstances, pulling a gun is gonna be way worse for you than pretending you're asleep and just buying whatever they steal. It has it's advantages. People don't bring guns to home invasions, people don't accidentally kill each other in the moment as much (because it's harder to do so), gun crime is taken much more seriously.
I thought that's what you meant, but I wasn't sure. To be fair, you did say that there were no guns.
The problem I have with what you list as "advantages" is that those crimes still happen. People still get robbed, raped, and murdered. Guns or no guns, those crimes still happen. It's not like removing guns from the equation solves the problem. So much focus is put on the guns when in reality the guns have almost nothing to do with it. To be fair, gun control was never about the crime anyways; it was about the guns.
It's certainly preferable that an intruder not be armed with a gun, but if he's armed with something else you're just as screwed.
Well if the only thing that you consider is total elimination of crime then there is no solution. But if you also consider lowering it a worthy goal then somehow European countries seem to have solved something. If it is thanks to regulating gun ownership very strictly or not is much more open question. My guess is that it helps as killing someone without a gun is much harder. But my personal guess is that it is more in the whole approach to the violence, either "warranted" one or criminal one. Americans seem much more often to consider killing someone for one reason or another. But the whole question is hard to ascertain as most sociological ones, people have just opinions and guesses.
One funny train of thought that I do not really consider true in any significant way, but find ironically funny : If the society places high value on property then of course robbers will also place more value on it and try much harder to gain it, thus increasing crime rates
On July 01 2011 04:02 dybydx wrote: ya i think i prefer the US approach. screw knifing, give him some lead instead.
while i agree, in england you have a smaller chance of finding a robber with a gun though. I wonder if non-firearm projectile weapons are legal, Bows etc. Shouldn't be too hard to make a lethal shot with a 100lb recurve and a broadhead
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.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means.
He probably meant "guns are pretty rare in Britain" instead of "there are no guns in Britain".
Obviously I don't mean nobody has any. That'd be absurd, the existence of the army would disprove that. But having a gun is very illegal except in very specific circumstances, pulling a gun is gonna be way worse for you than pretending you're asleep and just buying whatever they steal. It has it's advantages. People don't bring guns to home invasions, people don't accidentally kill each other in the moment as much (because it's harder to do so), gun crime is taken much more seriously.
I thought that's what you meant, but I wasn't sure. To be fair, you did say that there were no guns.
The problem I have with what you list as "advantages" is that those crimes still happen. People still get robbed, raped, and murdered. Guns or no guns, those crimes still happen. It's not like removing guns from the equation solves the problem. So much focus is put on the guns when in reality the guns have almost nothing to do with it. To be fair, gun control was never about the crime anyways; it was about the guns.
It's certainly preferable that an intruder not be armed with a gun, but if he's armed with something else you're just as screwed.
Well if the only thing that you consider is total elimination of crime then there is no solution. But if you also consider lowering it a worthy goal then somehow European countries seem to have solved something. If it is thanks to regulating gun ownership very strictly or not is much more open question. My guess is that it helps as killing someone without a gun is much harder. But my personal guess is that it is more in the whole approach to the violence, either "warranted" one or criminal one. Americans seem much more often to consider killing someone for one reason or another. But the whole question is hard to ascertain as most sociological ones, people have just opinions and guesses.
One funny train of thought that I do not really consider true in any significant way, but find ironically funny : If the society places high value on property then of course robbers will also place more value on it and try much harder to gain it, thus increasing crime rates
EDIT:typo
European society hasn't "solved something." The populations of European countries are more-or-less homogeneous ethnically, racially, and culturally, and the economic disparities are, on the whole, smaller than they are in the United States. If you look at the communities in the United States that are similar in terms of cultural, racial, ethnic, and economic homogeneity to European communities, the crime rates are similar. However, in the United States it is not uncommon for a multicultural, multiracial, low-income community to be in close proximity to an upper-middle class, predominantly white, predominantly Protestant community, for example. This lack of homogeneity fosters an increase in the crime rate (and this goes both ways; rich whites commit crimes against poor blacks and vice versa). For whatever reason, people aren't able to get along with people of other cultures. This is also the case in Europe, it is just less common because populations are more homogeneous. Just look at French xenophobia against Muslims and immigrants.
Another reason that attitudes about property and crime (particularly crimes related to property) are different between America and the Scandinavian countries is the difference in attitudes about economics. In the Scandinavian countries there is a much more socialist approach to economics, whereas in America capitalism is king. This reflects a cultural attitude that places enormous value on earning your keep by the sweat of your brow, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, etc.; the whole concept of the "American Dream" is founded in this principle. While socialistic Scandinavian countries have universal healthcare, better subsidies for education, and more social welfare, they do not have a comparable idea of a "Scandinavian Dream," they do not have as many top universities, and they do not produce as many top corporations. There are advantages to many of the attitudes of Swedes and Danes about crime, gun ownership, violence, economics, et cetera, such as lower crime rates, contentment; America trades higher crime rates and a certain level of caution (or fear) for the opportunity and capacity to produce other factors that are at the forefront of the world.
Accusing each other of being immoral is ridiculous. There is no "universal law of morality" that says a man doesn't have a right to defend his home. Is it morally reprehensible to take a life under any circumstances? Yes. Does that mean that the person who kills a burglar is an immoral person? Absolutely not.
This isn't a discussion that can be decided by morality this, morality that. For many of the Europeans participating in this thread, it seems like their arguments come from a decidedly "European" perspective, that burglaries are largely about taking possessions and little else, and that burglars are often unarmed or (relatively) nonviolent. For many of the Americans, it is obvious that their attitudes are informed by living in a society where violent crime is more common, burglars are often violent, and the personal rights to life, liberty, and property are held in the highest esteem.
American posters would do well to take a step back and realize that the European attitudes in this regard are naive with respect to what goes on in America, and European posters would be wise to realize that Americans live in a country where not everybody is the same and where cultural and economic tensions play a larger part in crime dynamics.
Edit: Just some numbers to give everyone an idea of the homogeneity vs inhomogeneity thing: The United States is 72.4% white (as in, all whites combined, which includes some Hispanics). The Czech population is 94.24% Czech. The German population is 81% Germans of no immigrant background (i.e. exclusively German background). In France it's apparently illegal to collect census information about ethnicity and race (but they're perfectly fine with religious discrimination). The population of Sweden is 85% Swedish (as of 2005).
Funnily enough, the total population of the entire country of Sweden (9,422,661) is comparable the population of the city of Chicago (9,461,105), and less than the populations of Los Angeles (~12 million) and New York City (~18 million). Maybe if we concentrated the entire population of Sweden in a single city and created some economic and cultural disparity there would be a little bit more worry about crime, hm?
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.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means.
He probably meant "guns are pretty rare in Britain" instead of "there are no guns in Britain".
Obviously I don't mean nobody has any. That'd be absurd, the existence of the army would disprove that. But having a gun is very illegal except in very specific circumstances, pulling a gun is gonna be way worse for you than pretending you're asleep and just buying whatever they steal. It has it's advantages. People don't bring guns to home invasions, people don't accidentally kill each other in the moment as much (because it's harder to do so), gun crime is taken much more seriously.
I thought that's what you meant, but I wasn't sure. To be fair, you did say that there were no guns.
The problem I have with what you list as "advantages" is that those crimes still happen. People still get robbed, raped, and murdered. Guns or no guns, those crimes still happen. It's not like removing guns from the equation solves the problem. So much focus is put on the guns when in reality the guns have almost nothing to do with it. To be fair, gun control was never about the crime anyways; it was about the guns.
It's certainly preferable that an intruder not be armed with a gun, but if he's armed with something else you're just as screwed.
Well if the only thing that you consider is total elimination of crime then there is no solution. But if you also consider lowering it a worthy goal then somehow European countries seem to have solved something. If it is thanks to regulating gun ownership very strictly or not is much more open question. My guess is that it helps as killing someone without a gun is much harder. But my personal guess is that it is more in the whole approach to the violence, either "warranted" one or criminal one. Americans seem much more often to consider killing someone for one reason or another. But the whole question is hard to ascertain as most sociological ones, people have just opinions and guesses.
One funny train of thought that I do not really consider true in any significant way, but find ironically funny : If the society places high value on property then of course robbers will also place more value on it and try much harder to gain it, thus increasing crime rates
EDIT:typo
European society hasn't "solved something." The populations of European countries are more-or-less homogeneous ethnically, racially, and culturally, and the economic disparities are, on the whole, smaller than they are in the United States. If you look at the communities in the United States that are similar in terms of cultural, racial, ethnic, and economic homogeneity to European communities, the crime rates are similar. However, in the United States it is not uncommon for a multicultural, multiracial, low-income community to be in close proximity to an upper-middle class, predominantly white, predominantly Protestant community, for example. This lack of homogeneity fosters an increase in the crime rate (and this goes both ways; rich whites commit crimes against poor blacks and vice versa). For whatever reason, people aren't able to get along with people of other cultures. This is also the case in Europe, it is just less common because populations are more homogeneous. Just look at French xenophobia against Muslims and immigrants.
