Police release 'hero' arrested for killing teenage burglar

[~ Rogue ~]

Like I keep saying, we do not know the full facts in this case.

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 mere act of entering someone's home is enough to pull the trigger, with the aim to kill.

self-defense* would be the correct spelling. I only criticize because of something I read while viewing your profile page. ;)

And yet, you take it too far by assuming an intruder probably doesn't want to cause you harm. Here in lies our distinctive differences. I'm willing to assume said intruder means harm where-as you would play a wait-and-see game. I won't take the chance. You will. I'm not judging you. Your culture and society has taught you to think a certain way. My society, my culture, my experiences ... they have taught me to think a certain way.

Also, I am against capital punishment.

[+shift. MVC]

Whatever it takes to defend all that I've worked hard for (one of which being my home)

[Vlad]

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.

If he broke into the guys house I don't think calling the other "the evil burglar" is premature.

You're right. We don't know the full facts, but there's no way a jury can EVER know the full facts because, for the umpteenth time, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW SOMEONE'S STATE OF MIND. No jury can EVER know if a burglar truly intends to do harm until they've done it and by then you're dead, so it doesn't really matter. The benefit of a doubt HAS to be given to the home invasion *victim* because self defense is a basic, fundamental right.

If someone swerves their car at you, you're within your legal right to shoot them. It doesn't matter if their intentions were just to scare you or intimidate you, because you can't possible know at the time if their intention is to kill you. Again, it DOES NOT MATTER what a judge and jury think because they can NEVER EVER know if it was intentional or not -- you don't have to wait until they hurt you to defend yourself.

[Kirkburn]

self-defense* would be the correct spelling. I only criticize because of something I read while viewing your profile page. ;)

Well, I am quite clearly British :p "defence" is the UK spelling.

And yet, you take it too far by assuming an intruder probably doesn't want to cause you harm. Here in lies our distinctive differences. I'm willing to assume said intruder means harm where-as you would play a wait-and-see game. I won't take the chance. You will. I'm not judging you. Your culture and society has taught you to think a certain way. My society, my culture, my experiences ... they have taught me to think a certain way.

Also, I am against capital punishment.

I do understand how our cultural and societal difference may have brought us to the other sides of that line. I suppose I am rather fortunate in where I live.

To your final comment - while I must admit I am a little surprised, I am glad to hear it.

Good discussion :)

[Panipal2005]

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 know the exact situation this event. Thus people should stop leaping to conclusions.

And yet you have no problem jumping to the conclusion that the homeowner was fully in the wrong and must have killed Tyler purely because he WANTED to. Whereas, in the stories I've read and I'm sure you've read it says that another burglar was also stabbed.

Maybe they both got stabbed DURING A STRUGGLE. A struggle that they possibly started by rushing him. You think that might be a possibility? If it is the case that they did, what basis would you have for claming that the homeowner didn't have to do what he did?

Oh yeah, if you're serious about wanting to know why people could possibly value stuff over human life, ASK A CONVICTED BURGLAR ALREADY.

Also -

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.

Um no, read your Bible. In Jesus' time his followers were routinely slapped across the face as an expression of disrespect by the Romans. The 'turn the other cheek' thing was meant in kind, as an expression of disdain on the part of the Christians, not, as you seem to think, as an acceptance of violence done to them.

Which it would be if people took your suggestion seriously that they should deal with violent assault by 'turning the other cheek' or adopting an attitude that violent thugs shouldn't worry them.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Panipal2005

[~ Rogue ~]

I suppose I am rather fortunate in where I live.

Worthy of an entirely new topic completely. God, now thats a debate I'd LOVE to get into. ;)

[leesmithg]

This is why we have problems with crime in Britain.

A domestic burglar, thats someone that burgals a home, school or any property that is not a business should get 25 years minimum.

A business burglar should get 20 minimum.

Some people that get burgaled have to move home, end up ill some die from shock.

