|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Customer Reportedly Fires on Alleged Shoplifters
When two men suspected of shoplifting tried to leave an Auburn Hills Home Depot parking lot, another customer opened fire, police said.
A 47-year-old Clarkston woman reportedly fired on a fleeing vehicle after witnessing a store security officer trying to stop a customer who allegedly shoplifted from the store Tuesday afternoon.
Auburn Hills police responded to a call of “shots fired” about 2 p.m., The Detroit News reports.
It’s unclear how many rounds were fired or if anyone was injured in the incident at the store on Joslyn. The customer and a passenger, both identified as men in their 40s, sped away in a dark-colored SUV.
The Clarkston woman remained on the scene and was cooperating with police. ~ http://patch.com/michigan/bloomfield-mi/customer-reportedly-fires-alleged-shoplifters?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook&utm_term=police & fire&utm_campaign=recirc&utm_content=aol
Here's another article/ video on it: http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/30790613-story
I think this situation is much more one-sided than the Waffle House article I posted... I think even gun advocates would agree that being suspected of shoplifting doesn't permit random people to start shooting guns at cars way out in the open.
|
On October 12 2015 20:39 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 20:31 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i dont know how you saw my pity towards aggressors to mean i dont care about the victims. of course i care, but im saying one shouldnt be so quick to judge criminals. so many of you justify killing every single criminal that presents a "threat" to you, but how many of them do you think really have the intention of hurting someone? theres a lot but definitely not all. some of these "criminals" may be doing what theyre doing because they really see it as their only choice of survival for whatever reason. even if this category of criminals is a minority, at least for their sake people should think twice. you could be killing a father of 3 whos struggling to pay his rent and his wife's medical bills.
also, this is the 21st century. you dont live in a communist country or a dictatorship, like so many of you have pointed out. 'defending' yourself against your government with militia is an ancient policy that can and should no longer happen. the only 'defending' you need to do against your government is the prevention of idiotic policies. if you cant stop your government from doing stupid shit then educate yourselves. if the citizens are for the most part ignorant and stupid then your government will reflect it. see australian government for example Since intent is inherently and by nature, subjective and personalized, that is a non-sequitur to the issue of self-defense. If one is presenting you with the very real likelihood of bodily harm, only the truly pacifist would call for "turning the cheek" to your aggressor, and only the truly insane would not only tell that person to not defend themselves, but that they're in the wrong for doing so. So, you're fine with criminals committing violent acts against the peaceful because of their own survival, but aren't just as retrospective of the victim doing likewise against their aggressor (fighting for their own survival in a very real sense). I'm not willing to put my life on the line for hypothetical what ifs and nebulous intention(s), and most sane people are not. I have a feeling once you experience "real life" as an older adult, your perspective may likely change.
there's a reason there's such a thing as reasonable force for those things or whatever it's called in english.
Noone here really has an issue with someone shooting someone who's pointing a gun at someone and if they do it's probably more of an issue of how to phrase it. People say that it's not that black & white and you can't just fire away all the time.
If you shoot someone armed with a knife who already got 200$ and is on his way out of whereever that's obviously not self-defense and you'll end up in jail for life. That's the point Kwark tried to make earlier: sure if the guy is a threat you have to do something but if it's obvious that he's not, for whatever reason, you can't just shoot him because he stole 200$.
If you shoot someone who walked into your house because you left the door unlocked and it later turns out it was a drunk teenager who wasn't even armed you'll also end up in jail for life. Rightfully so because you had no reason to shoot him/her.
|
On October 12 2015 14:43 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its actually scary how many people think its ok to take someones life simply because theyre committing a crime. zero compassion for others, inability to empathise, unwillingness to forgive.
I doubt most of them think it is OK because the person is committing a crime. I doubt they would support shooting a conman. More likely they would argue it is ok to take the other life because the other person is *apparently* knowingly threatening people's lives.
*apparently being cases like the person breaking into your house, where you don't know how they will react to you. The law varies about how much you need to confirm they are a danger to you (in some cases the fact that they broke in is enough, in others they would need to have a weapon and signed forms that they were going to kill you). However, if you truly believed they were a danger, then shooting them could be a Very unfortunate outcome(if they weren't an actual threat), but I (and I believe many others) wouldn't call it wrong (even if it might be illegal).
also side note,
Tyrrany is Totally compatible with ANY form of government.
Democracy (see Socrates), Republic, Monarchy, etc. Indeed tyranny is probably more likely in a truly democratic government (because 51%+ of the people agree with you, so its easier to think you are right)
|
Yes, but an important idea here is the fact that you are not a judge. It is not your job to punish crimes (And even if it is, there are very exact rules as to how that is supposed to go), and you are not legally entitled to do so.
The only reason when shooting someone is acceptable is in the immediate defense of someone elses or your own life. Even then it is not the ideal outcome of the situation, and it surely is not justice. In this case the reason for the shooting is not to punish crimes, but to protect. This is an important distinction, because a lot of what i read from some people sounds more like "Shooting criminals is fine to punish them for being criminal". Which it is not. Shooting someone to punish them is never acceptable. There is a judiciary to deal with punishment and rehabilitation. You are not the judiciary branch of government.
And even in the case of defense, statistically the result will more often than not be worse if you try to shoot the person as opposed to just letting them take the money and walk away. So better be very sure that they actually are a direct threat to peoples lives, and that that threat will be reduced by you starting to shoot. When in doubt, better don't shoot.
|
On October 12 2015 12:16 KwarK wrote:
This was never about self defence or killing a person who is a threat to your continued survival. That was never the argument.
The argument you made was that it's okay to kill someone who has, through the implications of their actions (such as bringing a gun to a Waffle House robbery), shown a disregard for human life. Not that it was okay to kill them in self defence but rather that it was okay to kill them in the defence of property as long as they had shown a disregard for human life. That their disregard for human life could then be projected back at them and used to argue that either their life is also not worth very much, and can be justifiably taken in defence of a few hundred dollars, or that they are a hypocrite.
This is school playground level logic. You can't go "well if they thought life was so valuable they wouldn't have had a gun, clearly they're a hypocrite who deserved to be shot". The punishment for hypocrisy isn't death. Just because they're showing disregard for life doesn't make it okay to end their life if there is no imminent threat.
Your attempt to change the scenario to one more defensible won't escape notice. There is no imminent threat in this scenario, just money at risk. Do you stand by "he started it" as a justification?
There is no imminent threat? Of course there is, there's the armed guy threatening everyone. The only way that isn't an imminent threat is if you believe they will take the money and leave without causing injury. That's the not the only way it can play out. Take the risk if you want, but I value my life more than a complete stranger who clearly does not care about the lives of others.
