Discussion about hot topics trending today

[mad_gater]

If someone is wearing brass knuckles and is coming at you...I wonder if you could use a magnet to immobilize them

[aretood2]

Again, homeowner's discretion. Some ten year olds can be imposing to a frail adult; say an 80 year old widow. Or widower, for that matter. I know, the law is not written this way in all states. Ethically, the homeowner should use his judgement; if he / she feels reasonably certain they can detain the intruder till the police arrive without lethal force, they should do so. But legally, they should have the right to use whatever force is needed.

I'm trying to establish a situation, a common ground/starting point, where killing an intruder is undeniably wrong.

So let me amend the scenario with more details. 25 Year old perfectly fit and Athletic build man see's a skinny short unarmed 10 year old boy walk into his house and make a bee line for the DVD player. Is it right for that man to get his Gun, sneak up to the kid, shoot him and then insure that the kid is dead by shooting him again?

I have never understood that particular argument. When you are being robbed or attacked, is your first reaction to google the precise legal definition of the crime in progress and the exact legal penalty? Do you stop to collect evidence? Do you wait for the proper court of law to assemble instead of engaging in extrajudicial self-defense?

If the penalty for rape is not death, does it follow that a woman being raped cannot reach for a knife or a gun to fend off her attacker?

If you are being robbed under threat to your life, does the robber's desire for your stuff invalidate the threat to your life?

Self defense isn't the problem. It's a premeditated desire to kill that's the problem. For example, if there's an intruder in my house, I won't be thinking about killing him, just keeping myself safe. If that includes shooting him, then so be it. But my wish is not the death of the intruder, but if it has to be the death of the intruder, then so be it. This is by far a different stance than the one Ian-s or Annoyed are making. They are of the "I can't wait until I can kill someone" variety.

[Gatefan1976]

I have never understood that particular argument. When you are being robbed or attacked, is your first reaction to google the precise legal definition of the crime in progress and the exact legal penalty? Do you stop to collect evidence? Do you wait for the proper court of law to assemble instead of engaging in extrajudicial self-defense?

And I don't understand this line of response either.
Self defence is fine, no one here has -ever- argued otherwise, so what exactly is your point?

If the penalty for rape is not death, does it follow that a woman being raped cannot reach for a knife or a gun to fend off her attacker?

Has what to do with robbery now?

If you are being robbed under threat to your life, does the robber's desire for your stuff invalidate the threat to your life?

Changing the conditions changes the attempted crime, why is this so hard to grasp?
You try to steal my stuff, I might smack you around a bit, but I'm not going to gut you with a knife, or shoot you with a gun.
You threaten me with a knife or gun (and I have been threatened with both) and I'll make my decision based on what is available to me at the time.
My objective is to stay alive, not kill the other person.

[Gatefan1976]

Self defense isn't the problem. It's a premeditated desire to kill that's the problem. For example, if there's an intruder in my house, I won't be thinking about killing him, just keeping myself safe. If that includes shooting him, then so be it. But my wish is not the death of the intruder, but if it has to be the death of the intruder, then so be it. This is by far a different stance than the one Ian-s or Annoyed are making. They are of the "I can't wait until I can kill someone" variety.

Or this.

[Annoyed]

I'm trying to establish a situation, a common ground/starting point, where killing an intruder is undeniably wrong.

So let me amend the scenario with more details. 25 Year old perfectly fit and Athletic build man see's a skinny short unarmed 10 year old boy walk into his house and make a bee line for the DVD player. Is it right for that man to get his Gun, sneak up to the kid, shoot him and then insure that the kid is dead by shooting him again?

Absolutely, that is wrong by any ethical and moral standards I'm aware of.
As I said earlier, in a situation which presented no threat to me, I would not use deadly force if I was confident I could restrain him without it. Given that scenario, there is no doubt that I could, so I would simply restrain him till the cops got there.
What I'm saying is the discretion should always go to the person defending his person or property against an intruder; whether or not IN HIS JUDGEMENT justification exists for the use of force. The defender should not have to worry about being second-guessed by the lawyers after the fact.

Self defense isn't the problem. It's a premeditated desire to kill that's the problem. For example, if there's an intruder in my house, I won't be thinking about killing him, just keeping myself safe. If that includes shooting him, then so be it. But my wish is not the death of the intruder, but if it has to be the death of the intruder, then so be it. This is by far a different stance than the one Ian-s or Annoyed are making. They are of the "I can't wait until I can kill someone" variety.

That is not my position at all. Ideally, I will never again be placed in the position of having to defend myself or my castle against attackers. If they don't break into my home or attack me, the question never even arises, does it?

[mad_gater]

Absolutely, that is wrong by any ethical and moral standards I'm aware of.
As I said earlier, in a situation which presented no threat to me, I would not use deadly force if I was confident I could restrain him without it. Given that scenario, there is no doubt that I could, so I would simply restrain him till the cops got there.
What I'm saying is the discretion should always go to the person defending his person or property against an intruder; whether or not IN HIS JUDGEMENT justification exists for the use of force. The defender should not have to worry about being second-guessed by the lawyers after the fact.



That is not my position at all. Ideally, I will never again be placed in the position of having to defend myself or my castle against attackers. If they don't break into my home or attack me, the question never even arises, does it?