The child would still be alive if he knew being caught would mean 25 years of being some old mans bitch in prison.

[Kirkburn]

And yet you have no problem jumping to the conclusion that the homeowner was fully in the wrong and must have killed Tyler purely because he WANTED to. Whereas, in the stories I've read and I'm sure you've read it says that another burglar was also stabbed.

I have not suggested this. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Maybe they both got stabbed DURING A STRUGGLE. A struggle that they possibly started by rushing him. You think that might be a possibility? If it is the case that they did, what basis would you have for claming that the homeowner didn't have to do what he did?

It's possible. We don't know. How many times should I repeat that?

Oh yeah, if you're serious about wanting to know why people could possibly value stuff over human life, ASK A CONVICTED BURGLAR ALREADY.

A non-sequitur if ever there was one. Burglary =/= valuing stuff over a human life. Killing someone because they've taken your stuff without threatening you at any point would count as that, but we don't know if that is the case here. Killing someone because they're trying to stop you taking their stuff would count as that, but we don't know that that could have happened here.

This is why we have problems with crime in Britain.

I don't really understand how you get onto this point from this case?

You also seem to be suggesting that nipping into someone's kitchen via the backdoor whilst the owners are out and stealing a stereo from their kitchen should result in 25 years in prison. A little excessive perhaps? I know this is not what you intended by what you said, but it's one very easy interpretation. Laws require a lot of thought, especially into their nuances.

[leesmithg]

I have not suggested this. Please do not put words in my mouth.

It's possible. We don't know. How many times should I repeat that?

A non-sequitur if ever there was one. Burglary =/= valuing stuff over a human life. Killing someone because they've taken your stuff without threatening you at any point would count as that, but we don't know if that is the case here. Killing someone because they're trying to stop you taking their stuff would count as that, but we don't know that that could have happened here.

I don't really understand how you get onto this point from this case?

You also seem to be suggesting that nipping into someone's kitchen via the backdoor whilst the owners are out and stealing a stereo from their kitchen should result in 25 years in prison. A little excessive perhaps? I know this is not what you intended by what you said, but it's one very easy interpretation. Laws require a lot of thought, especially into their nuances.

People like you are the reasons we have high crime rates and a lack of self respect for oneself and another.

You comment like a yogurt knitting namby pamby liberal.

I thought about it, I agree with myself, infact I would string up burglars.

If someone or some people wish to try rob me by breaking into my home, they will end up in a ditch in a country lane.

Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime

Whatever!

[Kirkburn]

People like you are the reasons we have high crime rates and a lack of self respect for oneself and another.

You comment like a yogurt knitting namby pamby liberal.

I thought about it, I agree with myself, infact I would string up burglars.

If someone or some people wish to try rob me by breaking into my home, they will end up in a ditch in a country lane.

Whatever!

Some of us are trying to have an intelligent discussion here. Stop baiting.

It's "New Labour", I applaud the apparent "Thin Blue Line" reference, and the first sentence makes little sense. I want more respect for other people, and not via fear.

[~ Rogue ~]

And yes ... some of us are trying to have a good debate. Some are better at expressing that than others, though. =/

[Panipal2005]

I have not suggested this. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Sorry, my mistake, you didn't explicitly say as much, but then again you accuse other posters of exhibiting 'glee and excitement' over killing burglars/criminals when they show no such thing. Where are the statements others have made indicating that sort of excitement?

That rather suggests you're biased towards, 'people who support violent defence against criminal acts would kill criminals when they don't need to, ergo they are simply bloodthirsty maniacs', which means that if you were on the jury of this particular homeowner, I couldn't say the guy would get a fair crack of the whip.

It's possible. We don't know. How many times should I repeat that?

Well in your opinion, which is the likelier scenario -

A) The homeowner sees a bunch of burglars in his house, the red mist descends and he gets stab-happy, or

B) The homeowner sees a bunch of burglars, who attack him because they've got the numerical advantage and two of them get stabbed in the struggle.

A non-sequitur if ever there was one. Burglary =/= valuing stuff over a human life.

Nope, not a non-sequitur. Burglary of an occupied dwelling necessarily involves violence against the people living there, or the threat thereof. No different to mugging someone. Burglars who are happy to use violence or threats against a person show that they value stuff over human life.

But you seem more comfortable with condemning the homeowner, rather than the burglar, for the sin of not valuing human life. I would suggest that this ties into your seeing 'glee and excitement' where no-one has shown any.

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

OK then, do you think we should pass a law that compels victims of potentially violent crime to establish with certainty that their assailant means them harm before they can take any action that might harm the assailant? You know, since it's so vitally mportant that criminals be protected against errors of judgment on the part of their victim, that might result in dire cosequences for them. Obviously people who talk about offering harm to criminals just for potentially wanting to hurt them, cannot be trusted, so we have to have a law so that we can punish them legally. Otherwise what protection do criminals have against being beaten up or killed?

How would we word such a law so that people knew they had to establish proof of violent intent, since unwanted presense isn't enough, and threats aren't enough (the criminal could be bluffing, etc)? What should a victim of potentially violent crime look for?

I'm just wondering how serious you are about your belief that 'criminals do not necessarily want to hurt people, so people are not justified in using violence against them right off the bat'.

You also seem to be suggesting that nipping into someone's kitchen via the backdoor whilst the owners are out and stealing a stereo from their kitchen should result in 25 years in prison. A little excessive perhaps?

Well it depends what your priorities are, doesn't it? If you want to provide as strong a disincentive as you can manage to people thinking it's OK to go into other people's homes to steal stuff, as well as to protect people from anyone prepared to risk it, it's not excessive at all.

If you think the law should show concern for someone who thinks it's OK to not show concern for others, then of course you would think it's excessive.

[Diffused Mind]

I find it quite silly that some people actually say that this guy was being excessive in killing the burglar. We might as well knock down the prison walls while we're at it.

[cabron]

I will use a bat, at least I can put the guy unconscious until the police came and take the burglar in custody. But all of you who want to kill is just wrong, what a cold mind :ninja:

[Calla]

All situations needs to be taken on there circumstances. I find it hard to imagine anything other than death to a person who has broken into my house. But it would depend if they were armed, how big they were, whether they give me a good reason if i ask etc... All of this would happen so fast i'd imagine. The default position is to err on the side of caution and assume they wish to cause harm or steal your stuff, which would automatically mean death. They lost the privilege of the benefit of the doubt when they broke in, as far as i am concerned they have only the time it takes for me to get to them to explain to me why i SHOULDN'T kill them.

[Konstanov]

I have a shotgun loaded up with Rock Salt and Rubber Buckshot for this very purpose, The stupid ****** who breaks into my house and decides that it is okay to endanger the lives of my daughter and my wife is going to get a chest full of less-lethal shotgun and tossed outside. It won't kill him but it will sure as hell remind him to stay away from my house for the rest of his life, because I doubt he could ever fully recover from the blast up close especially since rock salt at 5 Feet will penetrate human flesh and tear deep into the body and you have to wait for it to dissolve for the pain to stop.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

It disgusts me to read that people would actually kill someone simply because they came into their house to steal something. Seriously, I'm curious to know how well it would sit with your conscience knowing that you took the life of another human being. It takes a lot to kill someone and that means you're going out of your way to end their life. In my hopeless opinion, it's better to render the thief immobile by breaking his/her legs or something. Let the person rot in jail. Don't end their life and ruin the lives of that person's family.

[Konstanov]

It disgusts me to read that people would actually kill someone simply because they came into their house to steal something. Seriously, I'm curious to know how well it would sit with your conscience knowing that you took the life of another human being. It takes a lot to kill someone and that means you're going out of your way to end their life. In my hopeless opinion, it's better to render the thief immobile by breaking his/her legs or something. Let the person rot in jail. Don't end their life and ruin the lives of that person's family.

