Discussion about hot topics trending today

[SoulReaver]

therein lies the question...should I take the chance that he's holding no weapon behind his back that he could use against me?

therein lies the much better question:
the SS shoot even if they see no weapon - do you think you too could shoot without seeing a weapon (and it turns out the target was unarmed) and get away with it?

or do you think there should be 2 sets of laws depending on who's the shooter?

[Annoyed]

therein lies the much better question:
the SS shoot even if they see no weapon - do you think you too could shoot without seeing a weapon (and it turns out the target was unarmed) and get away with it?

or do you think there should be 2 sets of laws depending on who's the shooter?

Occasionally, you read of cases where homeowners in legitimate fear for their lives have shot unarmed intruders as well as unexpected family members. They are often not charged.

[SoulReaver]

Occasionally, you read of cases where homeowners in legitimate fear for their lives have shot unarmed intruders as well as unexpected family members. They are often not charged.

civilians?
also they shot intruders; in their own house

what about outside their home?

[aretood2]

The law is clear on such matters. If I reasonably feared for my life, it's justified. That kind of thing is one of the reason that toy guns are required to have orange bands around their barrels, to mark them as toys.

No...I don't believe that's what New York law says. It's more akin to what FH posted.

therein lies the question...should I take the chance that he's holding no weapon behind his back that he could use against me?

If he has a TV on both hands walking towards the door, then I'd say you'd be committing murder if you just shoot them on the spot after spotting them.

because I believe in calling a spade a spade....a thief IS a home invader....in fact ANYONE coming into my home uninvited, is a home invader...and I believe in dealing with home invaders the same way I deal with any other kind of aggressor....like a man and not like a lily-livered pantywaist

Even the senile old man who forgot that it is not his house?

the same Jesus also said "Let he who hath no sword sell his mantle and buy one".....either Jesus is schozophrenic or he wanted us to be able to use force, but as a last resort

and who said I was arguing to use it as a first resort....the attempted theft of a material possession (the hypothetical TV) actually occurs as a compounding of the initial crime (entering someone's home uninvited, i.e., home invasion)...what guarantee do I have that taking replaceable material possessions is all the thug is there for?

Read your post. It's only interpretation I see is "Shoot first, ask questions later".

As to the verse you took totally out of context...I'll drop this post of several commentators. I'm far too tired of explaining the same thing again to do it myself.
https://www.studylight.org/commentary/luke/22-36.html

The general consensus is that you are wrong. But I found this lovely catholic source (Magisterium is stingy on commentaries easily available on the net).
https://www.catholicgentleman.net/20...-self-defense/

"The Catechism spells out that lethal force can be justified if one is left with no other choice. Killing should be a last resort, however, after everything else has been tried. Here’s what the Catechism"

After this line they quote Thomas Aquinas saying "Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s"

Contrary to what Annoyed is saying, no one is saying "Never shoot" but rather not to resort to shooting at the drop of a hat as the first course of action, much like Aquinas himself says. The authors of the article interpret the quote above as:

"St. Thomas, quoted by the Catechism, is basically saying, Don’t shoot someone for stealing your wallet. That is more than necessary violence. But if someone has pulled a knife on you and they by all appearances seem ready to use it, then you can respond in kind. Responding to force with like force is moderation in self-defense.

The idea of moderation in the use of force is very similar to the “use of force continuum” used by law enforcement officers. While the details of this continuum are beyond the scope of this post, it boils down to the maxim: Don’t shoot someone unless you have no other choice. If your life— or the life of someone else—is in imminent danger, you have the right to use lethal force. If there is any possibility of anything else working (verbal commands, physical combat, pepper spray, etc.), you have an obligation to try that first."

The emphasis on "imminent danger" is mine. A guy being in your house is not imminent danger unless he does something more than simply being in your house. If you shout stop and he steps towards you and reaches for something, that is closer to eminent danger than him putting your laptop that you left in your living room in a bag.

This is not just targeting you, GF, many people on this board have this attitude.

Why all of the compassion for thieves and criminals among almost everybody here? Where's the compassion for the victims?

A common argument is that material possession are not worth a life. Didn't the criminal place the value of his life lower than that of what he was trying to steal by trying to steal it in the first place? He consciously chose to break in or other wise try to steal something. Shouldn't he expect whatever the victim can do to him?

What about this mindset: If I don't want to get shot by a homeowner defending his property, maybe I shouldn't break into the guy's house or attack him in any other way?

Your assumption is that no self defense is being advocated. That's just not true. Those of us who are appalled at the blood thirst in your and MG's posts are reacting to your desire to kill at first sight without taking anything into consideration beyond "They are in my house". That is nothing short than homicidal blood lust. Being willing to shoot an intruder if they do not flee, or act aggressively or present some other threat, is not the same as the blood lust you and MG seem to have.

[Falcon Horus]

Sidenote: I just read that whole part about what Thomas Aquinas said in Henry McCord's voice from Madam Secretary. And it sounded weird...

[Annoyed]

No...I don't believe that's what New York law says. It's more akin to what FH posted.



If he has a TV on both hands walking towards the door, then I'd say you'd be committing murder if you just shoot them on the spot after spotting them.



Even the senile old man who forgot that it is not his house?



Read your post. It's only interpretation I see is "Shoot first, ask questions later".