On October 12 2015 13:17 KwarK wrote:
My argument was that in the ranking of potential outcomes I'd put "robbery is a success, robber gets away with $500, no one is harmed" above "robbery is a failure, random patron kills the robber, nobody else is harmed". Obviously both are more desirable than a patron or employee being harmed and if it were a situation in which either the robber or an innocent person were in danger then I would rather it were the robber who got shot but that wasn't what we were discussing. My original post, which killa_robot disagreed with, was that the robber escaping with a few hundred dollars is better than him being killed. His response, that you shouldn't value the life of someone whose actions show they don't value life, is playground morality where the standard of behaviour for the group is set by the worst.
Why do you think him escaping is better anyway? You've been talking about your greater morality, but all I've gathered from that is you value human life as an absolute good thing. What threshold do criminals have to cross until you believe it's morally okay for them to be killed?
On October 12 2015 14:43 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its actually scary how many people think its ok to take someones life simply because theyre committing a crime. zero compassion for others, inability to empathise, unwillingness to forgive.
and people wonder why our world is so messed up now.
people talking about their right to live and their right to bear arms should try and reconsider their views on life. consider your life and everything you have to be a privilege, and then maybe youd think twice about taking someone else's life. what makes you guys so special that you were given the RIGHT to live in a good home, with a family and a steady pay check when millions of people across the world cant get access to proper food. please explain to me what they did wrong aside from being born in those circumstances that they deserved to live in such terrible conditions.
so many people in this world dont understand the massive privilege they have just to be alive and healthy with a roof on top of their heads. so ungrateful for everything, which is why they keep asking for more on the basis that they are entitled to it. if people werent so self righteous and a little more grateful then the world would be a better place.
you get shot because some robber gets nervous and you decided not to kill him? well shit happens, at least you lived a good life, a much better life than a lot of people, and you can take solace in that you didnt take away the robber's 'right' to live. the robber will pay for his crime, and you may be dead but at least people will remember you as someone who didnt forsake his humanity. an inspiration to the younger generations
It's not because they're committing a crime, it's because they're threatening the lives of other people.
And holy shit, you're such a pushover, lol. Did you really value your life so little that if someone kills you under those circumstances you'd be okay with it? The fact that your family and friends no longer have you in their life is just a footnote, so long as the criminal is being treated nicely?
On October 12 2015 15:16 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 10:50 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 10:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2015 10:10 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 09:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2015 08:10 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 06:01 KwarK wrote:
Honestly I'd rather nobody got killed in a Waffle House robbery than the perpetrator. Yeah I'm a bleeding heart liberal but I don't think people should die over a few hundred bucks. Obviously if he'd gotten the money and then lined up the patrons and started executing them, children first, then sure, shoot away. But I think human life is worth more than a few hundred dollars, even if the person is a piece of shit. It's certainly not ideal. Given he was armed with a gun, it stands to reason he didn't share the same sentiment. Sure it's possible he had no intention of using it, but anytime you threaten an innocent person with death, you should expect nothing less in return. Source please? I couldn't find that fact in any of the articles mentioning this. Thanks in advance  You're right. Clearly he was actually armed with a waffle iron, lol. So in other words, you have no source and literally just made up the statement that "he was armed with a gun". He could have been armed with a knife or some other weapon... that's still considered "armed robbery" -.-' At least now I'm aware that you're not above completely fabricating "facts" to prove your point. It's an important point too. Besides the fact that many people are already disagreeing with you on how ideal it is to kill someone, if the armed robber didn't even have a gun, then it'd be far easier to subdue him instead of shooting/ killing first and shrugging later. That's an adorable attempt to attack my character, lol. You went all out there. Tell you what, if an armed guy who isn't armed with a gun is ever attempting to rob the waffle house you're eating at, you feel free to attempt to subdue him. I'm perfectly content with letting someone else shoot the bastard. Sorry, but this is BS. To me, "Armed" does not mean "Has a gun". Here in Germany, an "armed" robber usually has a knife. If a guy actually has a gun, that is always mentioned. Thus, DPBs question for a source is absolutely legitimate. And your deflection of it is bad discussion practice. If everyone knew that he has a gun, it shouldn't be hard to find a source for that. Which you still haven't produced yet. As for the rest of the argument, i find your way of thinking disgusting. If someone who is threatening someone elses life is killed in the protection of that life, that is not the best result, but acceptable. If someone who has a gun, but is not threatening someones life, is killed, that is not. You have a judiciary system for a reason. Vigilantism should not be any part of a civilized society. You seem to work off a hollywood justice system, where the best solution to any problem is for a hero to go in and shoot all the bad guys.
That's because Germany is not America. Guns are far more common in America than Germany. Not to mention him being armed with a gun doesn't matter. He was dangerous enough that the employees felt the guy that killed him saved their lives, which is all that needs to be known to justify it.
Wait, you find my line of reasoning disgusting, but agree that them dying is still acceptable? How does that even work?
On October 12 2015 23:26 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 20:39 Wegandi wrote:On October 12 2015 20:31 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i dont know how you saw my pity towards aggressors to mean i dont care about the victims. of course i care, but im saying one shouldnt be so quick to judge criminals. so many of you justify killing every single criminal that presents a "threat" to you, but how many of them do you think really have the intention of hurting someone? theres a lot but definitely not all. some of these "criminals" may be doing what theyre doing because they really see it as their only choice of survival for whatever reason. even if this category of criminals is a minority, at least for their sake people should think twice. you could be killing a father of 3 whos struggling to pay his rent and his wife's medical bills.
also, this is the 21st century. you dont live in a communist country or a dictatorship, like so many of you have pointed out. 'defending' yourself against your government with militia is an ancient policy that can and should no longer happen. the only 'defending' you need to do against your government is the prevention of idiotic policies. if you cant stop your government from doing stupid shit then educate yourselves. if the citizens are for the most part ignorant and stupid then your government will reflect it. see australian government for example Since intent is inherently and by nature, subjective and personalized, that is a non-sequitur to the issue of self-defense. If one is presenting you with the very real likelihood of bodily harm, only the truly pacifist would call for "turning the cheek" to your aggressor, and only the truly insane would not only tell that person to not defend themselves, but that they're in the wrong for doing so. So, you're fine with criminals committing violent acts against the peaceful because of their own survival, but aren't just as retrospective of the victim doing likewise against their aggressor (fighting for their own survival in a very real sense). I'm not willing to put my life on the line for hypothetical what ifs and nebulous intention(s), and most sane people are not. I have a feeling once you experience "real life" as an older adult, your perspective may likely change. there's a reason there's such a thing as reasonable force for those things or whatever it's called in english. Noone here really has an issue with someone shooting someone who's pointing a gun at someone and if they do it's probably more of an issue of how to phrase it. People say that it's not that black & white and you can't just fire away all the time. If you shoot someone armed with a knife who already got 200$ and is on his way out of whereever that's obviously not self-defense and you'll end up in jail for life. That's the point Kwark tried to make earlier: sure if the guy is a threat you have to do something but if it's obvious that he's not, for whatever reason, you can't just shoot him because he stole 200$. If you shoot someone who walked into your house because you left the door unlocked and it later turns out it was a drunk teenager who wasn't even armed you'll also end up in jail for life. Rightfully so because you had no reason to shoot him/her.
