That's What Katanas Are For

[Viking]

I didn't say kill them, I said use of violence, meaning forcibly removing them from your home if necessary.

As I meant. Beating someone up because they refuse to get out of your house, appears in most cases to be well over the top. Dragging him out or dumping him outside, OTOH...something which isn't really violence anyway.

[Hax]

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.

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

[Cute Wolf]

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

Bet your home / whatever place that you life.... is never get a burglar inside......
You simply never encountered a real life burglars!

I know that both of us still unmarried and didn't have a child, but consider this hypothetical case:
(not only hax, but other orgah's especially who allready had a child could answer it)

You are a father, and you life with your wife and an infant son. One day, you hear some noise arround your garage and decide to check that. On your way, you could grab a potentially lethal weapon (guns, axes, blades, spears or big forks), and you know how to end someone's life with it rather effectively. As you walk silently to your garage, you spotted a man, trying to pick your door, or allready carried some loot, moves arround suspiciously to your little son's bedroom, where your wife and your son are sleeping. To one point of extreme, your wife is such a coward, even with weapons on her hands, tend to scream and cry like a kitten, and your infant son... couldn't defend himself. As you see more clearly, that burglar was carrying a weapon that you recognize as a gun. You are capable to launch a surprise attack once, and with that weapons on your hands, you are sure that your "surprise attack" could end in killing or permanently maiming that burglar....... but IF you don't attack, and just yelling at that guy, he'll eventually find your son, and maybe use him as hostage..... which one did you'll take? Killing that burglar now, or call the police, and let the bad guy found your son?


IF I were that guy in defense of the home, I'll act as a good father that protect my son, and try my best to decapitate that burglar with my axe/blade..... Even if I life in some areas with ridiculous law such as some country. I'll rather spent my time in prison rather than see he hurts (emotional hurts are even worse... remember the boy are infant!) or worse, kills my family.

[Hax]

I will answer for myself now; 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.

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.

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

[Fragony]

axe -> face

It isn't murder when someone breaks into your house. Not going to gamble with my life, so his will have to go.

[Cute Wolf]

I will answer for myself now; 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.

And the worst things is he charges at you, and killing you while your mouth is still talking.....

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.

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

This was a better option.... aim for the right hand..... a maimed limb could be re-attached if you call ambulance in 24 hours.... while you store the burglar's hand in your freezer

[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.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

This just in.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090922/...ginia_killings

I think this demonstrates my case fairly well.

Maybe he used an umbrella...

[Furunculus]

I will answer for myself now; I have taken a vow to reduce the amount of suffering in the world.

I have come to a self understanding (not as official as a vow) that I have zero tolerance for other people interfering unduly in my life, and in the interest of; do unto others as you would have them do unto you I will not unduly interfere in anyone else's life.

If someone else is so damnably rude as to unduly interfere in my personal life then all bets are off, they rely totally on my good nature and self restraint for whatever consequence ensues; be that a barked "@^*k off!" directed at some street oik shouting abuse, or be it physical violence directed at someone who has been caught burgling my house and refuses to leave instantly and without my property.

[Hax]

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.

Well, the intentions are clearly different.

And the worst things is he charges at you, and killing you while your mouth is still talking.....

Be serious, please. That would be a completely illogical action, if we're honest.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Well, the intentions are clearly different.

Exactly. So how can we consistently determine what is reasonable and what is not, when it's a subjective problem?

[Hax]

Exactly. So how can we consistently determine what is reasonable and what is not, when it's a subjective problem?

Depends on your idea of burglary:

1. The crime of breaking into a vehicle, house, store, or other enclosure with the intent to steal.
2. (law) Under the common law, breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at night with the intent to commit a felony.
3. (law, US) Under the Model Penal Code, entering a building or occupied structure with purpose to commit a crime therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public. Model Penal Code § 221.1.

In the first case, well yeah. If he's in purely for the money, he'd probably be off as soon as he saw me, or anyone else. Burglar =/= murderer.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

As I meant. Beating someone up because they refuse to get out of your house, appears in most cases to be well over the top. Dragging him out or dumping him outside, OTOH...something which isn't really violence anyway.

