~ Rogue ~ Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 But at what point are you drawing the line saying killing the intruder (deadly force) is a reasonable response? This post wasn't around when I wrote my multi-quote reply. So sorry for the double-post. I justify it as reasonable the moment said intruder doesn't obey what I say down to the last T. If I tell him to lay down, and he doesn't do it within .2 seconds, he's dead. I have family around. I'm not going to risk their lives just to give said scumbag the benefit of the doubt that he means us no harm. This is America. Everyone has a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 If my laptop got stolen and I didn't have a back-up it would take years to get all of my music back and add artwork to every song - something which is a must for me and my OCD :DAlso, it might be impossible to get some sentimental photos back :| I'm not saying whether it is fair to kill a robber or not, I'm just making a fair point. Regardless of whether you say you are saying it, you are implying that missing photos and music are worth a human life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ Rogue ~ Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Lord Ba'al that is not in question. I just want to know the rationale behind possessions being worth more than someone's life.Rogue, I am not talking about any specific situations, not will I give a judgement on that. Your eagerness to kill people literally scares me. Ugh. My point is, we do not not the exact situation this event. Thus people should stop leaping to conclusions. The burglar was in someone else's home and was shot for it. For every action, there is a consequence. Just being in someone else's home uninvited, stealing. That's enough justification as far as I am concerned. Regardless of whether you say you are saying it, you are implying that missing photos and music are worth a human life. If I catch him in my home stealing said photos and music? You bet your life it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calum Veteran Posted March 17, 2009 Veteran Share Posted March 17, 2009 Why is everyone so attached to possessions anyway? You have insurance, for one, and for two: they are almost always replaceable, artificial items. Also, to add to my last post, what about if you beat a robber up out of self defense. I'd be worried he would come and hunt me down for getting him caught by the police and for beating him up. At least if he isn't alive any longer I wouldn't have to live my life in fear that he would hunt me down and he has bought that reasoning on himself. What is wrong with not robbing a house for a change!? :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Y'know, this story and responses reminds me of the "Jail Considers Making Inmates Pay for Toilet Paper" thread - https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=734954 A thread where most respondents appeared to think anyone in jail must be an evil serial murderer or rapist and deserve everything they get. *sigh* You should avoid judging actions and people without being in possession of the full facts. Rogue, you sicken me. I'm hoping you're just trolling. Calum, that's why we have prisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ Rogue ~ Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I had to re-edit my entire reply. Thanks Kirk. :cry: --- Y'know, this story and responses reminds me of the "Jail Considers Making Inmates Pay for Toilet Paper" thread - https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=734954A thread where most respondents appeared to think anyone in jail must be an evil serial murderer or rapist and deserve everything they get. *sigh* You should avoid judging actions and people without being in possession of the full facts. Rogue, you sicken me. I'm hoping you're just trolling. Calum, that's why we have prisons. I'll have to read that topic but I'd venture to say 30% of the inmate population is innocent. Our justice system is broken. I'm sorry that I sicken you. I don't live in the Utopia you've conjured up in your head. I live in the real world. And in my neck of the woods, chances are that if someone breaks into your home, they have a gun. I'm not going to risk my life just to possibly save the life of a low-life scumbag who believes my property is his own personal bank. Someone breaks into my home, they MIGHT get a single warning. If they react in an threatening way, or don't comply, I am going to kill them. As far as I am concerned, the guy who killed the perp in the original article was completely and fully justified. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted March 17, 2009 Veteran Share Posted March 17, 2009 ...Actually, in several states here in the US, if someone is in your home (ie: burglar), you can simply shoot them. Period. And if someone breaks into my house, I consider my life in danger. Who knows if THEY have a gun or weapon. Plus, I have a girlfriend to worry about. Someone breaks into my home, they're dead. Period. No questions. No mercy. Just a 00-buckshot to the chest/back/head. Period. Well that's quite scary... :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ Rogue ~ Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Well that's quite scary... :| It's called the Castle Doctrine. Best law ever. Most states have their own variation of it but they all pretty much mean the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Rogue, I think it's unlikely I'll bother responding to you after this, given your above answer: This isn't the US we're talking about. I'm glad I don't live in your neck of the woods, but I'm sure I still wouldn't exhibit the glee and excitement you do over the possibility of killing another human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calum Veteran Posted March 17, 2009 Veteran Share Posted March 17, 2009 Regardless of whether you say you are saying it, you are implying that missing photos and music are worth a human life. I didn't imply it. I never said I would murder anybody who tried to rob me, I was just replying to point out some issues with what you said. Yes, we can recover most of the stuff, but a lot of that stuff takes years to recover. Yes, some things aren't recoverable, but many of those things are very sentimental to people. Robbers can ruin people's lives, they really can. Calum, that's why we have prisons. We are running out of prisons. In the UK, a lot of robbers now only get community service. It's ridiculous. Also, many robbers who go to prison re-offend. I am not suggesting murder at all; I am suggesting a harsher punishment. At least more time in jail, if nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ Rogue ~ Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Rogue, I think it's unlikely I'll bother responding to you after this, given your above answer: This isn't the US we're talking about. I'm glad I don't live in your neck of the woods, but I'm sure I still wouldn't exhibit the glee and excitement you do over the possibility of killing another human being. Well you're right, it's not the US we're talking about. No, what we're talking about is a man who used deadly force to end a home invasion and as to if that force was necessary. As far as I am concerned, it was warranted. If you cannot respect my very strong opinion regarding said issue, then I'm really sorry for you. It's not just my neck of the woods, either. It's a common long held belief through-out the United States. No, I don't want to kill another human being. Life is special. It really is. However if I had to choose between someone else's and my own under THESE circumstances, I would choose mine. His life was forfeit the moment he entered my home. Frankly I'm tired of hearing about your Utopian beliefs on how, no matter what, taking a life isn't justified. Trust me, it is. I wasn't going to bring this up as it wasn't exactly prevalent to the subject at hand ... but I have been the victim of a home invasion. I'll leave the details out because they're not something I care to really share. Suffice to say, my cousin was home at the time and she was 17. Take from that what you will. I vowed I'd never suffer such a thing again and I won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Regardless of whether you say you are saying it, you are implying that missing photos and music are worth a human life. Almost. It's not like you get to hunt a person down and kill them if you aren't home when they rob you - that would be murder, no matter how much you'd like to. But yes, if their intention was to "merely" break into my house and steal my stuff while I'm there I would defend myself because it's impossible to know another human's state of mind. If someone broke into my girlfriend's house, and I was there, I would defend her with deadly force (and I'm not even married to her). Heck, if I were in YOUR house, I would defend YOU with deadly force. Are you not willing to do the same for your loved ones? I mean seriously. We're talking about someone BREAKING INTO YOUR HOME. I can't imagine a great violation of the security of my family AND my possessions than someone knowingly, willingly, purposefully, breaking into my residence. I don't need the government or the police to tell me how to protect myself or how/when force is "OK" INSIDE OF MY OWN HOME. When your life is on the line you shoot first and ask questions later. I don't ask myself "well gee maybe he just wants my beer" or "maybe he's just after my itunes collection!" I ask myself "maybe he's trying to rape my girlfriend" or "maybe he'll kill me when he finds me here" or something much worse. The world isn't a nice place and some people do real, VERY MESSED UP stuff to people during home invasions. I absolutely REFUSE to let myself be a victim to some piece of human trash who has already told me he isn't worth the value of my "stuff" by breaking into my house to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Self defence only applies to actually being attacked, you can't just define random events as a threat and then kill people because of it. As much as I'd like to say people listening to Paris Hilton's CD is a threat to my safety and I was only defending myself against them, I doubt the police would agree with me.Here's the thing, if you're the one doing the attacking, you can't be the one doing the defending. Wrong. A person has the right to defend themselves, or another person if they are in fear of fatal or serious bodily harm. Or Kidnapping, Rape. If someone has broken in, you KNOW they are not there for drinks and a good time. Some states have a "castle doctrine" it covers alot more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ Rogue ~ Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Wrong. A person has the right to defend themselves, or another person if they are in fear of fatal or serious bodily harm. Or Kidnapping, Rape.If someone has broken in, you KNOW they are not there for drinks and a good time. Some states have a "castle doctrine" it covers alot more. Most states have a variation of the castle doctrine but they're all pretty similar. Scroll up. You'll find I linked to Wikipedia regarding the same thing. @VLAD: Thank god. Someone who shares my opinion. I was feeling alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Most states have a variation of the castle doctrine but they're all pretty similar. Scroll up. You'll find I linked to Wikipedia regarding the same thing.