If he's got the money and is leaving the door that's a different story. The conflict is, for all intents and purposes, already over at that point.
Though the teen example is weird. It could be reasonable to feel threatened by someone drunkenly stumbling into your home depending on the circumstances.
|
On October 13 2015 01:09 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 12:16 KwarK wrote:
This was never about self defence or killing a person who is a threat to your continued survival. That was never the argument.
The argument you made was that it's okay to kill someone who has, through the implications of their actions (such as bringing a gun to a Waffle House robbery), shown a disregard for human life. Not that it was okay to kill them in self defence but rather that it was okay to kill them in the defence of property as long as they had shown a disregard for human life. That their disregard for human life could then be projected back at them and used to argue that either their life is also not worth very much, and can be justifiably taken in defence of a few hundred dollars, or that they are a hypocrite.
This is school playground level logic. You can't go "well if they thought life was so valuable they wouldn't have had a gun, clearly they're a hypocrite who deserved to be shot". The punishment for hypocrisy isn't death. Just because they're showing disregard for life doesn't make it okay to end their life if there is no imminent threat.
Your attempt to change the scenario to one more defensible won't escape notice. There is no imminent threat in this scenario, just money at risk. Do you stand by "he started it" as a justification? There is no imminent threat? Of course there is, there's the armed guy threatening everyone. The only way that isn't an imminent threat is if you believe they will take the money and leave without causing injury. That's the not the only way it can play out. Take the risk if you want, but I value my life more than a complete stranger who clearly does not care about the lives of others. Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 13:17 KwarK wrote:
My argument was that in the ranking of potential outcomes I'd put "robbery is a success, robber gets away with $500, no one is harmed" above "robbery is a failure, random patron kills the robber, nobody else is harmed". Obviously both are more desirable than a patron or employee being harmed and if it were a situation in which either the robber or an innocent person were in danger then I would rather it were the robber who got shot but that wasn't what we were discussing. My original post, which killa_robot disagreed with, was that the robber escaping with a few hundred dollars is better than him being killed. His response, that you shouldn't value the life of someone whose actions show they don't value life, is playground morality where the standard of behaviour for the group is set by the worst. Why do you think him escaping is better anyway? You've been talking about your greater morality, but all I've gathered from that is you value human life as an absolute good thing. What threshold do criminals have to cross until you believe it's morally okay for them to be killed? Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 14:43 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its actually scary how many people think its ok to take someones life simply because theyre committing a crime. zero compassion for others, inability to empathise, unwillingness to forgive.
and people wonder why our world is so messed up now.
people talking about their right to live and their right to bear arms should try and reconsider their views on life. consider your life and everything you have to be a privilege, and then maybe youd think twice about taking someone else's life. what makes you guys so special that you were given the RIGHT to live in a good home, with a family and a steady pay check when millions of people across the world cant get access to proper food. please explain to me what they did wrong aside from being born in those circumstances that they deserved to live in such terrible conditions.
so many people in this world dont understand the massive privilege they have just to be alive and healthy with a roof on top of their heads. so ungrateful for everything, which is why they keep asking for more on the basis that they are entitled to it. if people werent so self righteous and a little more grateful then the world would be a better place.
you get shot because some robber gets nervous and you decided not to kill him? well shit happens, at least you lived a good life, a much better life than a lot of people, and you can take solace in that you didnt take away the robber's 'right' to live. the robber will pay for his crime, and you may be dead but at least people will remember you as someone who didnt forsake his humanity. an inspiration to the younger generations It's not because they're committing a crime, it's because they're threatening the lives of other people. And holy shit, you're such a pushover, lol. Did you really value your life so little that if someone kills you under those circumstances you'd be okay with it? The fact that your family and friends no longer have you in their life is just a footnote, so long as the criminal is being treated nicely? Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 15:16 Simberto wrote:On October 12 2015 10:50 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 10:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2015 10:10 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 09:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2015 08:10 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 06:01 KwarK wrote:
Honestly I'd rather nobody got killed in a Waffle House robbery than the perpetrator. Yeah I'm a bleeding heart liberal but I don't think people should die over a few hundred bucks. Obviously if he'd gotten the money and then lined up the patrons and started executing them, children first, then sure, shoot away. But I think human life is worth more than a few hundred dollars, even if the person is a piece of shit. It's certainly not ideal. Given he was armed with a gun, it stands to reason he didn't share the same sentiment. Sure it's possible he had no intention of using it, but anytime you threaten an innocent person with death, you should expect nothing less in return. Source please? I couldn't find that fact in any of the articles mentioning this. Thanks in advance You're right. Clearly he was actually armed with a waffle iron, lol. So in other words, you have no source and literally just made up the statement that "he was armed with a gun". He could have been armed with a knife or some other weapon... that's still considered "armed robbery" -.-' At least now I'm aware that you're not above completely fabricating "facts" to prove your point. It's an important point too. Besides the fact that many people are already disagreeing with you on how ideal it is to kill someone, if the armed robber didn't even have a gun, then it'd be far easier to subdue him instead of shooting/ killing first and shrugging later. That's an adorable attempt to attack my character, lol. You went all out there. Tell you what, if an armed guy who isn't armed with a gun is ever attempting to rob the waffle house you're eating at, you feel free to attempt to subdue him. I'm perfectly content with letting someone else shoot the bastard. Sorry, but this is BS. To me, "Armed" does not mean "Has a gun". Here in Germany, an "armed" robber usually has a knife. If a guy actually has a gun, that is always mentioned. Thus, DPBs question for a source is absolutely legitimate. And your deflection of it is bad discussion practice. If everyone knew that he has a gun, it shouldn't be hard to find a source for that. Which you still haven't produced yet. As for the rest of the argument, i find your way of thinking disgusting. If someone who is threatening someone elses life is killed in the protection of that life, that is not the best result, but acceptable. If someone who has a gun, but is not threatening someones life, is killed, that is not. You have a judiciary system for a reason. Vigilantism should not be any part of a civilized society. You seem to work off a hollywood justice system, where the best solution to any problem is for a hero to go in and shoot all the bad guys. That's because Germany is not America. Guns are far more common in America than Germany. Not to mention him being armed with a gun doesn't matter. He was dangerous enough that the employees felt the guy that killed him saved their lives, which is all that needs to be known to justify it. Wait, you find my line of reasoning disgusting, but agree that them dying is still acceptable? How does that even work? Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 23:26 Toadesstern wrote:On October 12 2015 20:39 Wegandi wrote:On October 12 2015 20:31 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i dont know how you saw my pity towards aggressors to mean i dont care about the victims. of course i care, but im saying one shouldnt be so quick to judge criminals. so many of you justify killing every single criminal that presents a "threat" to you, but how many of them do you think really have the intention of hurting someone? theres a lot but definitely not all. some of these "criminals" may be doing what theyre doing because they really see it as their only choice of survival for whatever reason. even if this category of criminals is a minority, at least for their sake people should think twice. you could be killing a father of 3 whos struggling to pay his rent and his wife's medical bills.
also, this is the 21st century. you dont live in a communist country or a dictatorship, like so many of you have pointed out. 'defending' yourself against your government with militia is an ancient policy that can and should no longer happen. the only 'defending' you need to do against your government is the prevention of idiotic policies. if you cant stop your government from doing stupid shit then educate yourselves. if the citizens are for the most part ignorant and stupid then your government will reflect it. see australian government for example Since intent is inherently and by nature, subjective and personalized, that is a non-sequitur to the issue of self-defense. If one is presenting you with the very real likelihood of bodily harm, only the truly pacifist would call for "turning the cheek" to your aggressor, and only the truly insane would not only tell that person to not defend themselves, but that they're in the wrong for doing so. So, you're fine with criminals committing violent acts against the peaceful because of their own survival, but aren't just as retrospective of the victim doing likewise against their aggressor (fighting for their own survival in a very real sense). I'm not willing to put my life on the line for hypothetical what ifs and nebulous intention(s), and most sane people are not. I have a feeling once you experience "real life" as an older adult, your perspective may likely change. there's a reason there's such a thing as reasonable force for those things or whatever it's called in english. Noone here really has an issue with someone shooting someone who's pointing a gun at someone and if they do it's probably more of an issue of how to phrase it. People say that it's not that black & white and you can't just fire away all the time. If you shoot someone armed with a knife who already got 200$ and is on his way out of whereever that's obviously not self-defense and you'll end up in jail for life. That's the point Kwark tried to make earlier: sure if the guy is a threat you have to do something but if it's obvious that he's not, for whatever reason, you can't just shoot him because he stole 200$. If you shoot someone who walked into your house because you left the door unlocked and it later turns out it was a drunk teenager who wasn't even armed you'll also end up in jail for life. Rightfully so because you had no reason to shoot him/her. If he's got the money and is leaving the door that's a different story. The conflict is, for all intents and purposes, already over at that point. Though the teen example is weird. It could be reasonable to feel threatened by someone drunkenly stumbling into your home depending on the circumstances.
In what scenario could you possible fear for your life if you see someone aimlessly stumbling around to the point that he's bumping into walls or whatever else so that you can see he's smashed?
Assuming he has no weapon pointed at you and is just in your house because my example expressivle said "and it turns out he was unarmed" so there's no way he can be pointing a weapon at you.
That's a straight forward situation where you have a massive advantage on the intruder and have to pay attention not to use too much force when you yourself are armed. You'd have to have a really massive reason to use deadly force in such a situation, like actually still being in your bed and waking up while he's sitting on top of you/next to you lol
|
On October 13 2015 01:36 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2015 01:09 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 12:16 KwarK wrote:
This was never about self defence or killing a person who is a threat to your continued survival. That was never the argument.
The argument you made was that it's okay to kill someone who has, through the implications of their actions (such as bringing a gun to a Waffle House robbery), shown a disregard for human life. Not that it was okay to kill them in self defence but rather that it was okay to kill them in the defence of property as long as they had shown a disregard for human life. That their disregard for human life could then be projected back at them and used to argue that either their life is also not worth very much, and can be justifiably taken in defence of a few hundred dollars, or that they are a hypocrite.
This is school playground level logic. You can't go "well if they thought life was so valuable they wouldn't have had a gun, clearly they're a hypocrite who deserved to be shot". The punishment for hypocrisy isn't death. Just because they're showing disregard for life doesn't make it okay to end their life if there is no imminent threat.
Your attempt to change the scenario to one more defensible won't escape notice. There is no imminent threat in this scenario, just money at risk. Do you stand by "he started it" as a justification? There is no imminent threat? Of course there is, there's the armed guy threatening everyone. The only way that isn't an imminent threat is if you believe they will take the money and leave without causing injury. That's the not the only way it can play out. Take the risk if you want, but I value my life more than a complete stranger who clearly does not care about the lives of others. On October 12 2015 13:17 KwarK wrote:
My argument was that in the ranking of potential outcomes I'd put "robbery is a success, robber gets away with $500, no one is harmed" above "robbery is a failure, random patron kills the robber, nobody else is harmed". Obviously both are more desirable than a patron or employee being harmed and if it were a situation in which either the robber or an innocent person were in danger then I would rather it were the robber who got shot but that wasn't what we were discussing. My original post, which killa_robot disagreed with, was that the robber escaping with a few hundred dollars is better than him being killed. His response, that you shouldn't value the life of someone whose actions show they don't value life, is playground morality where the standard of behaviour for the group is set by the worst. Why do you think him escaping is better anyway? You've been talking about your greater morality, but all I've gathered from that is you value human life as an absolute good thing. What threshold do criminals have to cross until you believe it's morally okay for them to be killed? On October 12 2015 14:43 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its actually scary how many people think its ok to take someones life simply because theyre committing a crime. zero compassion for others, inability to empathise, unwillingness to forgive.
and people wonder why our world is so messed up now.
people talking about their right to live and their right to bear arms should try and reconsider their views on life. consider your life and everything you have to be a privilege, and then maybe youd think twice about taking someone else's life. what makes you guys so special that you were given the RIGHT to live in a good home, with a family and a steady pay check when millions of people across the world cant get access to proper food. please explain to me what they did wrong aside from being born in those circumstances that they deserved to live in such terrible conditions.
so many people in this world dont understand the massive privilege they have just to be alive and healthy with a roof on top of their heads. so ungrateful for everything, which is why they keep asking for more on the basis that they are entitled to it. if people werent so self righteous and a little more grateful then the world would be a better place.