I was talking about dragging the individual outside, which is violence in my opinion. The only way you would ever hit them in that case would be if they hit you first.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I will answer for myself now; 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.

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.

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

Two people had recently been murdered by burglars in that area. You can't really reduce suffering in the world by letting yourself be killed.

Granted there are some people in this thread who are a bit gung-ho about it, but you are too far the other way imo.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are a father, and you life with your wife and an infant son. One day, you hear some noise arround your garage and decide to check that. On your way, you could grab a potentially lethal weapon (guns, axes, blades, spears or big forks), and you know how to end someone's life with it rather effectively. As you walk silently to your garage, you spotted a man, trying to pick your door, or allready carried some loot, moves arround suspiciously to your little son's bedroom, where your wife and your son are sleeping. To one point of extreme, your wife is such a coward, even with weapons on her hands, tend to scream and cry like a kitten, and your infant son... couldn't defend himself. As you see more clearly, that burglar was carrying a weapon that you recognize as a gun. You are capable to launch a surprise attack once, and with that weapons on your hands, you are sure that your "surprise attack" could end in killing or permanently maiming that burglar....... but IF you don't attack, and just yelling at that guy, he'll eventually find your son, and maybe use him as hostage..... which one did you'll take? Killing that burglar now, or call the police, and let the bad guy found your son?

I'd be carrying a stick, and I'd crack him on the back of the head. Your scenario assumes the burgler has picked or forced the lock, so he's already inside and I am therefore between him and my family, or I've let him get past me.

At no point would I be so stupid as to allow someone to get between me and those I love. I wouldn't put myself in such a stupid situation. Further, such a pathetic woman as the one you describe almost certainly wouldn't stay with a man capable of killing, unless out of fear.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

The only way you would ever hit them in that case would be if they hit you first.

If they hit you first... doesn't that bring a strong possibility of incapacitation?

I won't call the police until AFTER I get shot!

I'd be carrying a stick, and I'd crack him on the back of the head. Your scenario assumes the burgler has picked or forced the lock, so he's already inside and I am therefore between him and my family, or I've let him get past me.

At no point would I be so stupid as to allow someone to get between me and those I love. I wouldn't put myself in such a stupid situation. Further, such a pathetic woman as the one you describe almost certainly wouldn't stay with a man capable of killing, unless out of fear.

But in all this you're assuming that you control the environment.

Of course you wouldn't put yourself in a bad position. But the fact is that it's the CRIMINAL who initiates and thus determines your position. Could be good or could be bad, depending on his planning.

Furthermore, if a burglar enters at night, you have to be aware of his entry to BEGIN with, and there are ways to enter a house without making noise. Furthermore, the only way that you could HOPE to be on par with the burglar physically is if you are alert, which is unlikely if you've just woken up.

Also, to whack a burglar on the back of the head? Either somehow you got behind him, which means you're no longer between him and your family, or you pulled a really nice move. A move that means you are sacrificing leverage to reach around him and whack him, which also means that you are close to him which also makes you very vulnerable.

So your in a terrible tactical situation using methods that are almost self defeating.

You know, if your plan of action is doomed to disaster when you've been sitting at home in comfort thinking it out, don't you think that if the real time came and you had a split-second decision to make, the odds are it wouldn't work?

Plan B: Firearm. Those problems disappear. You have only to point and he will probably obey, unless he has one of his own, in case you're REALLY lucky you have one too or you'd be a goner guaranteed. And if you don't think bad guys can get bad things that they're not allowed to have, well... welcome to planet earth. :)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If they hit you first... doesn't that bring a strong possibility of incapacitation?

I won't call the police until AFTER I get shot!

I was talking about if you're removing someone from your home who you invited there, something went wrong (maybe they snapped and went crazy about something), and when in the process of dragging them outside they hit you or try to fight, you hit back.

In a case of someone being in your house univited, you identify your target and then take appropriate measures to neutralize the threat, starting immediately.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I was talking about if you're removing someone from your home who you invited there, something went wrong (maybe they snapped and went crazy about something), and when in the process of dragging them outside they hit you or try to fight, you hit back.

Oh. heh heh.



Wonderful thing, context.

Sorry, I didn't realize.