I've killed before in the war, it sits just fine once you rationalize it.

[Calla]

Breaking into your house with intent to steal isn't just a threat to your property, it carries with it an inherent threat to your safety. There will be no chance of hurting my family if they are dead.

[Diffused Mind]

It disgusts me to read that people would actually kill someone simply because they came into their house to steal something. Seriously, I'm curious to know how well it would sit with your conscience knowing that you took the life of another human being. It takes a lot to kill someone and that means you're going out of your way to end their life. In my hopeless opinion, it's better to render the thief immobile by breaking his/her legs or something. Let the person rot in jail. Don't end their life and ruin the lives of that person's family.

The emotional impacts of killing another person are dramatized in the movies. Your instinct to survive is very strong.

[Dane]

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.

Well for one, they shouldn't have attempted to illegally enter, it's their own dumb ass fault to think nothing is going to happen.

I have a rule,

If someone breaks in and they have no weapon, then they'll get ordered to the ground. They have three choices, one get on the ground, two run away, three run towards me.

If someone breaks in with a weapon, they'll only get one warning to drop their weapon. If they don't then depending on the weapon action will have to be taken.

You don't shoot to kill someone, you shoot to stop. It's REALLY hard to actually shoot someone in the leg or in the arm if they are moving. Shoot center of mass. One the threat is stopped, call for help.

Although my state is currently retarded. If someone breaks into your house, and they get hurt, they can sue you and win.

We are attempting to pass a full blown Castle Doctrine, which hopefully gets passed this year!

[Lezard]

Intent, cannot be justified by nobody, without prior evidence. To kill someone who breaks into your house, implicates that the individual has given up his protective rights and taken yours, as such; the act of killing an individual is not punishable, unless prior mediation was done.

If you feel your life is in danger, when someone knowingly broke into your property, then lethal force is justifiable. To afford clemency to the criminal, is to give up all self-respect.

[The Gunslinger]

You are cold, cold people.

It's not even an eye for an eye, for chrissake. It's "you're stealing my stuff, I get to kill you!". There's such a thing as reasonable force.

Burglars aren't even necessarily going to attack the person in the house, but stealing possessions and invading personal space is somehow justification for murder?

I hope that there was no intent to kill, on either side.

Wake up dude! This is the real world we are living in...Not a liberal make-believe PC utopia!!! There are bad people in this world.

I value human life a lot, and dont think I could ever wake a life. But if someone enters my home and threatens my family...then all bets are off!

I love how you claim that burglars aren't necessarily going to attack the person in the house. It is an assumption on your part! The fact that they broke into someone elses home, means they have broken the law...so should the homeowners sit by and ask the thief how many more laws he intends breaking (murder, rape, arson, etc, etc)? The homeowner has every right to end the life of the criminal before he has to find out the answer to that question...

The criminal should understand that there are consequences of their actions! Why must we always shift the burden onto the victim?

[The Gunslinger]

I will use a bat, at least I can put the guy unconscious until the police came and take the burglar in custody. But all of you who want to kill is just wrong, what a cold mind :ninja:

I would also use a bat if I had the chance. But here in South Africa, I would not take the chance! I would shoot (if I had a gun) first, call the cops later!

I envy the American Castle Doctrine! I wish my country had something similar. Cos right now the criminals can enter my home and KNOW that I will not be able to do anything to them...If I do, I will be charged with murder.

[Calum Veteran]

I will use a bat, at least I can put the guy unconscious until the police came and take the burglar in custody. But all of you who want to kill is just wrong, what a cold mind :ninja:

What about if that guy ever came back for revenge for you hurting him? Or hunted you down?

He's already broken into your house, you don't know what he is capable of.

That is my major worry about robbers and that makes me believe the only way to prevent this possibility is to remove the robber from the Earth.

Now I'm not saying we should kill robbers, that is a very extreme view and I would never want to kill anyone; however, how would we prevent them hunting us down and getting revenge?