@VLAD: Thank god. Someone who shares my opinion. I was feeling alone. High five man. People need to learn that not everyone is okay with being a victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 (edited) I didn't imply it. I never said I would murder anybody who tried to rob me, I was just replying to point out some issues with what you said.Yes, we can recover most of the stuff, but a lot of that stuff takes years to recover. Yes, some things aren't recoverable, but many of those things are very sentimental to people. Robbers can ruin people's lives, they really can. We are running out of prisons. In the UK, a lot of robbers now only get community service. It's ridiculous. Also, many robbers who go to prison re-offend. I am not suggesting murder at all; I am suggesting a harsher punishment. At least more time in jail, if nothing else. Yes, these items are worth a lot. Are they worth more than a human life? You keep implying they're worth a lot, in response to the question of "are possessions worth more than a human life". It's really hard not to get what you're intimating. (I have no objection to lengthy sentences, of course) To the other responses, I'm just kind of "spluh?" Breaking into someone's home =/= threatening their person. And this has nothing to do with being "okay with being a victim". That's, frankly, ridiculous. A person has the right to defend themselves, or another person if they are in fear of fatal or serious bodily harm. Or Kidnapping, Rape. Yes. We do not know that this is the case here, and breaking and entering does not constitute this. Edited March 17, 2009 by Kirkburn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 High five man. People need to learn that not everyone is okay with being a victim. Indeed. People have the choice to not be a victim for once, and when they make that choice to NOT be a victim, people get ****ed off. I dont get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Indeed. People have the choice to not be a victim for once, and when they make that choice to NOT be a victim, people get ****ed off. I dont get it. By making someone else the victim of a bigger problem? If I recall correctly Jesus recommended turning the other cheek. And I'm atheist. And yet I seem to value the sanctity of human life more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ Rogue ~ Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 By making someone else the victim of a bigger problem?If I recall correctly Jesus recommended turning the other cheek. And I'm atheist. And yet I seem to value the sanctity of human life more. You know, I really have to ask. At what point would you believe taking a life is justified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 You know, I really have to ask. At what point would you believe taking a life is justified? Only if unavoidable, and if the person is capable (and planning) of causing you serious bodily harm or worse. Naturally there is blurring at the edges, given that you cannot always know people's intentions or capabilities, but not a lot. Note, this is not a standard I've set in stone for myself, but merely how I can voice my current opinion in a few minutes It appears we simply don't know enough in this particular case to make a judgement either way. I do not support capital or corporal punishment in any form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calum Veteran Posted March 17, 2009 Veteran Share Posted March 17, 2009 Yes, these items are worth a lot. Are they worth more than a human life? You keep implying they're worth a lot, in response to the question of "are possessions worth more than a human life". No, they are definitely not worth more than human life :) There should be longer prison sentences for all robbers, though, and maybe a harsher punishment which doesn't involve violence or torture. (Prisons should be harsher anyway, criminals get it too good now-a-days - TV everyday, pool tables... it should be harsher) Having said all of that, if a robber came into my home with a knife/gun and threatened to kill me with it, came at me with it and I turn it round and shot/stabbed them, by accident, out of self-defense. Then I shouldn't go to prison for it. The same should apply to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Yes, these items are worth a lot. Are they worth more than a human life? You keep implying they're worth a lot, in response to the question of "are possessions worth more than a human life". It's really hard not to get what you're intimating.