Another reason that attitudes about property and crime (particularly crimes related to property) are different between America and the Scandinavian countries is the difference in attitudes about economics. In the Scandinavian countries there is a much more socialist approach to economics, whereas in America capitalism is king. This reflects a cultural attitude that places enormous value on earning your keep by the sweat of your brow, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, etc.; the whole concept of the "American Dream" is founded in this principle. While socialistic Scandinavian countries have universal healthcare, better subsidies for education, and more social welfare, they do not have a comparable idea of a "Scandinavian Dream," they do not have as many top universities, and they do not produce as many top corporations. There are advantages to many of the attitudes of Swedes and Danes about crime, gun ownership, violence, economics, et cetera, such as lower crime rates, contentment; America trades higher crime rates and a certain level of caution (or fear) for the opportunity and capacity to produce other factors that are at the forefront of the world.
Accusing each other of being immoral is ridiculous. There is no "universal law of morality" that says a man doesn't have a right to defend his home. Is it morally reprehensible to take a life under any circumstances? Yes. Does that mean that the person who kills a burglar is an immoral person? Absolutely not.
This isn't a discussion that can be decided by morality this, morality that. For many of the Europeans participating in this thread, it seems like their arguments come from a decidedly "European" perspective, that burglaries are largely about taking possessions and little else, and that burglars are often unarmed or (relatively) nonviolent. For many of the Americans, it is obvious that their attitudes are informed by living in a society where violent crime is more common, burglars are often violent, and the personal rights to life, liberty, and property are held in the highest esteem.
American posters would do well to take a step back and realize that the European attitudes in this regard are naive with respect to what goes on in America, and European posters would be wise to realize that Americans live in a country where not everybody is the same and where cultural and economic tensions play a larger part in crime dynamics.
In general, you are right; Europeans are often naive about what drive Americans and what conditions they face and thus make their decisions upon. However, as I emphasized before, dismissing it as "naive" (or "European", for that sake) just because it's an understanding that's derived from a different culture does not make sense in itself. It is safe to say that your relativist argument about "universal morality" holds little relevance. Everyone, given time to understand this, will accept that there is no moral absolute. Rather, what we are discussing in this thread is what helps create the best society. And here, likely, what Americans want in the end is likely the same as what Europeans was, since it's down to basic human needs. That's why people are pointing out how it's unhealty for a society to place property above human life or to fight violence with violence. Regardless of what you're facing; be in due to lack of homogeneity or economic tension. I don't see acheivement, material or otherwise, as a counter to that, even disregarding that the level of success of USA and the reasons for such is debatable.
Where did I dismiss your point of view? I'm not dismissing your point of view. I'm saying your point of view is based on an experience/reality that is not pertinent in America. I'm dismissing the assertion that the Europeans "figured something out" that lets their crime rates be lower by pointing to the fact that the two situations are not identical; in fact, they are far from being even remotely similar. I merely pointed out that yes, there are many advantages to European countries, but lest we forget that the United States has been at the forefront of nearly every major technological improvement over the past few centuries, created the first state-sponsored universities, and produces the highest-achieving academic professionals in the world, I was pointing out that there are many advantages to the American way of doing things as well (which was being oft-dismissed as barbaric, immoral, etc.). The proximate reasons for these differences are highly complex, but the ultimate reasons for the different attitudes have to do with diversity and ingrained cultural attitudes.
On July 01 2011 05:10 ilikejokes wrote: Where did I dismiss your point of view? I'm not dismissing your point of view. I'm saying your point of view is based on an experience/reality that is not pertinent in America. I'm dismissing the assertion that the Europeans "figured something out" that lets their crime rates be lower by pointing to the fact that the two situations are not identical; in fact, they are far from being even remotely similar. I merely pointed out that yes, there are many advantages to European countries, but lest we forget that the United States has been at the forefront of nearly every major technological improvement over the past few centuries, created the first state-sponsored universities, and produces the highest-achieving academic professionals in the world, I was pointing out that there are many advantages to the American way of doing things as well (which was being oft-dismissed as barbaric, immoral, etc.). The proximate reasons for these differences are highly complex, but the ultimate reasons for the different attitudes have to do with diversity and ingrained cultural attitudes.
True, you didn't, and I was actually sitting here thinking that you might write that. However, I was merely adressing the implicaitons of what you were saying since you did say it in conjunction with a counter-arguement to the "European" perspective. When you call something naive, you will ignore it because it holds no value. When you clump arguments together as "European", you will ignore it through the rationale that it's somehow not relevant to you - "it's those other people". Neither of these are particularly productive to introduce to the discussion.
On July 01 2011 05:10 ilikejokes wrote: Where did I dismiss your point of view? I'm not dismissing your point of view. I'm saying your point of view is based on an experience/reality that is not pertinent in America. I'm dismissing the assertion that the Europeans "figured something out" that lets their crime rates be lower by pointing to the fact that the two situations are not identical; in fact, they are far from being even remotely similar. I merely pointed out that yes, there are many advantages to European countries, but lest we forget that the United States has been at the forefront of nearly every major technological improvement over the past few centuries, created the first state-sponsored universities, and produces the highest-achieving academic professionals in the world, I was pointing out that there are many advantages to the American way of doing things as well (which was being oft-dismissed as barbaric, immoral, etc.). The proximate reasons for these differences are highly complex, but the ultimate reasons for the different attitudes have to do with diversity and ingrained cultural attitudes.
True, you didn't, and I was actually sitting here thinking that you might write that. However, I was merely adressing the implicaitons of what you were saying since you said it in conjunction to a counter-arguement to the "European" perspective. When you call something naive, you will ignore it because it holds no value. When you clump arguments together as "European", you will ignore it through the rationale that it's somehow not relevant to you - "it's those other people". Neither of these are particularly productive to introduce to the discussion.
I probably could have used a better word than "naive" because of the negative implications. I did not mean to imply that the European perspective in general held no value; I simply meant that, in my experience, Europeans who haven't lived in America (i.e. most Europeans) don't have much of an idea of what things are really like here. I would describe the common American perspective on Europe to be similarly naive with respect to the European experience, as well, and I wouldn't mean that it held no value in general.
I wasn't clumping arguments together as "European" so much as identifying commonalities between the arguments presented by European posters versus those of American posters.
On July 01 2011 04:02 dybydx wrote: ya i think i prefer the US approach. screw knifing, give him some lead instead.
while i agree, in england you have a smaller chance of finding a robber with a gun though. I wonder if non-firearm projectile weapons are legal, Bows etc. Shouldn't be too hard to make a lethal shot with a 100lb recurve and a broadhead
I don't agree with either approach, a real man uses his fists.
On July 01 2011 04:02 dybydx wrote: ya i think i prefer the US approach. screw knifing, give him some lead instead.
while i agree, in england you have a smaller chance of finding a robber with a gun though. I wonder if non-firearm projectile weapons are legal, Bows etc. Shouldn't be too hard to make a lethal shot with a 100lb recurve and a broadhead
I don't agree with either approach, a real man uses his fists.
Chuck Norris thought about using his fists instead, unfortunately the mere thought of it already knocked out the thieves.
On July 01 2011 04:02 dybydx wrote: ya i think i prefer the US approach. screw knifing, give him some lead instead.
while i agree, in england you have a smaller chance of finding a robber with a gun though. I wonder if non-firearm projectile weapons are legal, Bows etc. Shouldn't be too hard to make a lethal shot with a 100lb recurve and a broadhead
I don't agree with either approach, a real man uses his fists.
To be fair, few can actually use a legitimate bow, so I think I prefer the US approach as well.
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.
no it is not. you are only allowed to use equal force that they are using upon you. If they pull out a gun, then you are allowed to open fire. I wouldnt want to be on your property on accident!
Your information is false sir. In Alabama I can shoot somebody that comes in my home no questions asked
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.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means.
He probably meant "guns are pretty rare in Britain" instead of "there are no guns in Britain".
Obviously I don't mean nobody has any. That'd be absurd, the existence of the army would disprove that. But having a gun is very illegal except in very specific circumstances, pulling a gun is gonna be way worse for you than pretending you're asleep and just buying whatever they steal. It has it's advantages. People don't bring guns to home invasions, people don't accidentally kill each other in the moment as much (because it's harder to do so), gun crime is taken much more seriously.
I thought that's what you meant, but I wasn't sure. To be fair, you did say that there were no guns.
The problem I have with what you list as "advantages" is that those crimes still happen. People still get robbed, raped, and murdered. Guns or no guns, those crimes still happen. It's not like removing guns from the equation solves the problem. So much focus is put on the guns when in reality the guns have almost nothing to do with it. To be fair, gun control was never about the crime anyways; it was about the guns.
It's certainly preferable that an intruder not be armed with a gun, but if he's armed with something else you're just as screwed.
Well if the only thing that you consider is total elimination of crime then there is no solution. But if you also consider lowering it a worthy goal then somehow European countries seem to have solved something. If it is thanks to regulating gun ownership very strictly or not is much more open question. My guess is that it helps as killing someone without a gun is much harder. But my personal guess is that it is more in the whole approach to the violence, either "warranted" one or criminal one. Americans seem much more often to consider killing someone for one reason or another. But the whole question is hard to ascertain as most sociological ones, people have just opinions and guesses.
One funny train of thought that I do not really consider true in any significant way, but find ironically funny : If the society places high value on property then of course robbers will also place more value on it and try much harder to gain it, thus increasing crime rates
EDIT:typo
European society hasn't "solved something." The populations of European countries are more-or-less homogeneous ethnically, racially, and culturally, and the economic disparities are, on the whole, smaller than they are in the United States. If you look at the communities in the United States that are similar in terms of cultural, racial, ethnic, and economic homogeneity to European communities, the crime rates are similar. However, in the United States it is not uncommon for a multicultural, multiracial, low-income community to be in close proximity to an upper-middle class, predominantly white, predominantly Protestant community, for example. This lack of homogeneity fosters an increase in the crime rate (and this goes both ways; rich whites commit crimes against poor blacks and vice versa). For whatever reason, people aren't able to get along with people of other cultures. This is also the case in Europe, it is just less common because populations are more homogeneous. Just look at French xenophobia against Muslims and immigrants.
Well some Europeans countries are much less homogenous than others, and some are pretty close to US yet none of them comes close to US in terms of crime rates. I would actually be interested in knowing if there is even correlation between not being homogenous and crime rates on a country basis. But I am not wholly dismissing this idea as I think there is a lot to it, just that it does not explain the whole difference between "Europe" and US.
On July 01 2011 04:39 ilikejokes wrote: Another reason that attitudes about property and crime (particularly crimes related to property) are different between America and the Scandinavian countries is the difference in attitudes about economics. In the Scandinavian countries there is a much more socialist approach to economics, whereas in America capitalism is king. This reflects a cultural attitude that places enormous value on earning your keep by the sweat of your brow, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, etc.; the whole concept of the "American Dream" is founded in this principle. While socialistic Scandinavian countries have universal healthcare, better subsidies for education, and more social welfare, they do not have a comparable idea of a "Scandinavian Dream," they do not have as many top universities, and they do not produce as many top corporations. There are advantages to many of the attitudes of Swedes and Danes about crime, gun ownership, violence, economics, et cetera, such as lower crime rates, contentment; America trades higher crime rates and a certain level of caution (or fear) for the opportunity and capacity to produce other factors that are at the forefront of the world.
I am not really sure that US actually trades anything good for the bad things. As for "American Dream" many countries in Europe actually enjoy higher social mobility than US, which in my opinion is the reasonable version of "American Dream" as it indicates they are closer to meritocracy. As for universities and corporations I have big doubts that considered per capita they have less of them.
Also off-topic note : It is impossible to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and it statistically describes the rate of success of such endeavor also in economic field. I just hate that idiom
On July 01 2011 04:39 ilikejokes wrote: Accusing each other of being immoral is ridiculous. There is no "universal law of morality" that says a man doesn't have a right to defend his home. Is it morally reprehensible to take a life under any circumstances? Yes. Does that mean that the person who kills a burglar is an immoral person? Absolutely not.
This isn't a discussion that can be decided by morality this, morality that. For many of the Europeans participating in this thread, it seems like their arguments come from a decidedly "European" perspective, that burglaries are largely about taking possessions and little else, and that burglars are often unarmed or (relatively) nonviolent. For many of the Americans, it is obvious that their attitudes are informed by living in a society where violent crime is more common, burglars are often violent, and the personal rights to life, liberty, and property are held in the highest esteem.
I am not sure that this is directed at me as I did not previously state anything contrary to it. I actually noted that laws in a country with high crime rates must reflect that reality. On the other hand this discussion in the end boils down to ethical/moral question as those are/should be basis for any law. There are universal moral "laws" and rules (but true, they do not necessarily have anything to say on the subject) and there are superior and inferior moral/ethical systems. But that discussion should be avoided here.
On July 01 2011 04:39 ilikejokes wrote: American posters would do well to take a step back and realize that the European attitudes in this regard are naive with respect to what goes on in America, and European posters would be wise to realize that Americans live in a country where not everybody is the same and where cultural and economic tensions play a larger part in crime dynamics.
Edit: Just some numbers to give everyone an idea of the homogeneity vs inhomogeneity thing: The United States is 72.4% white (as in, all whites combined, which includes some Hispanics). The Czech population is 94.24% Czech. The German population is 81% Germans of no immigrant background (i.e. exclusively German background). In France it's apparently illegal to collect census information about ethnicity and race (but they're perfectly fine with religious discrimination). The population of Sweden is 85% Swedish (as of 2005).
Funnily enough, the total population of the entire country of Sweden (9,422,661) is comparable the population of the city of Chicago (9,461,105), and less than the populations of Los Angeles (~12 million) and New York City (~18 million). Maybe if we concentrated the entire population of Sweden in a single city and created some economic and cultural disparity there would be a little bit more worry about crime, hm?
As for France they do seem to try to opress all religions equally so is it actually discrimination ? And for the big numbers, it would seem China has lower homicide rates than US. And as I argued above cultural and economical disparity does not seem to explain all the difference.
On July 01 2011 05:10 ilikejokes wrote: Where did I dismiss your point of view? I'm not dismissing your point of view. I'm saying your point of view is based on an experience/reality that is not pertinent in America. I'm dismissing the assertion that the Europeans "figured something out" that lets their crime rates be lower by pointing to the fact that the two situations are not identical; in fact, they are far from being even remotely similar. I merely pointed out that yes, there are many advantages to European countries, but lest we forget that the United States has been at the forefront of nearly every major technological improvement over the past few centuries, created the first state-sponsored universities, and produces the highest-achieving academic professionals in the world, I was pointing out that there are many advantages to the American way of doing things as well (which was being oft-dismissed as barbaric, immoral, etc.). The proximate reasons for these differences are highly complex, but the ultimate reasons for the different attitudes have to do with diversity and ingrained cultural attitudes.
Really, centuries ? American contributions to science got significant after the WW1 and actually proportional to its size after WW2. Not even a century. And far from the forefront of everything.
On June 30 2011 23:49 aka_star wrote: Can you stab him with knife bullets or a gunknife from FF8? or perhaps a knife strapped to a broom? just nice to know my options.
games =/= real life
You can also use a baseball bat if you wanted ( btw, many of the cops in britain don't have guns )
Of course clarification of the english law is nice, but thats not the real problem with our self defence law, and this is a huge missed oppurtunity, (even though the issues with 'reasonable force' were a major problem). Ken Clarke has some very questionable proposals along with this, especially the proposals to legal aid making the well known ironic quote in UK law "In England justice is open to all, like the Ritz" even more true.
(BTW I am just about to graduate with a LLB law degree on the 11th)
Rob me now bitches :DD glad they did this... i guess it will deter a lot of people from doing it in the first place if they know they might get stabbed
If only a law like this was passed in my state. Here if someone breaks into your house and you beat the shit out of them then call the cops to pick them up, you get arrested too for assault. So fucking retarded.
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.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means.
He probably meant "guns are pretty rare in Britain" instead of "there are no guns in Britain".
Obviously I don't mean nobody has any. That'd be absurd, the existence of the army would disprove that. But having a gun is very illegal except in very specific circumstances, pulling a gun is gonna be way worse for you than pretending you're asleep and just buying whatever they steal. It has it's advantages. People don't bring guns to home invasions, people don't accidentally kill each other in the moment as much (because it's harder to do so), gun crime is taken much more seriously.
I thought that's what you meant, but I wasn't sure. To be fair, you did say that there were no guns.
The problem I have with what you list as "advantages" is that those crimes still happen. People still get robbed, raped, and murdered. Guns or no guns, those crimes still happen. It's not like removing guns from the equation solves the problem. So much focus is put on the guns when in reality the guns have almost nothing to do with it. To be fair, gun control was never about the crime anyways; it was about the guns.
It's certainly preferable that an intruder not be armed with a gun, but if he's armed with something else you're just as screwed.
Well if the only thing that you consider is total elimination of crime then there is no solution. But if you also consider lowering it a worthy goal then somehow European countries seem to have solved something. If it is thanks to regulating gun ownership very strictly or not is much more open question. My guess is that it helps as killing someone without a gun is much harder. But my personal guess is that it is more in the whole approach to the violence, either "warranted" one or criminal one. Americans seem much more often to consider killing someone for one reason or another. But the whole question is hard to ascertain as most sociological ones, people have just opinions and guesses.
One funny train of thought that I do not really consider true in any significant way, but find ironically funny : If the society places high value on property then of course robbers will also place more value on it and try much harder to gain it, thus increasing crime rates
EDIT:typo
European society hasn't "solved something." The populations of European countries are more-or-less homogeneous ethnically, racially, and culturally, and the economic disparities are, on the whole, smaller than they are in the United States. If you look at the communities in the United States that are similar in terms of cultural, racial, ethnic, and economic homogeneity to European communities, the crime rates are similar. However, in the United States it is not uncommon for a multicultural, multiracial, low-income community to be in close proximity to an upper-middle class, predominantly white, predominantly Protestant community, for example. This lack of homogeneity fosters an increase in the crime rate (and this goes both ways; rich whites commit crimes against poor blacks and vice versa). For whatever reason, people aren't able to get along with people of other cultures. This is also the case in Europe, it is just less common because populations are more homogeneous. Just look at French xenophobia against Muslims and immigrants.
Another reason that attitudes about property and crime (particularly crimes related to property) are different between America and the Scandinavian countries is the difference in attitudes about economics. In the Scandinavian countries there is a much more socialist approach to economics, whereas in America capitalism is king. This reflects a cultural attitude that places enormous value on earning your keep by the sweat of your brow, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, etc.; the whole concept of the "American Dream" is founded in this principle. While socialistic Scandinavian countries have universal healthcare, better subsidies for education, and more social welfare, they do not have a comparable idea of a "Scandinavian Dream," they do not have as many top universities, and they do not produce as many top corporations. There are advantages to many of the attitudes of Swedes and Danes about crime, gun ownership, violence, economics, et cetera, such as lower crime rates, contentment; America trades higher crime rates and a certain level of caution (or fear) for the opportunity and capacity to produce other factors that are at the forefront of the world.
Accusing each other of being immoral is ridiculous. There is no "universal law of morality" that says a man doesn't have a right to defend his home. Is it morally reprehensible to take a life under any circumstances? Yes. Does that mean that the person who kills a burglar is an immoral person? Absolutely not.
This isn't a discussion that can be decided by morality this, morality that. For many of the Europeans participating in this thread, it seems like their arguments come from a decidedly "European" perspective, that burglaries are largely about taking possessions and little else, and that burglars are often unarmed or (relatively) nonviolent. For many of the Americans, it is obvious that their attitudes are informed by living in a society where violent crime is more common, burglars are often violent, and the personal rights to life, liberty, and property are held in the highest esteem.
American posters would do well to take a step back and realize that the European attitudes in this regard are naive with respect to what goes on in America, and European posters would be wise to realize that Americans live in a country where not everybody is the same and where cultural and economic tensions play a larger part in crime dynamics.
Edit: Just some numbers to give everyone an idea of the homogeneity vs inhomogeneity thing: The United States is 72.4% white (as in, all whites combined, which includes some Hispanics). The Czech population is 94.24% Czech. The German population is 81% Germans of no immigrant background (i.e. exclusively German background). In France it's apparently illegal to collect census information about ethnicity and race (but they're perfectly fine with religious discrimination). The population of Sweden is 85% Swedish (as of 2005).
Funnily enough, the total population of the entire country of Sweden (9,422,661) is comparable the population of the city of Chicago (9,461,105), and less than the populations of Los Angeles (~12 million) and New York City (~18 million). Maybe if we concentrated the entire population of Sweden in a single city and created some economic and cultural disparity there would be a little bit more worry about crime, hm?
Yeah it's kind of strange comparing Scandinavian industrialism to American, as the population of America is about 30 times bigger than Swedens. However considering companies like Saab (historically), Volvo, Ikea, H&M, fairly good sports rankings all round etc, I wouldn't say that socialistic economics has stopped us from becoming fairly big for our population.
Personally I think the crime rates have to do with two things beside the ones you already mentioned. 1. How you treat criminals. In Sweden if you commit a serious crime, you're often assumed to be psychologically hindered in some way, and you get treated as such. You basically go to get help with your mental health. In the US the tendancy is to pile up these people, close the door and see what happens, and then let them out after 20 years. Generally this will not solve their issues. You have to put yourself in their position, and try to help them with their issues to minimize crime rates I believe. This is more expensive in the short run, but if you did it right they won't come back, right?
2. War veterans. A fairly large percentage of war veterans go on to become criminal in some way. They're often fairly young when they go out, and are taught to kill without hesitation. Problems arise when they come home. Most European countries don't have a very active army. Basically only the UK.
Ninja edit!: 3. Education! Education is probably the biggest crime stopper. I think if everyone have a university degree of some kind, the crime rates would drop insanely.
Getting shot for entering someones property is like the definition of madness for me, but I guess if you grow up in another society this is perfectly sensible. Does that law include neighbours crossing over your lawn for instance by the way?
I'm just a naive European though, so it's totally ok if you wave this away >.> Overall I think you brought up a lot of valid points though, even though I don't agree with everything. I also don't think that racial problems are a necessity. People are either integrated or not. Generally if you manage to form a homogene society it's going to be alot more peaceful. I don't think these things are inherited. For instance you made an example of black vs white crimes, but I don't think that say an adopted black baby would fit that description and vice versa. (this is not crazy nazi race science or anything, just saying that behaviour isn't enherited).
On July 01 2011 06:43 mcc wrote: Well some Europeans countries are much less homogenous than others, and some are pretty close to US yet none of them comes close to US in terms of crime rates. I would actually be interested in knowing if there is even correlation between not being homogenous and crime rates on a country basis. But I am not wholly dismissing this idea as I think there is a lot to it, just that it does not explain the whole difference between "Europe" and US.
My whole post wasn't directed at just you (though I did quote you), more at the thread in general.
About the ethnicity thing--I really don't think there is any European country that compares to the United States in terms of diversity. Even the U.K. is just over 85% White British (and over 90% White overall). The homogeneity in Europe stands in stark contrast to the United States where the largest minority is more than 12% of the population.
Yeah it's kind of strange comparing Scandinavian industrialism to American, as the population of America is about 30 times bigger than Swedens. However considering companies like Saab (historically), Volvo, Ikea, H&M, fairly good sports rankings all round etc, I wouldn't say that socialistic economics has stopped us from becoming fairly big for our population.
I wasn't directly comparing industrialization or anything like that though. Obviously GNP/GDP and whatnot are going to be different because of the drastically different populations. But I don't think that looking at the numbers of universities on a per capita basis would capture what I mean by the United States producing the best university system. The United States has the top-ranked universities in the world. That's not a per-capita thing---it's not like being a bigger country necessarily means you'll have better universities. Just look at China and India, the two countries more populous than the United States. Yes they have good schools, but they are not the top schools in the world. That is what I'm getting at with my talk about academia in the United States.
On July 01 2011 06:43 mcc wrote: Well some Europeans countries are much less homogenous than others, and some are pretty close to US yet none of them comes close to US in terms of crime rates. I would actually be interested in knowing if there is even correlation between not being homogenous and crime rates on a country basis. But I am not wholly dismissing this idea as I think there is a lot to it, just that it does not explain the whole difference between "Europe" and US.
My whole post wasn't directed at just you (though I did quote you), more at the thread in general.
About the ethnicity thing--I really don't think there is any European country that compares to the United States in terms of diversity. Even the U.K. is just over 85% White British (and over 90% White overall). The homogeneity in Europe stands in stark contrast to the United States where the largest minority is more than 12% of the population.
Yeah it's kind of strange comparing Scandinavian industrialism to American, as the population of America is about 30 times bigger than Swedens. However considering companies like Saab (historically), Volvo, Ikea, H&M, fairly good sports rankings all round etc, I wouldn't say that socialistic economics has stopped us from becoming fairly big for our population.
I wasn't directly comparing industrialization or anything like that though. Obviously GNP/GDP and whatnot are going to be different because of the drastically different populations. But I don't think that looking at the numbers of universities on a per capita basis would capture what I mean by the United States producing the best university system. The United States has the top-ranked universities in the world. That's not a per-capita thing---it's not like being a bigger country necessarily means you'll have better universities. Just look at China and India, the two countries more populous than the United States. Yes they have good schools, but they are not the top schools in the world. That is what I'm getting at with my talk about academia in the United States.
The distribution of wealth, education, and public services is greater in the states is far greater most other countries, and that's a bad thing (probably all of them if we discount 2nd and 3rd world countries). Peoples lives become simply a gamble, being born in a certain way and place almost determines how you will end up.
Also I would rather go to Oxford or Cambridge rather than Yale.
On July 01 2011 09:29 sluggaslamoo wrote: The distribution of wealth, education, and public services is greater in the states is far greater most other countries, and that's a bad thing (probably all of them if we discount 2nd and 3rd world countries). Peoples lives become simply a gamble, being born in a certain way and place almost determines how you will end up.
What? Think about this logically. What you're saying is, the situation a person is born into, economically, largely determines how they will end up. Ok, fine, I accept that premise. But that applies to being born ANYWHERE, whether you're born in Louisiana or Chicago or London or Hyderabad or Cambodia. In Australia, how do you think your life winds up being different if you're born into a middle-class family in Sydney versus into an Aboriginal family in the bush?
The disparity in economic situation is going to be enormous for a country as large and as populous as the United States, it's simply unavoidable. There are finite resources to be shared among everyone. Australia has the advantage of having a large number of resources and a fairly small population, but that's not the case in most of the world.
Also I would rather go to Oxford or Cambridge rather than Yale.
And that's your opinion. Oxford and Cambridge are two of the top schools in the world. But so is Yale, and so is Harvard. When you dig a little deeper you find that most of the major universities in the United States are among the top schools in the world, however. The 40,000 or so students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, for example, attend a school that is ranked in the top 70 overall worldwide and even higher for specific colleges like Engineering. A lot of the state schools, like Wisconsin-Madison, University of Michigan, and the like are top universities, not just Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.
On July 01 2011 06:43 mcc wrote: Well some Europeans countries are much less homogenous than others, and some are pretty close to US yet none of them comes close to US in terms of crime rates. I would actually be interested in knowing if there is even correlation between not being homogenous and crime rates on a country basis. But I am not wholly dismissing this idea as I think there is a lot to it, just that it does not explain the whole difference between "Europe" and US.
My whole post wasn't directed at just you (though I did quote you), more at the thread in general.
About the ethnicity thing--I really don't think there is any European country that compares to the United States in terms of diversity. Even the U.K. is just over 85% White British (and over 90% White overall). The homogeneity in Europe stands in stark contrast to the United States where the largest minority is more than 12% of the population.
I am not sure that concentrating on race is that useful. I would assume that black American and white American are on average closer culturally than Englishmen and Russian. Netherlands has around 80% Dutch population, Luxembourg is pretty crazy, but also small so let's skip it. But my point was that the difference in homogenity does not correlate well with differences in crime.
Yeah it's kind of strange comparing Scandinavian industrialism to American, as the population of America is about 30 times bigger than Swedens. However considering companies like Saab (historically), Volvo, Ikea, H&M, fairly good sports rankings all round etc, I wouldn't say that socialistic economics has stopped us from becoming fairly big for our population.
I wasn't directly comparing industrialization or anything like that though. Obviously GNP/GDP and whatnot are going to be different because of the drastically different populations. But I don't think that looking at the numbers of universities on a per capita basis would capture what I mean by the United States producing the best university system. The United States has the top-ranked universities in the world. That's not a per-capita thing---it's not like being a bigger country necessarily means you'll have better universities. Just look at China and India, the two countries more populous than the United States. Yes they have good schools, but they are not the top schools in the world. That is what I'm getting at with my talk about academia in the United States.
First, comparison should be made on countries with similar level of development when comparing universities, so India and China should not be considered. As for the ranking, it is quite contentious, but I might agree, but only slightly disproportionate to its population. But how is quality of universities linked to crime rates and approach to private property ? The good things I see on US universities would work as well elsewhere if there was enough political/social will and it would work without significantly changing anything else.
On July 01 2011 09:29 sluggaslamoo wrote: The distribution of wealth, education, and public services is greater in the states is far greater most other countries, and that's a bad thing (probably all of them if we discount 2nd and 3rd world countries). Peoples lives become simply a gamble, being born in a certain way and place almost determines how you will end up.
What? Think about this logically. What you're saying is, the situation a person is born into, economically, largely determines how they will end up. Ok, fine, I accept that premise. But that applies to being born ANYWHERE, whether you're born in Louisiana or Chicago or London or Hyderabad or Cambodia. In Australia, how do you think your life winds up being different if you're born into a middle-class family in Sydney versus into an Aboriginal family in the bush?
The disparity in economic situation is going to be enormous for a country as large and as populous as the United States, it's simply unavoidable. There are finite resources to be shared among everyone. Australia has the advantage of having a large number of resources and a fairly small population, but that's not the case in most of the world.
Yes it is true everywhere, but to what degree. As I already noted US has lower social mobility than many European countries.
On July 01 2011 06:43 mcc wrote: Well some Europeans countries are much less homogenous than others, and some are pretty close to US yet none of them comes close to US in terms of crime rates. I would actually be interested in knowing if there is even correlation between not being homogenous and crime rates on a country basis. But I am not wholly dismissing this idea as I think there is a lot to it, just that it does not explain the whole difference between "Europe" and US.
My whole post wasn't directed at just you (though I did quote you), more at the thread in general.
About the ethnicity thing--I really don't think there is any European country that compares to the United States in terms of diversity. Even the U.K. is just over 85% White British (and over 90% White overall). The homogeneity in Europe stands in stark contrast to the United States where the largest minority is more than 12% of the population.
I am not sure that concentrating on race is that useful. I would assume that black American and white American are on average closer culturally than Englishmen and Russian. Netherlands has around 80% Dutch population, Luxembourg is pretty crazy, but also small so let's skip it. But my point was that the difference in homogenity does not correlate well with differences in crime.
Yes but Englishmen and Russians don't live in adjacent neighborhoods, and anyway there is less evidence to suggest that whites commit crimes against other whites (or, for that matter, that blacks commit crimes against other blacks, or purples against purples---you get the idea). There is overwhelming evidence that, for whatever reason, when you have situations where people of different races are living in close proximity to each other, crimes are more likely to occur.
Yeah it's kind of strange comparing Scandinavian industrialism to American, as the population of America is about 30 times bigger than Swedens. However considering companies like Saab (historically), Volvo, Ikea, H&M, fairly good sports rankings all round etc, I wouldn't say that socialistic economics has stopped us from becoming fairly big for our population.
I wasn't directly comparing industrialization or anything like that though. Obviously GNP/GDP and whatnot are going to be different because of the drastically different populations. But I don't think that looking at the numbers of universities on a per capita basis would capture what I mean by the United States producing the best university system. The United States has the top-ranked universities in the world. That's not a per-capita thing---it's not like being a bigger country necessarily means you'll have better universities. Just look at China and India, the two countries more populous than the United States. Yes they have good schools, but they are not the top schools in the world. That is what I'm getting at with my talk about academia in the United States.
First, comparison should be made on countries with similar level of development when comparing universities, so India and China should not be considered. As for the ranking, it is quite contentious, but I might agree, but only slightly disproportionate to its population. But how is quality of universities linked to crime rates and approach to private property ? The good things I see on US universities would work as well elsewhere if there was enough political/social will and it would work without significantly changing anything else.
On the development thing: fine, but then we should only consider the parts of the United States that are as developed as, say, Sweden and the United Kingdom. One point that I didn't expound upon, but probably should have, in my talk about homogeneity was that the economic differences in different parts of the country also result in a certain level of "development disparity." There are parts of the South and the West in the United States that are, for lack of a better term, Third World. But when you talk about the United States being larger than European countries, that very pertinent detail gets lost in the discussion.
I don't think the quality of universities is linked to crime rates. It's the diversity that is linked to crime rates. The quality of the universities is linked to attitudes about private property and personal accomplishment, and those qualities are also linked to attitudes about defending your home against intruders (burglars, etc.)
On June 30 2011 12:15 endy wrote: Cool, so I wanna kill someone, I just invite him at home, break a window and stab him ? As long as there is no witness it's fine. And even if there's a witness, since no charges will be pressed against me, it should be fine.
Even if someone saw me in the street opening the door and shaking my victim's hand, unless he specifically learns later in the newspaper that I killed that guy and is able to recognize both of us he has no reason to mention it to anyone.
edit : If a burglar enters your home with a knife and you stab him, it should be considered "right of self defense", right ?
Well you'd have to be pretty evil to do that.
I'd assume that you'd have to hate this person a lot to do this, they'd bring this up in court, bring in witnesses who will attest to this fact and you go to jail. It's not like it's a get out of jail free card.
On July 01 2011 09:45 Inertia_EU wrote: If you break into my home, threaten the safety of my family, you leave your human rights at the doorstep. It's as simple as that.
No, they're still human. The humanity of a human is a pretty static thing.
On July 01 2011 09:45 Inertia_EU wrote: If you break into my home, threaten the safety of my family, you leave your human rights at the doorstep. It's as simple as that.
No, they're still human. The humanity of a human is a pretty static thing.
A shitty human at that. You try to fuck me, I will fuck you back.
On July 01 2011 09:44 Blasterion wrote: Question for UKers is a projectile that Isn't a firearm legal? Say a bow or a cross.
Legal and no need for a license - so long as you're not a minor or displaying them in public or shooting in an area that's not designated a range. But no reason why you couldn't leave one out on the bedside table with a bolt ready... just in case
On July 01 2011 09:44 Blasterion wrote: Question for UKers is a projectile that Isn't a firearm legal? Say a bow or a cross.
Legal and no need for a license - so long as you're not a minor or displaying them in public or shooting in an area that's not designated a range. But no reason why you couldn't leave one out on the bedside table with a bolt ready... just in case
Source: Missus is an archery nerd
100lb recurve + Broadhead =Surekill granted you don't miss.
Too bad I am too poor and only have a 20lb Compound
On June 30 2011 12:01 Duka08 wrote: This is actually awesome and hopefully only results in positive things. This was always one of those laws that pissed me the fuck off when applicable. Absolute mockery of an already overwhelmed and often silly justice system.
I don't understand how people like you can actually exist.
So we value property over human life now? It's ok to knife someone for breaking in? You know, this doesn't mean less people will break in, it just means now they will be sure to bring a weapon with them when they do.
On June 30 2011 12:01 Duka08 wrote: This is actually awesome and hopefully only results in positive things. This was always one of those laws that pissed me the fuck off when applicable. Absolute mockery of an already overwhelmed and often silly justice system.
I don't understand how people like you can actually exist.
So we value property over human life now? It's ok to knife someone for breaking in? You know, this doesn't mean less people will break in, it just means now they will be sure to bring a weapon with them when they do.
I don't understand how people like you can actually exist.
So we value life of criminals over property that we spent sweat and blood over? It's not ok to defend your own efforts? You know, that isn't going to mean less people will break in, it just means now they will walk through the front door and back out with your property when they do.