you get shot because some robber gets nervous and you decided not to kill him? well shit happens, at least you lived a good life, a much better life than a lot of people, and you can take solace in that you didnt take away the robber's 'right' to live. the robber will pay for his crime, and you may be dead but at least people will remember you as someone who didnt forsake his humanity. an inspiration to the younger generations It's not because they're committing a crime, it's because they're threatening the lives of other people. And holy shit, you're such a pushover, lol. Did you really value your life so little that if someone kills you under those circumstances you'd be okay with it? The fact that your family and friends no longer have you in their life is just a footnote, so long as the criminal is being treated nicely? On October 12 2015 15:16 Simberto wrote:On October 12 2015 10:50 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 10:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2015 10:10 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 09:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2015 08:10 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 06:01 KwarK wrote:
Honestly I'd rather nobody got killed in a Waffle House robbery than the perpetrator. Yeah I'm a bleeding heart liberal but I don't think people should die over a few hundred bucks. Obviously if he'd gotten the money and then lined up the patrons and started executing them, children first, then sure, shoot away. But I think human life is worth more than a few hundred dollars, even if the person is a piece of shit. It's certainly not ideal. Given he was armed with a gun, it stands to reason he didn't share the same sentiment. Sure it's possible he had no intention of using it, but anytime you threaten an innocent person with death, you should expect nothing less in return. Source please? I couldn't find that fact in any of the articles mentioning this. Thanks in advance You're right. Clearly he was actually armed with a waffle iron, lol. So in other words, you have no source and literally just made up the statement that "he was armed with a gun". He could have been armed with a knife or some other weapon... that's still considered "armed robbery" -.-' At least now I'm aware that you're not above completely fabricating "facts" to prove your point. It's an important point too. Besides the fact that many people are already disagreeing with you on how ideal it is to kill someone, if the armed robber didn't even have a gun, then it'd be far easier to subdue him instead of shooting/ killing first and shrugging later. That's an adorable attempt to attack my character, lol. You went all out there. Tell you what, if an armed guy who isn't armed with a gun is ever attempting to rob the waffle house you're eating at, you feel free to attempt to subdue him. I'm perfectly content with letting someone else shoot the bastard. Sorry, but this is BS. To me, "Armed" does not mean "Has a gun". Here in Germany, an "armed" robber usually has a knife. If a guy actually has a gun, that is always mentioned. Thus, DPBs question for a source is absolutely legitimate. And your deflection of it is bad discussion practice. If everyone knew that he has a gun, it shouldn't be hard to find a source for that. Which you still haven't produced yet. As for the rest of the argument, i find your way of thinking disgusting. If someone who is threatening someone elses life is killed in the protection of that life, that is not the best result, but acceptable. If someone who has a gun, but is not threatening someones life, is killed, that is not. You have a judiciary system for a reason. Vigilantism should not be any part of a civilized society. You seem to work off a hollywood justice system, where the best solution to any problem is for a hero to go in and shoot all the bad guys. That's because Germany is not America. Guns are far more common in America than Germany. Not to mention him being armed with a gun doesn't matter. He was dangerous enough that the employees felt the guy that killed him saved their lives, which is all that needs to be known to justify it. Wait, you find my line of reasoning disgusting, but agree that them dying is still acceptable? How does that even work? On October 12 2015 23:26 Toadesstern wrote:On October 12 2015 20:39 Wegandi wrote:On October 12 2015 20:31 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i dont know how you saw my pity towards aggressors to mean i dont care about the victims. of course i care, but im saying one shouldnt be so quick to judge criminals. so many of you justify killing every single criminal that presents a "threat" to you, but how many of them do you think really have the intention of hurting someone? theres a lot but definitely not all. some of these "criminals" may be doing what theyre doing because they really see it as their only choice of survival for whatever reason. even if this category of criminals is a minority, at least for their sake people should think twice. you could be killing a father of 3 whos struggling to pay his rent and his wife's medical bills.
also, this is the 21st century. you dont live in a communist country or a dictatorship, like so many of you have pointed out. 'defending' yourself against your government with militia is an ancient policy that can and should no longer happen. the only 'defending' you need to do against your government is the prevention of idiotic policies. if you cant stop your government from doing stupid shit then educate yourselves. if the citizens are for the most part ignorant and stupid then your government will reflect it. see australian government for example Since intent is inherently and by nature, subjective and personalized, that is a non-sequitur to the issue of self-defense. If one is presenting you with the very real likelihood of bodily harm, only the truly pacifist would call for "turning the cheek" to your aggressor, and only the truly insane would not only tell that person to not defend themselves, but that they're in the wrong for doing so. So, you're fine with criminals committing violent acts against the peaceful because of their own survival, but aren't just as retrospective of the victim doing likewise against their aggressor (fighting for their own survival in a very real sense). I'm not willing to put my life on the line for hypothetical what ifs and nebulous intention(s), and most sane people are not. I have a feeling once you experience "real life" as an older adult, your perspective may likely change. there's a reason there's such a thing as reasonable force for those things or whatever it's called in english. Noone here really has an issue with someone shooting someone who's pointing a gun at someone and if they do it's probably more of an issue of how to phrase it. People say that it's not that black & white and you can't just fire away all the time. If you shoot someone armed with a knife who already got 200$ and is on his way out of whereever that's obviously not self-defense and you'll end up in jail for life. That's the point Kwark tried to make earlier: sure if the guy is a threat you have to do something but if it's obvious that he's not, for whatever reason, you can't just shoot him because he stole 200$. If you shoot someone who walked into your house because you left the door unlocked and it later turns out it was a drunk teenager who wasn't even armed you'll also end up in jail for life. Rightfully so because you had no reason to shoot him/her. If he's got the money and is leaving the door that's a different story. The conflict is, for all intents and purposes, already over at that point. Though the teen example is weird. It could be reasonable to feel threatened by someone drunkenly stumbling into your home depending on the circumstances. In what scenario could you possible fear for your life if you see someone aimlessly stumbling around to the point that he's bumping into walls or whatever else so that you can see he's smashed? Assuming he has no weapon pointed at you and is just in your house because my example expressivle said "and it turns out he was unarmed" so there's no way he can be pointing a weapon at you. That's a straight forward situation where you have a massive advantage on the intruder and have to pay attention not to use too much force when you yourself are armed. You'd have to have a really massive reason to use deadly force in such a situation, like actually still being in your bed and waking up while he's sitting on top of you/next to you lol
There's a pretty large gap between "a drunk guy walking into your house" and "they're so drunk that they bumping into walls". Anyone that has been around people drinking would know someone being drunk doesn't mean they aren't a threat (in fact in many causes they can be a larger threat). You should have clarified that what you really meant was "so drunk they can't be a threat". I assumed the drunk part was just the reason for them getting the wrong house.
In that case sure, provided you're able to actually tell they aren't a real threat, there's no reason to attack them.
|
United States42691 Posts
On October 13 2015 01:09 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 13:17 KwarK wrote:
My argument was that in the ranking of potential outcomes I'd put "robbery is a success, robber gets away with $500, no one is harmed" above "robbery is a failure, random patron kills the robber, nobody else is harmed". Obviously both are more desirable than a patron or employee being harmed and if it were a situation in which either the robber or an innocent person were in danger then I would rather it were the robber who got shot but that wasn't what we were discussing. My original post, which killa_robot disagreed with, was that the robber escaping with a few hundred dollars is better than him being killed. His response, that you shouldn't value the life of someone whose actions show they don't value life, is playground morality where the standard of behaviour for the group is set by the worst. Why do you think him escaping is better anyway? You've been talking about your greater morality, but all I've gathered from that is you value human life as an absolute good thing. What threshold do criminals have to cross until you believe it's morally okay for them to be killed?