(I have no objection to lengthy sentences, of course) To the other responses, I'm just kind of "spluh?" Breaking into someone's home =/= threatening their person. And this has nothing to do with being "okay with being a victim". That's, frankly, ridiculous. Yes. We do not know that this is the case here, and breaking and entering does not constitute this. Dude, if someone broke into my house my person would feel pretty god damn threatened, especially with my girlfriend, sister, or grand parents around. And it has EVERYTHING to do with "being a willing victim." By telling people they do not have the right or power to defend themselves, you're enabling criminals, effectively saying "the sheeple wont be permitted to defend themselves, so there are no immediate consequences if you break into someone's house." That is the WRONG message to send because home intrusions are easy pickings and are rarely "solved." People need to understand, especially in this day and age of lax personal responsibility, that it is NOT OKAY to victimize other people. Your actions have consequences. Anyone willing to sacrifice the safety and security of someone else cannot claim those same rights - it's ludicrous and asinine. I'm telling you right now that maybe they "just" wanted to rob him, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to know another humans state of mind and the only logical, reasonable, justifiable course of action for him was to defend yourself, his property, his family, and his well being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ Rogue ~ Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Only if unavoidable, and if the person is capable (and planning) of causing you serious bodily harm or worse. Naturally there is blurring at the edges, given that you cannot always know people's intentions or capabilities, but not a lot. Note, this is not a standard I've set in stone for myself, but merely how I can voice my current opinion in a few minutesIt appears we simply don't know enough in this particular case to make a judgement either way. I do not support capital or corporal punishment in any form. Alright Kirk, I'll bite. I'm open to a very healthy debate about this and I sincerely hope that you are, as well. So I'll spin it and see where it takes us. You say that you support the right to use deadly force if it is 'unavoidable', and if said perpetrator is 'capable' and 'planning' to cause someone serious bodily harm. Let's examine that statement a bit more closely, if you don't mind. Skipping past the 'unavoidable' remark for a moment as that is a very blurry perception and is open to broad interpretation, and moving right along to the capable and planning portion of your comment. How do you judge a perpetrator to be 'capable' of harming you or a member of your family? General attitude of said perpetrator, the size of the perpetrator? What exactly would you look for? As to the planning portion, how exactly do you know what the perpetrator is thinking? How can you know what said perp is thinking during the heat of the moment? I would argue that the moment said perpetrator enters your home uninvited, all intentions are made clear. Said person was more than capable of breaking into my home with intentions that, by all definition, are wrong. If said person is capable of breaking into my home, what else are they capable of? An invisible line has been crossed. I would also argue that it is impossible to know what said perpetrator is thinking. What can be safely concluded is that the perpetrator made the decision to break into my home, knowing fully well the possible consequences, and yet decided to break into my home anyway. There was intent. How far does this intent extend? Would it be unreasonable for me to put a gun to the back of his head, and order him down onto his knees? Unreasonable for me to shoot him if he fails to obey me and/or makes a sudden move? What if I have my wife in the bedroom and a young child to worry about? Again, this breaks into the 'unavoidable' aspect. I have reason to fear for my life and the lives of my family if someone breaks into my home. How can I know said perpetrator is not planning to rob me blind, rape my wife and/or child, and kill me? Why should I take the chance? I await your response eagerly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Only if unavoidable, and if the person is capable (and planning) of causing you serious bodily harm or worse. If someone is capable of breaking into your house they are certainly capable of causing you bodily harm. It's IMPOSSIBLE to know if they're planning it. It's easy when you're in your ivory tower and you've got the benefits of 20/20 hindsight to judge people from afar. It's a different story when you're in a farm house with your family and the nearest soul is 20 miles away. If you do not assume they are going to cause you harm it might be the last assumption you make. My life >> his life. I will act accordingly. Once again, my recommendation: don't break into people's houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 (edited) Like I keep saying, we do not know the full facts in this case. Casting one person as the "hero" and the other the "evil burglar" is way too premature. Rogue, you have basically elucidated all the nuances of my paragraph, but you take it too far with assuming any intruder is likely there to cause you harm. As far as I know we are talking about thieves, here. I don't object to self-defence. I object to the idea that the act of entering someone's home is enough to pull the trigger, with the aim to kill. Of course a person's judgement comes into play here. My statement was an ideal situation, which can be altered by judgement calls. My definition is fairly strict because the looser it is, the greater the loopholes you can find. It's up to the judge and jury to check what was justified - those in possession of the facts. I'm not going to assign outcomes to situations, because they're unrealistic and always going to be written in a biased way. Calum, I agree. Those acting in justified self-defence shouldn't have to pay for those actions. Edited March 17, 2009 by Kirkburn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts