That's What Katanas Are For

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But you have to have some discernment.

If a guy cuts through my lawn to save time and I plug him in the back, obviously there are a good many consequences I should face. If a guy enters my garage and I rush in there and plug him in the back, there should be some consequences I should potentially face.

However, the man in question went into his garage to investigate, not to mutilate the guy. And when you have a legitimate reason to investigate (i.e. you really think someone's in your house), you should bring along some means of protection if you have any brains at all.

So he brought what was handy, I suppose. In any case, the next point it that he confronted the criminal, but he was CERTAINLY passive as far as the actual homicide went.

The burglar jumped him, right? Therefore, the only thing you can blame the homeowner for is that he went into his own garage.

Basically, you're saying, "Well, if the guy hadn't gone into the garage, the burglar wouldn't have died."

Revoltingly faulty logic. That's like T-boning someone in a busy intersection and blaming it on them.

Going to stop you right there.

I don't have that bigger problem with the guy who killed the burgler, though his choice of weapon was strange at least. I do have a problem with all these guys tooling up to kill people that break in and then boasting about how prepared they were. As I said, I have an umbrella and that is more than sufficient for stopping anyone without a firearm.

Blades are only for killing, so if you take a blade you're either stupid or have already decided to kill the intruder.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I don't have that bigger problem with the guy who killed the burgler, though his choice of weapon was strange at least. I do have a problem with all these guys tooling up to kill people that break in and then boasting about how prepared they were.

OK, agreed. An interesting commentary on how we are desensitized to violence, don't you think? And of course a lot of people were caught up in the moment, you know...

I have a couple of... defensive tools myself, but I prefer to hope that any criminal that enters my house will balk when threatened with deadly force, as most of them do.

As I said, I have an umbrella and that is more than sufficient for stopping anyone without a firearm.

I wouldn't bet on it, but that's your prerogative. Just don't force it, by and large, on everybody, because not everybody can defend themselves effectively with an umbrella.

Blades are only for killing, so if you take a blade you're either stupid or have already decided to kill the intruder.

Now here you are using some of that faulty logic again, although I'm glad you don't carry it to the point of absurdity.

I assume that it would be consistent to say that you are of the oppinion that "Handguns are designed only for killing and should be banned."

Now, you are, of course, right. But the fact is that knives have been around for thousands of years, and everybody has one. Guns, too, are fairly common. They are certainly available even in those countries where they are illegal.

So, the reality is that, if one could instantly remove all guns from planet earth, well, that would save some lives.

However, for one thing then you would just have people with knives fighting people with knives instead of the same scenario with guns. Obviously, regulating the available hardware will not make mankind docile, patient, and honest.

Therefore, the reality is that my handgun is indeed meant to kill, and it is a very unfortunate reality, and one that must not be taken lightly, and certainly not carried out on a whim. It is meant to kill anyone who threatens me or those around me with deadly force.

I gotta go now but we can discuss this further, I trust.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Now here you are using some of that faulty logic again, although I'm glad you don't carry it to the point of absurdity.

I assume that it would be consistent to say that you are of the oppinion that "Handguns are designed only for killing and should be banned."

Now, you are, of course, right. But the fact is that knives have been around for thousands of years, and everybody has one. Guns, too, are fairly common. They are certainly available even in those countries where they are illegal.

So, the reality is that, if one could instantly remove all guns from planet earth, well, that would save some lives.

Not my point. If someone pulls a knife in a fight, the chances are someone will get cut or killed. Usually it's the guy who pulled the knife and then hoped the "threat of deadly force" would be enough to win. Fact is, only cowards pull knives and don't use them; they get the knives taken off them and then they are the ones to get cut.

If I pull a knife on you, the next thing I'm going to do is kill you, the same with a gun. I'm not going to mess about long enough for you to think about the fact your life might be in danger.

That's why, in the course of events, I'd really rather take a blunt weapon and try to break your elbow.

[Furunculus]

Not my point. If someone pulls a knife in a fight, the chances are someone will get cut or killed. Usually it's the guy who pulled the knife and then hoped the "threat of deadly force" would be enough to win. Fact is, only cowards pull knives and don't use them; they get the knives taken off them and then they are the ones to get cut.

chances are i don't carry a knife on the street.

chances are that if some dies after refusing to leave my house immediately after i tell them to leave, and I judge them to be sound sound mind and legally responsible, i don't really care.

[jabarto]

Not my point. If someone pulls a knife in a fight, the chances are someone will get cut or killed.

Just wanted to chime in and say that this is true. A knife in untrained hands is more than useless; it's downright dangerous to its wielder. I'd take a good, solid club over a knife any day.

That's why, in the course of events, I'd really rather take a blunt weapon and try to break your elbow.

I don't know how it is in the UK, but using a lethal weapon for non-lethal attacks can get you in serious trouble here in the states. The courts can reason that, if you have the luxury of making nonlethal attacks, than a lethal weapon isn't called for in the first place, and BAM, you get an attempted murder charge, even if you were defending your life and wellbeing.

Granted, this sort of thing usually only happens with guns, but I think even a bat or the like would be considered a deadly weapon in this circumstance.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Not my point. If someone pulls a knife in a fight, the chances are someone will get cut or killed.

Possibly. But, then, if we are considering home defence, that I felt compelled to pull a knife means I was probably right in feeling threatened.

Usually it's the guy who pulled the knife and then hoped the "threat of deadly force" would be enough to win. Fact is, only cowards pull knives and don't use them; they get the knives taken off them and then they are the ones to get cut.

In the first place, you are being very excessively general, and painting with an exceedingly wide brush.

In the second place, your argument is based almost wholly upon hypothetical scenarios that have no real-life counterparts, which indicates that your fears of excessive violence in home defence are ungrounded and (no offence) slightly paranoid.

Going with that thought, I don't suppose you could present documented examples or statistics?

In the third place, you are actually ignoring documented examples and statistics in the case of firearms. Of course, you were talking about knives, but just to shift focus for a moment, it is probable that a criminal will run or freeze 'till the police arrive if they are confronted by a firearm, unless they have one of their own, in which case you have every right to use any and all means available to stop him.

If I pull a knife on you, the next thing I'm going to do is kill you, the same with a gun. I'm not going to mess about long enough for you to think about the fact your life might be in danger.

This is perhaps true, but not the same with a gun. Guns are much more effective as a threatening tool. This reality is employed often in home defence.

That's why, in the course of events, I'd really rather take a blunt weapon and try to break your elbow.

The point has been made that, if you only needed to use a bat, the court will wonder why force was necessary at all.

What you're doing is watering it down. "Well, you didn't need a GUN; you could have used a knife and maybe that dirty criminal would still be alive today!"

"Well, you didn't need a KNIFE; you could have used a bat and maybe that dirty criminal would still be alive today!"

"Well, you didn't need a BAT; why couldn't you be a REAL man and fight with your fists?"

And actually that is somewhat accurate, considering that in defence cases OUTSIDE the home, you are actually required in some areas to run away, try to wrestle your assailant to the ground, etc. It's really quite rediculous.

Now, I'm not being flippant at all; I'm dead serious in the following statement.

I know someone (call him Fred) who has planned, if an intruder comes into the house, that his wife should shoot the guy rather than Fred doing it because if Fred shot him their could be a big court issue about "you could have punched him, wrestled him, blah blah blah."

It's a rediculous legal mess, really.

[Whacker]

You misunderstand "consequence". Every action has consequences. If you kill a burglar, even if it was in self-defense, perhaps you will suffer nightmares for a few weeks/months straight. If you kill a burglar, and you are convincted on the charge of murder, you will have to go to prison. If you kill a burglar, you will have to clean the bloodstains from your carpet.

I'd rather deal with the nightmares of having to kill someone, than my family or I laying dead or brutalized and I could have prevented it. I'd that the former anyday over the latter.

Just wanted to chime in and say that this is true. A knife in untrained hands is more than useless; it's downright dangerous to its wielder. I'd take a good, solid club over a knife any day.

That's only true if both people aren't skilled in fighting/defending knives. If a burglar breaks into the house of some Kali guru, they're going to get carved up like ground beef. If both are unskilled, it boils down to a crapshoot. Personally, I'd rather fight someone hand to hand with a bat anyday over someone who's got a knife, because even with someone who knows crapall about knives, you WILL get cut no matter how good you are.

I don't know how it is in the UK, but using a lethal weapon for non-lethal attacks can get you in serious trouble here in the states. The courts can reason that, if you have the luxury of making nonlethal attacks, than a lethal weapon isn't called for in the first place, and BAM, you get an attempted murder charge, even if you were defending your life and wellbeing.

Granted, this sort of thing usually only happens with guns, but I think even a bat or the like would be considered a deadly weapon in this circumstance.

A few points to elaborate on and/or correct. Nothing is black and white. In states that have good, proper castle doctrine laws, any attack on your person inside of your home is probably going to be assumed to be lethal consequences. Anyone who says they wouldn't be in fear for their lives in such a circumstance is a self-deluding fool. Good castle doctrine states the homeowner has no duty to retreat, and that lethal force is justified in the event of the intruder assaulting or initiating an assault. Shooting someone in the back as they're halfway out the door into the street does not meet this criteria obviously.

The point has been made that, if you only needed to use a bat, the court will wonder why force was necessary at all.

What you're doing is watering it down. "Well, you didn't need a GUN; you could have used a knife and maybe that dirty criminal would still be alive today!"

"Well, you didn't need a KNIFE; you could have used a bat and maybe that dirty criminal would still be alive today!"

"Well, you didn't need a BAT; why couldn't you be a REAL man and fight with your fists?"

And actually that is somewhat accurate, considering that in defence cases OUTSIDE the home, you are actually required in some areas to run away, try to wrestle your assailant to the ground, etc. It's really quite rediculous.