I like to believe that my life has value and I want other people to buy into this theory. A while ago some Jew made a convincing argument that society will run more smoothly if we try to treat others as we wish to be treated. I also recognize that I owe a great deal of my success to the birth lottery which awarded me with intelligence, an affluent background, a face that conforms to all the most positive stereotypes and a time in which neither smallpox nor invading Huns are an issue. When considering the Veil of Ignorance I would rather have a society in which all human life has value, even if it is universally accepted that mine has value already.
I believe that somewhere between stealing a few hundred dollars and being literally Hitler there is probably a line where it's okay to shoot someone. I don't, off the top of my head, know exactly where that line is located. It probably varies with combination crimes or volume, like someone could be right on the safe side of the line, then do some littering and BAM, they crossed it, bullet in the back of the head. However it's a subjective line and just because it exists does not mean that random people should attempt to find and then enforce it.
Where do you think that exact line is? Bear in mind that when you answer I will come up a hypothetical which is obviously far worse but which falls short of the line. It was a rigged question for you to ask me.
|
Emory University Police arrested an Oxford College student on Sunday, Oct. 11, and charged her with making terrorist threats against the university as a result of a social media message that she posted early this morning. Emory University is committed to providing a safe environment for all community members and will take swift and appropriate action to maintain the security of the campus community.
So apparently there was a shooting threat at my university (well, I graduated in May). I don't know if it was just some idiot messing around, but looks like the police took it pretty seriously. I've lived/been in some bad parts, but damn this hits home.
Link
|
On October 12 2015 20:40 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 20:11 Wegandi wrote:On October 12 2015 14:43 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its actually scary how many people think its ok to take someones life simply because theyre committing a crime. zero compassion for others, inability to empathise, unwillingness to forgive.
and people wonder why our world is so messed up now.
people talking about their right to live and their right to bear arms should try and reconsider their views on life. consider your life and everything you have to be a privilege, and then maybe youd think twice about taking someone else's life. what makes you guys so special that you were given the RIGHT to live in a good home, with a family and a steady pay check when millions of people across the world cant get access to proper food. please explain to me what they did wrong aside from being born in those circumstances that they deserved to live in such terrible conditions.
so many people in this world dont understand the massive privilege they have just to be alive and healthy with a roof on top of their heads. so ungrateful for everything, which is why they keep asking for more on the basis that they are entitled to it. if people werent so self righteous and a little more grateful then the world would be a better place.
you get shot because some robber gets nervous and you decided not to kill him? well shit happens, at least you lived a good life, a much better life than a lot of people, and you can take solace in that you didnt take away the robber's 'right' to live. the robber will pay for his crime, and you may be dead but at least people will remember you as someone who didnt forsake his humanity. an inspiration to the younger generations Something tells me if we expanded the scope of the violence, you'd be ok with your Nation-State defending yourself and your society against other aggressive Nation-States. Scope it down, and you seem to lose this perspective on a local level. If you don't hold the prior view and hold self-defense in a more contemptible position than those who have initiated said violence, I also question your judgment and rationality. You talk of empathy, but you seem to only show remorse for the aggressive violently minded (I assume we're not talking about non-violent crimes here...), but not their victims. For me, I'm glad most of the rest of society does not hold your view - and lest we forget that the most heavily armed people we should be vigilantly on guard against is our own Governments who have traditionally, killed, maimed, and destroyed on vast scales which are in the grand schemes of things far worse. People who hold this fantasy about fighting their government need to read up on Gandhi. Not just because Gandhi was some benevolent idealist: but because he was actually successful. When it comes to political power, your gun means fuck-all. It's good for creating a violent mess and endangering your family. That's it.
Gandhi was successful because he was working against the 20th century United Kingdom. I doubt his tactics would have worked against the Third Reich (unless a large chunk of the German people in the Third Reich adopted those tactics). They are very useful tactics and should be used more, but they are not Always the best tactics.
The fact that the guns of the populace can make a violent mess is the whole point, they allow the minority to bother the majority.
Syria is a good example, Assad is only surviving because of foreign intervention (and we only kicked the British out because of foreign intervention)
However without an armed populace Assad would be just fine, and the British would not have lost America (at least not to the Americans.. maybe the French would have taken it as a colony at some point)
Guns don't guarantee good government, they are just a potential problem for bad government.
Civil disobedience is also a problem for bad government, but less of a problem for Very bad government.
|
So at what point does the person that fights with weapons against his government change from a criminal, that many in this thread would shoot on the streets if they got the chance, to a freedom fighter? By the logic of many people in this thread, someone that threatens others peoples life can and should be kiled by any bystander.
The things that a democratic government needs to do in order to be justifiably overthrown by their armed citizens makes it very unlikely that this revolt succeeds in the first place, because then you probably already have a military dictarship or something similar that will not be impressed by an armed revolt. The British will not return, your country will not overnight turn into the Third Reich and the abolishing of the 2nd amendment does not warrant a war against the tyranny of your government.
|
On October 13 2015 01:09 killa_robot wrote:
It's not because they're committing a crime, it's because they're threatening the lives of other people.
And holy shit, you're such a pushover, lol. Did you really value your life so little that if someone kills you under those circumstances you'd be okay with it? The fact that your family and friends no longer have you in their life is just a footnote, so long as the criminal is being treated nicely?
i dont know exactly who said it, because i cant be bothered to scroll back and look, but there were very clearly some people in this thread that said they would shoot a robber no question if the robber was in his house. doesnt even matter if the robber had issued a threat or not because "im not going to take that chance"
so its either simply because the robber is committing a crime, or the 'victim' is trigger happy and is forcing the situation.
and how is accepting death the same as being ok with it? seriously its fking impossible to communicate with you gun nuts; you cant process logic let alone read simple sentences. no shit id be pissed if i got shot and was about to die, and id feel terrible for anyone im leaving behind. but i consider it a far more important lesson to show others that you dont retaliate to violent people with more violence. i may be dead, but shit happens and i just ran shit out of luck then. life is short, people eventually die, so why stain your life with the guilt of killing someone else and let younger generations learn from that?
if i had kids and i shot a guy in my house id be horrified to see the look on any of my kids' faces when they think "oh my dad killed someone because the baddie was in our house. killing someone when theyre doing bad things must be an OK thing to do"
|
United States24682 Posts
On October 13 2015 08:00 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2015 01:09 killa_robot wrote:
It's not because they're committing a crime, it's because they're threatening the lives of other people.
