That's What Katanas Are For

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

They make their choices, and we make ours. When confronted with an intruder you can pick up a sword or a staff; that choice is yours and you have to live with the consequences.

Indeed. The right to make these choices, however, should remain with the individual and not the government.

I am willing to kill under certain circumstances, but I do not take such things lightly.

None of us do, and none of us should. What we should be is willing to do so when necessary and just.

[Azathoth]

If your house is dark enough and the floorboards aren't creaky, you could always toss a can or fork over his head and then knock him out from behind while he investigates the noise. That's what Sam Fisher would do, anyway.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Concern for human life? I'll pass on. If a #$½‘$~@ tries to break into my place I'll do my best to make sure he leaves dead or at least crippled.
.

[Viking]

Killing is indeed something never, ever to be taken lightly, but given the right circumstances one absolutely must be willing and able to make that choice to defend their family. Someone who cannot has no business having a family, IMO.

At 21, he probably didn't have any.

[pevergreen]

I have a knife which is not easily accessible and blunt which won't do much good.

Its not that knife I used for throwing practice ages ago in ironbark is it?

I thought he was laughing at the fact that he would be using a tool, rather than his deadly weapons because he doesn't want them getting dirty.

Samurai Warrior: This sword is an ancient piece of steel, the craftsmenship is nothing less than a work of art. It is the last of its kind.
Normal guy: Woah...its amazing... Lifts it out of the holder, goes into a warrior pose.

Normal guy goes walks towards camera and uses sword to put vegemite on his toast.

[Beefy187]

Its not that knife I used for throwing practice ages ago in ironbark is it?

Nope its not.

Samurai Warrior: This sword is an ancient piece of steel, the craftsmenship is nothing less than a work of art. It is the last of its kind.
Normal guy: Woah...its amazing... Lifts it out of the holder, goes into a warrior pose.

Normal guy goes walks towards camera and uses sword to put vegemite on his toast.

Can't believe you guys eat those things

[Furunculus]

If you can prove he's entering, not leaving, and you have reason to fear for your life.

Anyway, I'm extremely disturbed the cavalier attitude here and the lack of concern for human life.

i don't care whether he's coming or going, he's broken into my sacred place with the intention of stealing my holy relics, he's going to get his ass severely kicked.

i'm not intending to disregard, or revel in, the possibility of maiming or death, but the person won't be leaving my house until he has a look of white faced terror at the prospect any further time in my company.

that is my house and my stuff, WTF!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Given that choice, if you pick up a staff and go after someone who's broken into your house, you are an utter fool.

Killing is indeed something never, ever to be taken lightly, but given the right circumstances one absolutely must be willing and able to make that choice to defend their family. Someone who cannot has no business having a family, IMO.

I can kill a man at least three ways with a cricket bat or a two foot piece of ash; I can also just break his elbows. A knife is just a killing weapon, and the best way to use it is to step in close and go up under the ribs before he even realises yo're going to do it.

Indeed. The right to make these choices, however, should remain with the individual and not the government.

None of us do, and none of us should. What we should be is willing to do so when necessary and just.

I think some here are either making light of it or don't care wether they kill someone or not.

i don't care whether he's coming or going, he's broken into my sacred place with the intention of stealing my holy relics, he's going to get his ass severely kicked.

i'm not intending to disregard, or revel in, the possibility of maiming or death, but the person won't be leaving my house until he has a look of white faced terror at the prospect any further time in my company.

that is my house and my stuff, WTF!

According to UK law you can't kill a man running away from you, it's murder.

[Meneldil]

This thread is worth a good old facepalm.

Seriously people?

"I've got a axe and I kill cats with it, lolz " "Yeah, if someone enters my place I have a whole bunch of knives and and [insert some random useless and nerdy weapon that you probably can't even use correctly] I'm soo cool dudes "

Grow up people, you all look like 14 years old naruto addicts. Some guy was killed in the incident, and even if I understand the motives - and would probably have tried to incapacitate or kill him too - I don't think there's anything to laugh about.
The fact that you all feel a need to brag about how you'd kill some guy with some exotic weapon in order to feel manly - while I'm pretty sure most of you would be too scared to even move - is quite telling about the sad state of our society.
Further, people who own katana and think they're cool are morons.