As to the verse you took totally out of context...I'll drop this post of several commentators. I'm far too tired of explaining the same thing again to do it myself.
https://www.studylight.org/commentary/luke/22-36.html

The general consensus is that you are wrong. But I found this lovely catholic source (Magisterium is stingy on commentaries easily available on the net).
https://www.catholicgentleman.net/20...-self-defense/

"The Catechism spells out that lethal force can be justified if one is left with no other choice. Killing should be a last resort, however, after everything else has been tried. Here’s what the Catechism"

After this line they quote Thomas Aquinas saying "Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s"

Contrary to what Annoyed is saying, no one is saying "Never shoot" but rather not to resort to shooting at the drop of a hat as the first course of action, much like Aquinas himself says. The authors of the article interpret the quote above as:

"St. Thomas, quoted by the Catechism, is basically saying, Don’t shoot someone for stealing your wallet. That is more than necessary violence. But if someone has pulled a knife on you and they by all appearances seem ready to use it, then you can respond in kind. Responding to force with like force is moderation in self-defense.

The idea of moderation in the use of force is very similar to the “use of force continuum” used by law enforcement officers. While the details of this continuum are beyond the scope of this post, it boils down to the maxim: Don’t shoot someone unless you have no other choice. If your life— or the life of someone else—is in imminent danger, you have the right to use lethal force. If there is any possibility of anything else working (verbal commands, physical combat, pepper spray, etc.), you have an obligation to try that first."

The emphasis on "imminent danger" is mine. A guy being in your house is not imminent danger unless he does something more than simply being in your house. If you shout stop and he steps towards you and reaches for something, that is closer to eminent danger than him putting your laptop that you left in your living room in a bag.



Your assumption is that no self defense is being advocated. That's just not true. Those of us who are appalled at the blood thirst in your and MG's posts are reacting to your desire to kill at first sight without taking anything into consideration beyond "They are in my house". That is nothing short than homicidal blood lust. Being willing to shoot an intruder if they do not flee, or act aggressively or present some other threat, is not the same as the blood lust you and MG seem to have.

First... The way we do it now doesn't seem to help much. In the larger cities, you're not safe in your own home anymore, haven't been for a while. The thugs know they have the upper hand.

I suspect putting the fear of god into them; ie, that they might be legally shot if caught by the property owner might be a better preventative step than what we're doing now.

And second. Merry Christmas! (If you celebrate it)

[Gatefan1976]

m/'/

This is not just targeting you, GF, many people on this board have this attitude.

Why all of the compassion for thieves and criminals among almost everybody here? Where's the compassion for the victims?

It's not compassion, it's actually giving a damn about another humans LIFE. Importantly for me as well, it is a point of law, and I don't mean in an entirely legal sense here. The justice system may indeed give you the -right- to shoot any invader you want without consequence, but what about the basis of the law?
You are enacting vigilante "justice", not the law. Hell, it doesn't even rise to "eye for an eye".

A common argument is that material possession are not worth a life. Didn't the criminal place the value of his life lower than that of what he was trying to steal by trying to steal it in the first place? He consciously chose to break in or other wise try to steal something. Shouldn't he expect whatever the victim can do to him?

No, they did not.

What about this mindset: If I don't want to get shot by a homeowner defending his property, maybe I shouldn't break into the guy's house or attack him in any other way?

How about this one, you are not judge Dredd, you are NOT the law, and if you were, why do you need a justice system?
How about we go back to Darwinism, the intruder owns your stuff because he shot you first?
He has the right to your stuff because you don't deserve it anymore.

[Gatefan1976]

[Your assumption is that no self defense is being advocated. That's just not true. Those of us who are appalled at the blood thirst in your and MG's posts are reacting to your desire to kill at first sight without taking anything into consideration beyond "They are in my house". That is nothing short than homicidal blood lust. Being willing to shoot an intruder if they do not flee, or act aggressively or present some other threat, is not the same as the blood lust you and MG seem to have.

Hey Tood, what do you think -I- would do if someone came into my home given my religious basis?
Be a pantywaist?

[jelgate]

Hey Tood, what do you think -I- would do if someone came into my home given my religious basis?
Be a pantywaist?

I think it would depend on their actions after they encountered you

[Annoyed]

m/'/
It's not compassion, it's actually giving a damn about another humans LIFE. Importantly for me as well, it is a point of law, and I don't mean in an entirely legal sense here. The justice system may indeed give you the -right- to shoot any invader you want without consequence, but what about the basis of the law?
You are enacting vigilante "justice", not the law. Hell, it doesn't even rise to "eye for an eye".

No, they did not.

How about this one, you are not judge Dredd, you are NOT the law, and if you were, why do you need a justice system?
How about we go back to Darwinism, the intruder owns your stuff because he shot you first?
He has the right to your stuff because you don't deserve it anymore.

You're forgetting who initiated the encounter. The homeowner was simply minding his own business, and he already owned the rights to the hardware at hand. The INTRUDER was the instigator of the situation, and therefore bears the consequences.

[jelgate]

Punishment has to fit the crime. Killing is not justifiable because you lost your TV. I could agree with assaulting a burger but not murder

[Falcon Horus]

And second. Merry Christmas! (If you celebrate it)

I don't, but nonetheless, Merry Christmas to you as well.

[jelgate]

*punches FH*

Happy Boxing Day

[Falcon Horus]

isn't boxing day tomorrow?

I have to work tomorrow (and the rest of the week).

[jelgate]

I thought we'd get a head start. Be quiet tomorrow, I don't have to work