And holy shit, you're such a pushover, lol. Did you really value your life so little that if someone kills you under those circumstances you'd be okay with it? The fact that your family and friends no longer have you in their life is just a footnote, so long as the criminal is being treated nicely?
i dont know exactly who said it, because i cant be bothered to scroll back and look, but there were very clearly some people in this thread that said they would shoot a robber no question if the robber was in his house. doesnt even matter if the robber had issued a threat or not because "im not going to take that chance" so its either simply because the robber is committing a crime, or the 'victim' is trigger happy and is forcing the situation.
I don't think it's either of those for many people. It's more, "I'm going to shoot them before they shoot me." There may be statistics which say it's more dangerous to attempt to shoot a home invader with a gun than it is to just try to hide unarmed, or that most home invaders don't have weapons and will just leave if they see you, but your characterization of the 'gun nut' argument seems to be lacking if you think it's just about punishing criminals or wanting to shoot someone.
seriously its fking impossible to communicate with you gun nuts
I think both sides are seriously at fault.
|
On October 13 2015 08:07 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2015 08:00 evilfatsh1t wrote:On October 13 2015 01:09 killa_robot wrote:
It's not because they're committing a crime, it's because they're threatening the lives of other people.
And holy shit, you're such a pushover, lol. Did you really value your life so little that if someone kills you under those circumstances you'd be okay with it? The fact that your family and friends no longer have you in their life is just a footnote, so long as the criminal is being treated nicely?
i dont know exactly who said it, because i cant be bothered to scroll back and look, but there were very clearly some people in this thread that said they would shoot a robber no question if the robber was in his house. doesnt even matter if the robber had issued a threat or not because "im not going to take that chance" so its either simply because the robber is committing a crime, or the 'victim' is trigger happy and is forcing the situation. I don't think it's either of those for many people. It's more, "I'm going to shoot them before they shoot me." There may be statistics which say it's more dangerous to attempt to shoot a home invader with a gun than it is to just try to hide unarmed, or that most home invaders don't have weapons and will just leave if they see you, but your characterization of the 'gun nut' argument seems to be lacking if you think it's just about punishing criminals or wanting to shoot someone. I think both sides are seriously at fault.
"im going to shoot them before they shoot me" falls in the first category. if the burglar made an actual threat it would be different (note im not saying i agree with the decision to shoot, but i would understand the argument for it), but if hes just in your house and you catch him in the act and shoot him, he hasnt made the threat.
yet some people would still justify the shooting because he was committing a crime at time of shooting and therefore there is a possibility that he could attack the owner on the sole basis that hes a 'criminal'. the only thing the burglar had to do to get shot was simply be in someone else's house going through cupboards before the owner decided that the burglar has disregard for human life
|
United States24682 Posts
On October 13 2015 08:16 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2015 08:07 micronesia wrote:On October 13 2015 08:00 evilfatsh1t wrote:On October 13 2015 01:09 killa_robot wrote:
It's not because they're committing a crime, it's because they're threatening the lives of other people.
And holy shit, you're such a pushover, lol. Did you really value your life so little that if someone kills you under those circumstances you'd be okay with it? The fact that your family and friends no longer have you in their life is just a footnote, so long as the criminal is being treated nicely?
i dont know exactly who said it, because i cant be bothered to scroll back and look, but there were very clearly some people in this thread that said they would shoot a robber no question if the robber was in his house. doesnt even matter if the robber had issued a threat or not because "im not going to take that chance" so its either simply because the robber is committing a crime, or the 'victim' is trigger happy and is forcing the situation. I don't think it's either of those for many people. It's more, "I'm going to shoot them before they shoot me." There may be statistics which say it's more dangerous to attempt to shoot a home invader with a gun than it is to just try to hide unarmed, or that most home invaders don't have weapons and will just leave if they see you, but your characterization of the 'gun nut' argument seems to be lacking if you think it's just about punishing criminals or wanting to shoot someone. seriously its fking impossible to communicate with you gun nuts I think both sides are seriously at fault. "im going to shoot them before they shoot me" falls in the first category. if the burglar made an actual threat it would be different (note im not saying i agree with the decision to shoot, but i would understand the argument for it), but if hes just in your house and you catch him in the act and shoot him, he hasnt made the threat. yet some people would still justify the shooting because he was committing a crime at time of shooting and therefore there is a possibility that he could attack the owner on the sole basis that hes a 'criminal'. the only thing the burglar had to do to get shot was simply be in someone else's house going through cupboards before the owner decided that the burglar has disregard for human life
Shooting someone out of fear that you will get shot is not the same thing as shooting someone because they are committing a crime, although there can be overlap. Again, I'm not necessarily saying the resident is justified in feeling they are going to get shot... I'm just pointing out that what you wrote a couple of posts ago was unfair.
|
On October 13 2015 08:16 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2015 08:07 micronesia wrote:On October 13 2015 08:00 evilfatsh1t wrote:On October 13 2015 01:09 killa_robot wrote:
It's not because they're committing a crime, it's because they're threatening the lives of other people.
And holy shit, you're such a pushover, lol. Did you really value your life so little that if someone kills you under those circumstances you'd be okay with it? The fact that your family and friends no longer have you in their life is just a footnote, so long as the criminal is being treated nicely?
i dont know exactly who said it, because i cant be bothered to scroll back and look, but there were very clearly some people in this thread that said they would shoot a robber no question if the robber was in his house. doesnt even matter if the robber had issued a threat or not because "im not going to take that chance" so its either simply because the robber is committing a crime, or the 'victim' is trigger happy and is forcing the situation. I don't think it's either of those for many people. It's more, "I'm going to shoot them before they shoot me." There may be statistics which say it's more dangerous to attempt to shoot a home invader with a gun than it is to just try to hide unarmed, or that most home invaders don't have weapons and will just leave if they see you, but your characterization of the 'gun nut' argument seems to be lacking if you think it's just about punishing criminals or wanting to shoot someone. seriously its fking impossible to communicate with you gun nuts I think both sides are seriously at fault. "im going to shoot them before they shoot me" falls in the first category. if the burglar made an actual threat it would be different (note im not saying i agree with the decision to shoot, but i would understand the argument for it), but if hes just in your house and you catch him in the act and shoot him, he hasnt made the threat. yet some people would still justify the shooting because he was committing a crime at time of shooting and therefore there is a possibility that he could attack the owner on the sole basis that hes a 'criminal'. the only thing the burglar had to do to get shot was simply be in someone else's house going through cupboards before the owner decided that the burglar has disregard for human life
Makes me wonder how the people advocating the shoot first mentality would deal with the many situations where that results in family members and/or innocent people being shot.