IANAL, but I don't think it'd really ever come to this. No one is going to be arguing if you should have used a bat instead of a knife, instead of a gun, or this or that. Such is generally irrelevant. The point is, was the lethal force justified? Were the circumstances and situation sufficient to allow for the circumstances that occurred? Shooting a fleeing burglar in the back is obviously not. Shooting a guy brandishing a knife and leaping at you obviously is.

Now, I'm not being flippant at all; I'm dead serious in the following statement.

I know someone (call him Fred) who has planned, if an intruder comes into the house, that his wife should shoot the guy rather than Fred doing it because if Fred shot him their could be a big court issue about "you could have punched him, wrestled him, blah blah blah."

My guess would be he's probably a martial artist. MAers are always held to higher standards when it comes to lethal force in physical combat. It's retarded but, if you've got so many years of such and such, the assumption is you can easily disarm the 400 lb gorilla burglar of their machete because... y'know... yer a ninjer, and stuff.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

[QUOTE=Whacker;2338265]

IANAL, but I don't think it'd really ever come to this. No one is going to be arguing if you should have used a bat instead of a knife, instead of a gun, or this or that. Such is generally irrelevant. The point is, was the lethal force justified?

Actually, my point was that it HAS come to that. Are you familiar with Castle Doctrine? It's the concept that I shouldn't be required to flee an assailant in my own home before I use lethal force to stop him.

I believe the opposite is called Duty-to-Retreat. Many states have this, and the idea is that, wherever you are, you are required by law to run away from your attacker before using lethal force.

So, when you DO use lethal force, there is plenty of potential to have a big legal issue with blood-sucking lawers trying to get rich by suing you for defending yourself.

Thing is, burglars are usually not murderers. I think (!) that a burglar would rather escape than attack, if he was found.

But a good many of them are. I mean, a guy breaking into your house kinda says something about his moral standards and respect for the law, doesn't it?

FURTHERMORE, I think it's ironic that the burglar in the very case we're discussing assaulted the homeowner.

I have taken a vow to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. First, I would try to talk to him, telling that if he dropped everything, I would let him go without calling the police (for example), and just try to coerce him into leaving in a non-violent way.

Not trying to impede on your personal convictions; just thought I'd give my thoughts as well.

The scenario you've created seems to assume that you have stayed put and the criminal has found you. If he doesn't run away just at the sight of you (which indeed can and does happen), then he'll take your kindness as a bluff and do who-knows-what to you.

Criminals generally aren't given to talking things over, so you're on a rather dangerous path there.

The ones that are thoughtful enough to be effected by your pleas probably aren't the type that break into people's houses.

Maybe those ones go into politics...

If that would not succeed, I would probably try and assault him in a way that could not have permanent consequences (physically, that is). Break a leg or an arm in the the worst case, something that will incapacitate him for the moment, but can be healed eventually.

That's assuming that he has no arms of his own and that you are physically capable of besting him in a fight.

You are indeed welcome to suppose this, but don't assume that everybody in the world is so physically capable and try to force your own methods on them.

Not that I'm saying that you're trying to do that, understand. AFAICS you are giving your own thoughts on it which is great.

I will not murder anyone for breaking into my house, I'm sorry.

Neither will I. First of all, defensive homicide is not murder, so even if I killed him I wouldn't have "murdered" him.

Secondly, as you yourself have said, many criminals will cut and run. Well, let me tell you that there are even MORE criminals who will either run or freeze in their tracks when confronted by a firearm.

AFAIK the majority of home defence cases with a firearm do not result in homicide.

I do remember one case where a guy spent 15 minutes breaking into his ex's house and battering down her bedroom door, having expressed certain intentions. She shot him dead.

Oh, and she was talking to a 911 operator the whole time. The police never got there until after the fact.

[Furunculus]

Going to stop you right there.

I don't have that bigger problem with the guy who killed the burgler, though his choice of weapon was strange at least. I do have a problem with all these guys tooling up to kill people that break in and then boasting about how prepared they were. As I said, I have an umbrella and that is more than sufficient for stopping anyone without a firearm.

Blades are only for killing, so if you take a blade you're either stupid or have already decided to kill the intruder.

rubbish, blades are really good for threatening with.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

rubbish, blades are really good for threatening with.

So that's why most victims of knife crime get cut with their own weapon.

[Furunculus]

in your own home it's up to you what you decide to threaten an intruder with; pair of maracas, big rubber dildo, bbq tongs, the choice is yours, as is the consequence if you can't wield them with effect.

[Whacker]

rubbish, blades are really good for threatening with.

So are umbrellas!

in your own home it's up to you what you decide to threaten an intruder with; pair of maracas, big rubber dildo, bbq tongs, the choice is yours, as is the consequence if you can't wield them with effect.

This is precisely why my home defense arsenal constitutes: a tarp, a spatula, and a vat of crisco.