[Azathoth]

I'd just like to present this clip to the discussion:

[Hax]

Two people had recently been murdered by burglars in that area. You can't really reduce suffering in the world by letting yourself be killed.

Granted there are some people in this thread who are a bit gung-ho about it, but you are too far the other way imo.

Don't get me wrong, if I had to fight for my life, I might just as well kill someone. If he carries a knife, or a gun for that matter, I'll probably try to kill (or incapacitate, at the very least) him first.

[Cute Wolf]

I'd just like to present this clip to the discussion:

How strong the elderly can do in one hit to the back head..... well, actually, that clip displays a really shocking image of wrong pre-emptive assault. well...... you get a very good point....

now, how about "friendly fire"? I don't have any clue how to avoid it, when some of your family want to put a surprise, if you only have a close combat weapons. (with gun, you only got to say "FREEZE OR I'LL SHOOT YOU!!!!"

Actually, this clip shows about HOW CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS CAN BECOME DANGEROUS TO YOUR OWN FAMILY WHO LOVES SURPRISE! because close combat weapons didn't have much... threatening range....



You're right.....

[gaelic cowboy]

Padraig Nally his Gun and the Frog

This incident caused a furore in Ireland and is pretty much dealin exactly with what your all debating

[Crazed Rabbit]

Actually, this clip shows about HOW CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS CAN BECOME DANGEROUS TO YOUR OWN FAMILY WHO LOVES SURPRISE! because close combat weapons didn't have much... threatening range....

Well surprising people with guns in dark areas can be very dangerous:

BANDERA — Be careful who you say "Boo!" to.

A Bandera County jailer was shot in the thigh after he jumped out and roared at a deputy in a darkened room at Bandera County Sheriff's Department office.

Chief Deputy Don Berger says Deputy A.J. Griffin shot 22-year-old Daniel Spengler before dawn Sunday. Spengler was airlifted to Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio for treatment.

Berger says the 36-year-old deputy "revert to his training" when the jailer jumped at him, shooting Spengler once, then giving him first aid.

CR

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Well surprising people with guns in dark areas can be very dangerous:


CR

Granted, rampantly stupid idiots are a threat to their own safety.

Are you trying to draw from this the conclusion that the concept of self-defense is invalid?

This incident caused a furore in Ireland and is pretty much dealin exactly with what your all debating

Similarly, intentionally aggressive homicide is not what we're advocating.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Granted, rampantly stupid idiots are a threat to their own safety.

Are you trying to draw from this the conclusion that the concept of self-defense is invalid? :inquisitive

I'm going to assume you're asking that in jest or you don't know my backroom reputation.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Granted, rampantly stupid idiots are a threat to their own safety.

Are you trying to draw from this the conclusion that the concept of self-defense is invalid?



Similarly, intentionally aggressive homicide is not what we're advocating.

Only people properly trained should be allowed to use firearms, the general public are not safe with those things.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Only people properly trained should be allowed to use firearms, the general public are not safe with those things.

I wonder at this.

So somehow "ordinary" people aren't qualified, yet if you go through a Police Academy you somehow become infallible.

Are you aware that wrongful homicide in civilian self-defense is about half the rate as wrongful homicide in law enforcement?

So what evidence do you bring, sir, that actually supports this notion, besides a few accident cases compared to about 20 times as many success stories?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Only people properly trained should be allowed to use firearms, the general public are not safe with those things.

Only the general evidence proves that they are safe. Moving along.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wonder at this.

So somehow "ordinary" people aren't qualified, yet if you go through a Police Academy you somehow become infallible.

Are you aware that wrongful homicide in civilian self-defense is about half the rate as wrongful homicide in law enforcement?

So what evidence do you bring, sir, that actually supports this notion, besides a few accident cases compared to about 20 times as many success stories?

Only the general evidence proves that they are safe. Moving along.

You assume I think policemen are safe with firearms. I don't.

Give them to civilians, people get shot.

Give them to policemen, people get shot.

Give them to soldiers, people get shot.

In only one instance is that the intended outcome.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In only one instance is that the intended outcome.

No it isn't. All of the above groups are perfectly entitled to shoot people in certain circumstances.