Though I don't think any of the shoot first folks said they actually shoot/own guns, so there's that.
|
On October 13 2015 08:16 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2015 08:07 micronesia wrote:On October 13 2015 08:00 evilfatsh1t wrote:On October 13 2015 01:09 killa_robot wrote:
It's not because they're committing a crime, it's because they're threatening the lives of other people.
And holy shit, you're such a pushover, lol. Did you really value your life so little that if someone kills you under those circumstances you'd be okay with it? The fact that your family and friends no longer have you in their life is just a footnote, so long as the criminal is being treated nicely?
i dont know exactly who said it, because i cant be bothered to scroll back and look, but there were very clearly some people in this thread that said they would shoot a robber no question if the robber was in his house. doesnt even matter if the robber had issued a threat or not because "im not going to take that chance" so its either simply because the robber is committing a crime, or the 'victim' is trigger happy and is forcing the situation. I don't think it's either of those for many people. It's more, "I'm going to shoot them before they shoot me." There may be statistics which say it's more dangerous to attempt to shoot a home invader with a gun than it is to just try to hide unarmed, or that most home invaders don't have weapons and will just leave if they see you, but your characterization of the 'gun nut' argument seems to be lacking if you think it's just about punishing criminals or wanting to shoot someone. seriously its fking impossible to communicate with you gun nuts I think both sides are seriously at fault. "im going to shoot them before they shoot me" falls in the first category. if the burglar made an actual threat it would be different (note im not saying i agree with the decision to shoot, but i would understand the argument for it), but if hes just in your house and you catch him in the act and shoot him, he hasnt made the threat. yet some people would still justify the shooting because he was committing a crime at time of shooting and therefore there is a possibility that he could attack the owner on the sole basis that hes a 'criminal'. the only thing the burglar had to do to get shot was simply be in someone else's house going through cupboards before the owner decided that the burglar has disregard for human life
If a person breaks into my house I'd rather put them down rather than waiting around for them to pull a gun on me so that I know there is a 100% threat, because at that point I'm already dead if he wants me to be.
Although, obviously there are exceptions to this...if I walk up behind the guy, he doesn't know I'm there, and I can easily just walk away and call the police I wouldn't advocate shooting. However, if I had a 2 year old kid in the same room with the robber, it may be a different story.
This has nothing to do with a desire to kill people, it is just I value my life and the life of my family way more than I do some random criminal breaking into my house.
|
If a person breaks into my house I'd rather put them down rather than waiting around for them to pull a gun on me so that I know there is a 100% threat, because at that point I'm already dead if he wants me to be.
And I as well value my life, the life of my family and friends.
If you do that then you should be trialed and convicted for:
-unlawful usage of fire arms,
-disrespecting gun and ammo regulations,
-if you do it within noise range of other people ,disturbance of public peace
-and if any other human beings including your family are within gun's maximum range from point of shooting, public endangerment.
These punishments should sum up to fines up to 30% of country average income on the next 2-5 years, and if unable or unwilling to pay 1-2 years jail time.
And this is just for randomly firing a gun in your house even without any strangers in it.
If a burglar was indeed in your house and you fired in his general direction
-You should also be trialed for manslaughter or attempted manslaughter. And the punishment should be voided or halved on the grounds of how much of your life was at threat.
Basically for 100% of punishment voided
-Burglar must injure you and/or your family. Or the circumstances must prove that he intended that without a doubt.
-Burglar must be armed with equal or more firepower. Or the circumstances must prove that he demonstrated that without a doubt.
-YOU fired at least one warning shot prior to deadly force.
But you should still be found guilty of manslaughter or attempted manslaughter and have this crime on your criminal record, without punishment.
I think its a small price to pay for saving your kid life.
Edit:
This under the assumption that YOU used a fire-arm bought specifically under self-defense reason,
and your certifications and permits are up to day.
No hunting rifles, no collection weapons.
|
Now that's a bit much if you're asking for all of that. Let's go back to the guy with a knife in a wafflehouse.
Let's say, instead the story was something like:
He went inside with a knife, in front of the counter and says something along the lines of "gimme all the money you have and noone gets hurt". Now in that case you're obviously not allowed to shoot him assuming he keeps his distance. He gets the money, leaves the place and noone gets hurt. Which again, is what Kwark was arguing if I understood him correctly. Sure it isn't all nice rainbows and unicorns but given the situation that's about as good of an ending as you'll get and having someone dead, including the intruder, would be a way worse outcome.
On the other hand, if the guy suddenly rushes at someone with knife in hand you can and should be allowed to fire away without having to make a warning shot just because you don't have the time to do that when he's legit charging someone.
Same goes for someone in your house.
|
On October 13 2015 22:06 Toadesstern wrote:
Now that's a bit much if you're asking for all of that. Let's go back to the guy with a knife in a wafflehouse.
Let's say, instead the story was something like:
He went inside with a knife, in front of the counter and says something along the lines of "gimme all the money you have and noone gets hurt". Now in that case you're obviously not allowed to shoot him assuming he keeps his distance. He gets the money, leaves the place and noone gets hurt. Which again, is what Kwark was arguing if I understood him correctly. Sure it isn't all nice rainbows and unicorns but given the situation that's about as good of an ending as you'll get and having someone dead, including the intruder, would be a way worse outcome.
On the other hand, if the guy suddenly rushes at someone with knife in hand you can and should be allowed to fire away without having to make a warning shot just because you don't have the time to do that when he's legit charging someone.
Same goes for someone in your house.
The problem is with the last statement, where there is no drawback. Firing a gun in other places than a designated hunting ground, authorized firing range, or in the line of duty should have SEVERE consequences, no mater the circumstances.
The problem with american self-defense law is that there's no incentive to "cooperate".
Every-else where the law is more of a prisoner dilemma where there is clear that the best outcome comes from both parties cooperating.
-I don't shoot, he does - I am dead. He gets away with a pocket full of cash and maybe a later conviction.
-I don't shoot, he does not - I am poorer. He gets away (maybe).
-I shoot, he does not - He is dead - I win.
The law in my place is pretty funny.
Usage of hunting weapons for any purpose other hunting in specially designated place brings on a hefty amount of fines and revocation of weapon permit.
You are allowed to have guns for self defense purpose only if you are active or retired internal affair employee (police, gendarmerie, state protection services, military etc). diplomats or state dignitaries.
All good and dandy, now lets say you went out to buy cigarettes, someone enters your house with an AK, and your wife opens your safe, takes out your self-defense gun and shoots the guy in the hand. He drops the gun and waits there quietly for the law enforcement.
Police comes and arrests all 3 of you.
-He gets charged for illegal weapon carriage and trespassing or breaking an entry.
-She gets charged for attempted murder, illegal weapon usage.
-You get charged for accessory to attempted murder and not respecting gun control and ammunition regulations.
Guess who gets out of jail first?
It's not a fair outcome but it's good damn deterrent for vigilantes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