In nations with sensible laws, the person defending should never be considered a criminal for defending with lethal force their family and property.

Too bad you don't rule my country. I could kill all the 8 years old who jump into my garden because they thrown a ball there with such a great leader. What a wonderful country that'd be.

[Hax]

Philippus and Meneldil are right. If you kill a burglar, you will have to face the consequences (legal, moral and physical)

[Cute Wolf]

Philippus and Meneldil are right. If you kill a burglar, you will have to face the consequences (legal, moral and physical)

But in practical daily criminal news in my country, anyone that you can prove he/she was trying to rob your house, or do some harm with you or your family, may be killed on self defence, and that was completely legal. Actually it was an old, unmodified old Dutch law.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Philippus and Meneldil are right. If you kill a burglar, you will have to face the consequences (legal, moral and physical)

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.

"I wouldn't have hit his car if he hadn't been driving today!!!"

Come on. How far will you take this? You remind me of an actual case where a guy broke into someone's house while they were on vacation. He came in through the house and went into the garage, not knowing that their garage door was a security door (unlocked on the inside, locked on the outside). So he got himself stuck in the garage, and had nothing but pop to live on until they found him when they came home.

He sued them on account he was stuck in their garage. I'm serious; this happened. You're applying very similar "logic" to this case.

Furthermore, it's easy for you to scream that he should have called the police, thanks to the glorious benefit of hindsight.

But do you call the cops every time you hear a noise in your garage? Obviously the guy had more than general concern that somebody was in his garage, but it's not as if he could have divined that the burglar would charge him while he was holding a great big sword.

He was simply going into his garage to check. I know I've done that; I know a number of people who have done that with a firearm. One acquaintance of mine checked out his garage with a replica blackpowder revolver, because he figured the noise and smoke would scare the living daylights out of any criminal if he fired a warning shot.

Anyways, people feel the need to check out a suspicious noise all the time, and more often than not they bring something with them, just in case. Well, this time it so happened that someone really was in there.

[Husar]

Too bad you don't rule my country. I could kill all the 8 years old who jump into my garden because they thrown a ball there with such a great leader. What a wonderful country that'd be.

You could also invite someone over and then kill them.

Concerning the whole thread, I think most here would prefer not to end up in such a situation at all and I read in some Frontroom thread that having violent dreams is perfectly normal.

[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]

Concerning the whole thread, I think most here would prefer not to end up in such a situation at all and

sure, i never want to find someone in my house stealing my stuff. never.

but if i find someone doing it i desire* that they never want to steal from me again either.

* read: i actively desire

[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.

[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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You could also invite someone over and then kill them.

No, that would be illegal. The only way you could use violence would be if you invited them, asked them to leave, and they refused. That would actually be a very interesting court case, as it could go either way.

But anybody who breaks into my house, unless I am positive his intentions are somehow innocent (which is practically impossible if he is breaking into my house), is fair game. I'm not saying I would enjoy it - I don't think anyone in this thread would. I am saying that I would not hesitate to defend my property and my life with whatever force deemed necessary by me at the time. Note that I say by me, because it is me in that situation and nobody else.

[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.

[Viking]

No, that would be illegal. The only way you could use violence would be if you invited them, asked them to leave, and they refused. That would actually be a very interesting court case, as it could go either way.

If all they do is refusing to leave, it would obviously be an excessive use of violence.

[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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If all they do is refusing to leave, it would obviously be an excessive use of violence.

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

[Hax]

But in practical daily criminal news in my country, anyone that you can prove he/she was trying to rob your house, or do some harm with you or your family, may be killed on self defence, and that was completely legal. Actually it was an old, unmodified old Dutch law.

But you have to have some discernment. <snip> Anyways, people feel the need to check out a suspicious noise all the time, and more often than not they bring something with them, just in case. Well, this time it so happened that someone really was in there.

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.

All actions have their consequences. Think instead, what would be the best action to take? If you kill him, in an instinctical reaction, you are not to be blamed. Nor is the burglar, in another situation perhaps you would have done something else. Killing people should be avoided at all times.

[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.

[OverKnight]

Now I'm curious. What exactly is a tactical baton? An ASP?

Yup that's another name for this.

Personally I've never used it in anger, but it makes a very cool schhhiiikkkk sound when you deploy it.