On June 30 2011 12:01 Duka08 wrote: This is actually awesome and hopefully only results in positive things. This was always one of those laws that pissed me the fuck off when applicable. Absolute mockery of an already overwhelmed and often silly justice system.
I don't understand how people like you can actually exist.
So we value property over human life now? It's ok to knife someone for breaking in? You know, this doesn't mean less people will break in, it just means now they will be sure to bring a weapon with them when they do.
I don't understand how people like you can actually exist.
So we value life of criminals over property that we spent sweat and blood over? It's not ok to defend your own efforts? You know, that isn't going to mean less people will break in, it just means now they will walk through the front door and back out with your property when they do.
lmao, I don't even think you know what you're arguing. What does this even mean? "You know, that isn't going to mean less people will break in, it just means now they will walk through the front door and back out with your property when they do."
There is a reason every judicial system in the first world follows the principal "Innocent until proven guilty." If you are honestly that paranoid that you feel the need to STAB AND KILL SOMEONE simply because they have something that cost a few dollars, you need to reinspect your life. I wonder how long it will be before a child is killed for breaking into a neighbors cellar and taking some wine, that's justice, right?
Anyone that values property over human life shouldn't be allowed to live themselves, period.
On July 01 2011 06:43 mcc wrote: Well some Europeans countries are much less homogenous than others, and some are pretty close to US yet none of them comes close to US in terms of crime rates. I would actually be interested in knowing if there is even correlation between not being homogenous and crime rates on a country basis. But I am not wholly dismissing this idea as I think there is a lot to it, just that it does not explain the whole difference between "Europe" and US.
My whole post wasn't directed at just you (though I did quote you), more at the thread in general.
About the ethnicity thing--I really don't think there is any European country that compares to the United States in terms of diversity. Even the U.K. is just over 85% White British (and over 90% White overall). The homogeneity in Europe stands in stark contrast to the United States where the largest minority is more than 12% of the population.
I am not sure that concentrating on race is that useful. I would assume that black American and white American are on average closer culturally than Englishmen and Russian. Netherlands has around 80% Dutch population, Luxembourg is pretty crazy, but also small so let's skip it. But my point was that the difference in homogenity does not correlate well with differences in crime.
Yes but Englishmen and Russians don't live in adjacent neighborhoods, and anyway there is less evidence to suggest that whites commit crimes against other whites (or, for that matter, that blacks commit crimes against other blacks, or purples against purples---you get the idea). There is overwhelming evidence that, for whatever reason, when you have situations where people of different races are living in close proximity to each other, crimes are more likely to occur.
Actually they do if the Russians are immigrants in UK. My point was that discounting white ethnicities from your diversity scale is not a good idea. As for the evidence that interracial crimes in close neighbourhoods are more likely to occur ?
Yeah it's kind of strange comparing Scandinavian industrialism to American, as the population of America is about 30 times bigger than Swedens. However considering companies like Saab (historically), Volvo, Ikea, H&M, fairly good sports rankings all round etc, I wouldn't say that socialistic economics has stopped us from becoming fairly big for our population.
I wasn't directly comparing industrialization or anything like that though. Obviously GNP/GDP and whatnot are going to be different because of the drastically different populations. But I don't think that looking at the numbers of universities on a per capita basis would capture what I mean by the United States producing the best university system. The United States has the top-ranked universities in the world. That's not a per-capita thing---it's not like being a bigger country necessarily means you'll have better universities. Just look at China and India, the two countries more populous than the United States. Yes they have good schools, but they are not the top schools in the world. That is what I'm getting at with my talk about academia in the United States.
First, comparison should be made on countries with similar level of development when comparing universities, so India and China should not be considered. As for the ranking, it is quite contentious, but I might agree, but only slightly disproportionate to its population. But how is quality of universities linked to crime rates and approach to private property ? The good things I see on US universities would work as well elsewhere if there was enough political/social will and it would work without significantly changing anything else.
On the development thing: fine, but then we should only consider the parts of the United States that are as developed as, say, Sweden and the United Kingdom. One point that I didn't expound upon, but probably should have, in my talk about homogeneity was that the economic differences in different parts of the country also result in a certain level of "development disparity." There are parts of the South and the West in the United States that are, for lack of a better term, Third World. But when you talk about the United States being larger than European countries, that very pertinent detail gets lost in the discussion.
I don't think the quality of universities is linked to crime rates. It's the diversity that is linked to crime rates. The quality of the universities is linked to attitudes about private property and personal accomplishment, and those qualities are also linked to attitudes about defending your home against intruders (burglars, etc.)
I specifically qualified my statement about the same development as pertaining only the discussion of universities, as their quality is somewhat linked to the amount of funds available. As for the discussion of crime rates the underdeveloped countries are on average worse off then first world countries. When they are not like in the case of US and some undeveloped countries it warrants closer examination and can be used to illustrate some points. Like that size of the country is no necessarily a cause. It actually does not make much sense that size would be a factor. More like population densities if anything of the sort, but maximum is similar in Europe and in US, average I would guess higher in Europe.
How are attitudes about private property linked to quality of universities ? And you think people are not looking for personal accomplishment in other countries as hard as in US ?
On June 30 2011 12:01 Duka08 wrote: This is actually awesome and hopefully only results in positive things. This was always one of those laws that pissed me the fuck off when applicable. Absolute mockery of an already overwhelmed and often silly justice system.
I don't understand how people like you can actually exist.
So we value property over human life now? It's ok to knife someone for breaking in? You know, this doesn't mean less people will break in, it just means now they will be sure to bring a weapon with them when they do.
I don't understand how people like you can actually exist.
So we value life of criminals over property that we spent sweat and blood over? It's not ok to defend your own efforts? You know, that isn't going to mean less people will break in, it just means now they will walk through the front door and back out with your property when they do.
lmao, I don't even think you know what you're arguing. What does this even mean? "You know, that isn't going to mean less people will break in, it just means now they will walk through the front door and back out with your property when they do."
There is a reason every judicial system in the first world follows the principal "Innocent until proven guilty." If you are honestly that paranoid that you feel the need to STAB AND KILL SOMEONE simply because they have something that cost a few dollars, you need to reinspect your life. I wonder how long it will be before a child is killed for breaking into a neighbors cellar and taking some wine, that's justice, right?
Anyone that values property over human life shouldn't be allowed to live themselves, period.
May I explain again that burglary is entering a home with intent to commit a felony, not stealing some electronics?
You have no idea what burglars are intending to do in your home.
I am glad that they are allowing people in England to defend themselves. It is a shame, however, that stabbing does not immediately incapacitate an Intruder. I wish that homeowners would be allowed to have firearms to defend themselves.
On June 30 2011 12:01 Duka08 wrote: This is actually awesome and hopefully only results in positive things. This was always one of those laws that pissed me the fuck off when applicable. Absolute mockery of an already overwhelmed and often silly justice system.
I don't understand how people like you can actually exist.
So we value property over human life now? It's ok to knife someone for breaking in? You know, this doesn't mean less people will break in, it just means now they will be sure to bring a weapon with them when they do.
Its not about human life, it is about crime prevention.
If a burglar knows he can get stabbed and shot freely when robbing a house, it is much more of a deterrent. There will still be break ins, but there will be a portion of criminals who will not break in to a house for this reason.
Also, how do you know they're there to steal your property? They could as likely be there to kill you in which case it isn't a matter of human life vs. material possessions it is a matter of an innocent person's life vs. the life of a criminal.
So glad this doesn't affect me though, I love living in a good neighborhood on a busy road in a secured apartment block.
On June 30 2011 12:01 Duka08 wrote: This is actually awesome and hopefully only results in positive things. This was always one of those laws that pissed me the fuck off when applicable. Absolute mockery of an already overwhelmed and often silly justice system.
I don't understand how people like you can actually exist.
So we value property over human life now? It's ok to knife someone for breaking in? You know, this doesn't mean less people will break in, it just means now they will be sure to bring a weapon with them when they do.
I am amazed at TL's completely blase attitude when it comes to someone breaking into your house.
Yes it's okay to knife someone for breaking in. Burglars are not great people and they are not inside your house to make friends.
Like I said before, I value my property over some asshole that's breaking into my house. The guy is scum and isn't exactly a contributing member to society. I wouldn't kill someone for property though. The threat to me and the rest of my family is the reason I'd knife/shoot someone that's broken into my house.
Here in Canada I can remember a story of a man whose house kept getting broken into, and the cops couldn't catch the burglar. So one night the owner heard commotion and waited around a corner with a bat, he hit the guy hard enough to leave him confined to a hospital bed from then on, and had severe brain damage. The lawyers of the burglar sued the guy and he lost everything. They said that had he killed the guy he would have gotten off scott free because it would have been concluded as self defense. Like the house owner could have said he threatened him or threw a punch or something. But since the guy survived he could testify he hit him blindly. Crazy if you ask me. I know if someone breaks into my house I have a two foot long metal curl bar thats going to punish the guy from around a corner.
It's not even whether he deserves it or not, it's protecting your own ass from legal bullshit. Im certainly not going to ask the guy whether he intends on just taking stuff or killing me or my family in the process.
On July 01 2011 12:34 Rebornlife wrote: Here in Canada I can remember a story of a man whose house kept getting broken into, and the cops couldn't catch the burglar. So one night the owner heard commotion and waited around a corner with a bat, he hit the guy hard enough to leave him confined to a hospital bed from then on, and had severe brain damage. The lawyers of the burglar sued the guy and he lost everything. They said that had he killed the guy he would have gotten off scott free because it would have been concluded as self defense. Like the house owner could have said he threatened him or threw a punch or something. But since the guy survived he could testify he hit him blindly. Crazy if you ask me. I know if someone breaks into my house I have a two foot long metal curl bar thats going to punish the guy from around a corner.
It's not even whether he deserves it or not, it's protecting your own ass from legal bullshit. Im certainly not going to ask the guy whether he intends on just taking stuff or killing me or my family in the process.
That's why never leave the guy alive to testify, If it's a self defense move always go for the kill to prevent stuff like that. If you really HAVE TO perform self defense, You have to be resolved to kill.
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....
#6 buck can be relied on to incapacitate and never kill through two sheets of normal dry wall.
#6 doesn't meet FBI penetration recommendations. "Never kill" is a bit much. Maybe not likely to, but there are always random occurances and bad luck.
On June 30 2011 16:08 vetinari wrote:
:|
I was refering to one person being armed, and the other unarmed. A 5 year old with a hand gun, and all that.
Fair enough, and I see your point. You still need the will and skill to use it.
On June 30 2011 17:54 Sea_Food wrote: What if you go searching for the burglar your gun up, then the burglar you did not see, or even a secong burglar you did not know were there kills you because they were afraid? Who then is left to defend your family? Just because you felt your property is worth more than life of a criminal.
Valid point, which is why in america gun owning families generally teach the safe operation of firearms to everybody in the family. Not to mention, you don't get guns taken from you in a high compressed ready. So as long as you train properly and don't do all that movie crap it's not really an issue.
On June 30 2011 18:32 Bleak wrote: So you wake up, realise that there is a burglar at your home, you grab your gun and move as silently as possible,. You find burglar the sitting room, checking the stuff around. He is not aware of you, his back is turned to you, you don't care he is armed or not and shoot the guy in torso with 4 bullets. Poor bastard dies right there.
Do you think this would constitute a proportional and necessary self defence case?
You'd take a murder charge in my state. If you can see his hands and see that he is not immediately armed you probably need to make an attempt to hold him state dependant. So, no it doesn't.
The proper response here is to put your weapon mounted light on him and say something to the effect of "Don't turn around, I have a gun. Put your hands on top of your head and then put your forehead on the ground. Don't move after that and you can make it out of here alive." Then if he makes any sudden movements or turns towards me I am shooting him. The only way he gets out of there without being shot or caught is if he can somehow run directly away from me and keep his hands clear of his body and never look back.
On July 01 2011 09:45 Inertia_EU wrote: If you break into my home, threaten the safety of my family, you leave your human rights at the doorstep. It's as simple as that.
No, they're still human. The humanity of a human is a pretty static thing.
You seem determined to assign some value to a 'human' who is determined to give it up.
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.
Actually no it is not...If some one breaks into YOUR house and hurts themselves while robbing you, they can actually sue you for damages depending on which state you live in. there are still a few states that do allow you to end a persons life if they are on your property without permission I am pretty sure Texas is the only one for that severe a cause. In the state of Nevada and California if a person Illegally enters your home You can only do 2 things, ask them to leave, and point a gun at them you cannot harm them in any way or you will suffer legal actions against you.
My friend had some one sneak in thru her skylight and well he ended up stabbing himself on her kitchen counter with some small knife he put a lawsuit against her for 30k, and the doctors bill for 30-35 stitches. guess who won that lawsuit. the guy who came into her home at 1 am to rob the place sad isn't it.
I Also knew a couple that have 3 kids(i did not know them well just neighbors from down the street) they shot and crippled a man that entered their home at 3 am to rob them, The father was arrested and ended up server 1 year in prison with another 15 on probation. He is still on probation with 9 years to go.
The only way you would get away with harming the person would be if they had a weapon and threatened your life or one of the family members in your home.
Think me stupid w/e I don't not know all 50 states worth of laws but i know enough from the 7 states i have lived in to know that you cannot actually brandish deadly force on an intruder unless they have threatened you(and i mean with a weapon IE gun or a knife to some ones body simply them holding a knife is not enough they have to take an action against you) or your family in some way.
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?
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.
Actually no it is not...If some one breaks into YOUR house and hurts themselves while robbing you, they can actually sue you for damages depending on which state you live in. there are still a few states that do allow you to end a persons life if they are on your property without permission I am pretty sure Texas is the only one for that severe a cause. In the state of Nevada and California if a person Illegally enters your home You can only do 2 things, ask them to leave, and point a gun at them you cannot harm them in any way or you will suffer legal actions against you.
My friend had some one sneak in thru her skylight and well he ended up stabbing himself on her kitchen counter with some small knife he put a lawsuit against her for 30k, and the doctors bill for 30-35 stitches. guess who won that lawsuit. the guy who came into her home at 1 am to rob the place sad isn't it.
I Also knew a couple that have 3 kids(i did not know them well just neighbors from down the street) they shot and crippled a man that entered their home at 3 am to rob them, The father was arrested and ended up server 1 year in prison with another 15 on probation. He is still on probation with 9 years to go.
The only way you would get away with harming the person would be if they had a weapon and threatened your life or one of the family members in your home.
Think me stupid w/e I don't not know all 50 states worth of laws but i know enough from the 7 states i have lived in to know that you cannot actually brandish deadly force on an intruder unless they have threatened you or your family in some way.
As twisted as it may sound, it seems that, If you intend on shooting someone or using violence to defend yourself, resolve yourself to kill that person. Half-assing it will only get you sued. So make sure if they ever break in they don't leave. Use more than one swing/ammo if you have to.
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?
Why must you assign humanitarian values to someone who has no intention of upholding the obligations to keep the said value.
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."
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?
It isn't about the damn property.
How many times does this need to be said before it's believed?
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.
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.
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.
You're the angriest nerd in this thread.
How are you supposed to find out their intent? How are you supposed to ask them without surprising them? The last thing I want to do is surprise someone who is potentially dangerous and full of adrenaline.
How are you supposed to know all they want is your TV? What do you do if they start coming towards the bedroom your wife and/or child is in?
If I saw someone leaving my house with my TV I would make sure they couldn't get back in and then call the police. If I see them approaching my son's room I'm going to take action.
On June 30 2011 12:01 Duka08 wrote: This is actually awesome and hopefully only results in positive things. This was always one of those laws that pissed me the fuck off when applicable. Absolute mockery of an already overwhelmed and often silly justice system.
I don't understand how people like you can actually exist.
So we value property over human life now? It's ok to knife someone for breaking in? You know, this doesn't mean less people will break in, it just means now they will be sure to bring a weapon with them when they do.
I don't understand how people like you can actually exist.
So we value life of criminals over property that we spent sweat and blood over? It's not ok to defend your own efforts? You know, that isn't going to mean less people will break in, it just means now they will walk through the front door and back out with your property when they do.
lmao, I don't even think you know what you're arguing. What does this even mean? "You know, that isn't going to mean less people will break in, it just means now they will walk through the front door and back out with your property when they do."
There is a reason every judicial system in the first world follows the principal "Innocent until proven guilty." If you are honestly that paranoid that you feel the need to STAB AND KILL SOMEONE simply because they have something that cost a few dollars, you need to reinspect your life. I wonder how long it will be before a child is killed for breaking into a neighbors cellar and taking some wine, that's justice, right?
Anyone that values property over human life shouldn't be allowed to live themselves, period.
This post is incredibly ignorant of context.
I doubt anyone comes into a house and steals a few dollars of things. What he means, obviously, is that if you can't do anything to protect your property simply because the person stealing it is more important, than there will be nothing stopping them. Most people then say "well call the police", but this argument is effectively moot; nobody seems to be aware of the uselessness of the police. It's not like you call 911 and this person will be caught without fail. If you call 911, your stuff is gone, and that person is long gone and there's nothing anyone can do about it at this point. That is the reality.
None of the examples given by anyone trying to protect the human "rights" of criminals has been practical and intelligent. Most of them are simply and completely unrealistic. The criticism for people who support the law is that in exceptional cases, abuse may occur. This is ridiculous and if I have to explain why, then you have no place in a discussion in any kind where logic and consistency are respected.
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't fight, knife, break bottles, hit people with frying pans, or do any type of physically hostile activity very often, and if the law simply permits me to retaliate with same or "reasonable" resistance against a person who has likely done many of these activities often puts me at a huge disadvantage before anything has happened. If you do not agree with most of the people posting, then that is basically the alternative you are proposing.
And about incapacitation. I don't have the skills to incapacitate a criminal inside my house and neither do you. He's going to hear you pick up a frying pan, and I don't know if you've ever been in a fight, buts its very difficult to hit a person in the head, and it's much more difficult to do it with enough force to do damage. Shooting them in the leg? Where in the leg? The kneecap? How are you so confident in your abilities to shoot them pinpoint in a place that won't kill them? You can shoot a person in the leg and still kill them. The incapacitation argument is absurd, and only demonstrates your lack of experience in these situations, thus hindering the pervasiveness of any argument you have.
You're applying unrealistic and impractical ideals in a realistic and practical situation that works within the confines of reality, which is rarely ideal. You're doing so to fulfill a desire to be better than people, to pretend to see more than they do and pretend to be more sensitive to the underlying value of things like humans and a plasma TV, and you're not. You're telling people that they are insensitive and materialistic, you're putting people down and feeling high and mighty, but you are not providing practical solutions to any problems.
Also, "I wonder how long it will be before a child is killed for breaking into a neighbors cellar and taking some wine, that's justice, right?". I don't know any children who like wine, less so that would be willing to break into a cellar in the neighbors house to do so. This statement might make logical sense "ideally", but when you actually apply it in reality, you realize that if it's a neighbor, the person who owns the house will most likely know the child who has broken into his house for some wine, and simply allowing people to protect themselves with any force necessary doesn't mean that every time something happens they're going to shoot them. Lastly, if this ever did occur, it would be horrible, tragic, unfortunate, and an injustice, but it would be extremely rare, as is the case with all counterarguments.
tldr; an imperfect solution is better than no solution. Allowing people to protect themselves will have more pros than cons.
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.
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...
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
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
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.
[/QUOTE] 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.
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 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 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.
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 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 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.
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?
I just want to point out that killing someone for stepping on your own, and killing someone for invading your home are not exactly the same thing.....
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...
You forget that these fucking idiots only watch Fox news and seem to think that criminals just go around shooting people in the face for fun.
On July 02 2011 01:45 dupshflayh wrote: 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 in a nutshell.
I think I am going to move to Norway. My fellow Americans have turned into a bunch of angry blood crazed idiots.
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.
Show me where in my post where I said or even implied that a home owner should have 'to take the risk of being the victim of any of those outcomes'? All I was trying to do with that post was to get the hyperbole toned down a bit, and an implication that most or even a high proportion of burglars will beat their victims to death is just a preposterous exaggeration.
Wow this sounds so rediculous, but I approve of it, burglars etc.should be punished the right way Edit: Especially after hearing/seeing how the UK law seems to not have any proper 'lawful' punishment for criminals, much like the Finnish law seems to protect them more than the victim(s).
Property is not worth more than the life of a criminal. There are thousands of reasons someone would break into your house and "The burglar is pure evil." is only one of them. It might even be someone that is fleeing from real criminals, only to hide in your house and then get shot by you "because I shoot everyone that enters my house uninvited".
Burglar breaks in and runs away when he sees you = not okay to shoot or stab (maybe hold him at gunpoint?). Burglar breaks in and threatens you = okay to shoot or stab nonlethally (as best as you can prevent death of course). Burglar breaks in and assaults you = whatever the fuck you want to do, do it (this however, does not imply you can shoot him while he's already on the floor).
That's how I would define laws regarding burglary. Also, I don't understand these idiotic stories of lawsuits against home owners defending themselves from burglars. How in god's name can a judge rule in favour of the criminal? Unless, of course, these stories are greatly exaggerated...
On July 02 2011 03:05 Thorakh wrote: Property is not worth more than the life of a criminal. There are thousands of reasons someone would break into your house and "The burglar is pure evil." is only one of them. It might even be someone that is fleeing from real criminals, only to hide in your house and then get shot by you "because I shoot everyone that enters my house uninvited".
Burglar breaks in and runs away when he sees you = not okay to shoot or stab (maybe hold him at gunpoint?). Burglar breaks in and threatens you = okay to shoot or stab nonlethally (as best as you can prevent death of course). Burglar breaks in and assaults you = whatever the fuck you want to do, do it (this however, does not imply you can shoot him while he's already on the floor).
That's how I would define laws regarding burglary. Also, I don't understand these idiotic stories of lawsuits against home owners defending themselves from burglars. How in god's name can a judge rule in favour of the criminal? Unless, of course, these stories are greatly exaggerated...
Because locks on doors don't exist, right? I just think someone hiding inside of your house is a very silly example...
After reading through this thread one thing I'm sure of is that I'm never, ever going to the United States. I can't believe how many of you are bloodthirsty pychopaths who think that stealing is a crime that should be punishable by death and that the lives of human beings can be worth less than a laptop or television.
No fucking wonder you have such a problem with violence in your country when even the law abiding citizens glorify and lust for it.
A person who would break into someones house and steal an ipod may be bad, but someone would kill him for it is far, far worse.
The only time it is ever acceptable to take a persons life is when it's necessary to save another.
On July 02 2011 03:43 Exarl25 wrote: After reading through this thread one thing I'm sure of is that I'm never, ever going to the United States. I can't believe how many of you are bloodthirsty pychopaths who think that stealing is a crime that should be punishable by death and that the lives of human beings can be worth less than a laptop or television.
No fucking wonder you have such a problem with violence in your country when even the law abiding citizens glorify and lust for it.
A person who would break into someones house and steal an ipod may be bad, but someone would kill him for it is far, far worse.
The only time it is ever acceptable to take a persons life is when it's necessary to save another.
Allow me to break it down for you Burglar in the hourse Does he have violent intention? If you are Kerrigan and can read minds you should be able to figure this out.
If yes=>Shoot him (A) If no=>Hold him at gunpoint until police arrive. (B) If Maybe then you will still shoot him because he maybe a danger to you and your family.
Now I am no telepath so I can't read their minds. i don't know if they're spiteful or not. Nor do I know if they're armed. I could incapacitate him, but defending yourself with such a half-assed resolve will only get you sued later by the criminal (lol). There for, For your sake and your family sake. Aim for the vitals.
So in Colorado we have what is called the "make my day law" which says that if someone illegally enters your property you have the right to kill them "when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant." The idea is that you shouldn't need to confront a robber/potentially worse criminal to get rid of them you can just shoot. And I can tell you it works, I was getting robbed once while asleep in my bed and when they made some noise and I woke up they saw me and ran the fuck away cause I could have killed them on the spot (even though I didn't have a gun and probably wouldn't have used it even if I did). So Colorado has had this law on the books since 1985 and if it gets abused or even used very often at all we don't hear about it so I would assume we wont be seeing the corpses stack up over in London-town.
The Castle Doctrine isn't about empowering bloodthirsty psychopaths -- it's about allowing normal people to protect the safety of their homes and families from criminals (and consequently, to act as a deterrent for potential offenders).
Burglars don't always play nice. Some are young and scared, and just found themselves in a bad life situation, but some are also ruthless killers who don't mind using methods like torture and murder if they think it will help them crack a safe or find hidden valuables, or simply to eliminate witnesses who could put them in prison.
The question is, in the middle of the night when you hear that window breaking, would you really be prepared to gamble your life (and lives of others who depend on you) on philanthropy and optimism? I would not.
I believe it's ethical to be able to shoot someone fatally for breaking into your house. Eye for an eye, crime for a crime. I'm not saying that breaking and entering is as serious a crime as fatally shooting someone, but the only one being wronged is the owner/residents of the house, and they're the only ones who need react to what's going on. If burglars knew that entering a house would get them killed, I'm sure that would deter them.
On July 02 2011 04:56 Zdrastochye wrote: I believe it's ethical to be able to shoot someone fatally for breaking into your house. Eye for an eye, crime for a crime. I'm not saying that breaking and entering is as serious a crime as fatally shooting someone, but the only one being wronged is the owner/residents of the house, and they're the only ones who need react to what's going on. If burglars knew that entering a house would get them killed, I'm sure that would deter them.
So nothing wrong with death sentence on everything.
This topic actually scares me about the current police state of our world. These scumbags actually value their own TV over someone else's life.
To be completely honest I value anything and everything over the life of a criminal. One who stoops to thievery over the alternative of getting a job or applying for some gov't program has a life that means jack shit to me.
Let's be clear here.
Did you seriously just imply that NOT KILLING SOMEONE IS RISKY?
I agree that not killing someone is risky. In fact it's often the judicial system that makes it so. Back in October someone broke into my house. Some scrawny little shit about 17. He didn't make it out of the door with anything except a pair of handcuffs. What happened to him after that? Absolutely nothing. Some how or another the "attempted" burglary charge did not stick and he was free. Yay America? But that's not the worst part. What is? Two months ago he was caught for another crime. What crime? Shooting someone in the head...over a bicycle...
On July 02 2011 05:10 Zdrastochye wrote: Your reading skills are lacking if that's what you glean from what I said, but then again english isn't your first language so I don't blame you.
Actually, simplifying it a bit, like you americans are so fond of, that's what you're saying (See, I can also use Master suppression techniques).
If you're saying "any crime is worth another", which you specifically did, then there is nothing wrong with putting a death sentence (Or, just allowing people to kill whoever commits a crime) on everything like some third world country. And even you americans (MST again!) should realize that doesn't work.
Also, for the deterrent effect. No. People are not going to stop running out of money or falling on hard times. That's the main cause of crime. They're just going to harm more people when they know that if they enter a house, it's going to be a wild west scenario according to the law. Whoever harms the other one first, wins. Then they're more likely to hold you hostage, to prevent you from killing them. And that with good reason.
EPT