I wouldn't be too sure of that. There are probably some 10-year-olds out there bigger than most adults

[aretood2]

Absolutely, that is wrong by any ethical and moral standards I'm aware of.
As I said earlier, in a situation which presented no threat to me, I would not use deadly force if I was confident I could restrain him without it. Given that scenario, there is no doubt that I could, so I would simply restrain him till the cops got there.
What I'm saying is the discretion should always go to the person defending his person or property against an intruder; whether or not IN HIS JUDGEMENT justification exists for the use of force. The defender should not have to worry about being second-guessed by the lawyers after the fact.

So what should happen if this 25 year old does shot and kill the kid as I described? How much discretion should be given? There are people like I described in my response to Womble. Is society obligated to punish those who seek out violence versus those who had no choice but to use lethal action to defend themselves?

That is not my position at all. Ideally, I will never again be placed in the position of having to defend myself or my castle against attackers. If they don't break into my home or attack me, the question never even arises, does it?

Your characterization of my position is just as extreme, so why not treat your position with the same level of inaccuracy? That's why I frased it as such. My position is that death is never the go to answer. Self defense can and does lead to the death of the attacker, and I am okay with that. Seeking to cause death as an only option is not okay. If there was an intruder, that intruder only needs to be stopped, not killed. Sometimes stopping them would unfortunately lead to their death. But setting out to kill as default is just wrong.

I am not asking people to juggle some mental calculous in a high stress situation, I only ask that people not have the bloodthirsty mindset. The laws require certain circumstances to be met in certain situations, those tend to be common sense based.

You hear a noise, call 911, grab your weapon, see the guy, you see a gun and you shoot. The law would be on your side, because you saw the weapon. You didn't need to go through a checklist because your actions were "commonsensical".

You hear a noise, you grab a weapon, you see a guy carrying big TV out the door, and you shoot from the back. Did you really need to shoot? No. And that law won't be on your side either.

The law in these situations should be one that follows common sense. Admittingly, that's not always the case and some laws are pretty stupid, but laws can be changed. The case of that older man stabbing the intruder...well that guy's actions were pretty commonsensical. If the guy had a gun, shooting the intruder would have been commonsensical (because the intruder posed a clear and present danger and he wasn't backing away).

[Annoyed]

So what should happen if this 25 year old does shot and kill the kid as I described? How much discretion should be given? There are people like I described in my response to Womble. Is society obligated to punish those who seek out violence versus those who had no choice but to use lethal action to defend themselves?




Your characterization of my position is just as extreme, so why not treat your position with the same level of inaccuracy? That's why I frased it as such. My position is that death is never the go to answer. Self defense can and does lead to the death of the attacker, and I am okay with that. Seeking to cause death as an only option is not okay. If there was an intruder, that intruder only needs to be stopped, not killed. Sometimes stopping them would unfortunately lead to their death. But setting out to kill as default is just wrong.

I am not asking people to juggle some mental calculous in a high stress situation, I only ask that people not have the bloodthirsty mindset. The laws require certain circumstances to be met in certain situations, those tend to be common sense based.

You hear a noise, call 911, grab your weapon, see the guy, you see a gun and you shoot. The law would be on your side, because you saw the weapon. You didn't need to go through a checklist because your actions were "commonsensical".

You hear a noise, you grab a weapon, you see a guy carrying big TV out the door, and you shoot from the back. Did you really need to shoot? No. And that law won't be on your side either.

The law in these situations should be one that follows common sense. Admittingly, that's not always the case and some laws are pretty stupid, but laws can be changed. The case of that older man stabbing the intruder...well that guy's actions were pretty commonsensical. If the guy had a gun, shooting the intruder would have been commonsensical (because the intruder posed a clear and present danger and he wasn't backing away).

First, last and always, lets remember that the attacker initiated the encounter. If he hadn't broken in and attacked, none of this happens.

And regarding your scenarios, calling 911 might get you shot by the cops responding, depending how long it plays out and how fast the cops respond. And cops generally shoot straight.

And in your second scenario, how about a warning shot accompanied by the word "Freeze" ? The intruder decides what happens next by what he does.

[jelgate]

And when Annoyed is in prison for vigilante justice and paranoia about the police, I'll laugh and sell his whiskey

[Annoyed]

And when Annoyed is in prison for vigilante justice and paranoia about the police, I'll laugh and sell his whiskey

You'll be long dead from all that bacon. Clogs your arteries like you never saw.

[jelgate]

I'm centuries younger than you. It will be a long time before my bacon habbits damage my health. That's Future Jelgate's problem. I don't envy him

[aretood2]

First, last and always, lets remember that the attacker initiated the encounter. If he hadn't broken in and attacked, none of this happens.

"Attacker" being the key word here.

And regarding your scenarios, calling 911 might get you shot by the cops responding, depending how long it plays out and how fast the cops respond. And cops generally shoot straight.

It all depends on the situation. You hear a noise, it's more than one person, and they are very close. Getting your gun first would be the best option. Going on a search and destroy mission would be foolish unless you have tactical training. But do you see what this is? Common sense action, and appropriate action at that. An intruder being an intruder is not enough to resort to deadly force. But an intruder not running away, holding a weapon, or anything threatening will require stopping force which includes shooting them with a gun.

And in your second scenario, how about a warning shot accompanied by the word "Freeze" ? The intruder decides what happens next by what he does.

A warning shot and the word "freeze" would be the commonsensical and legal thing to do. If they don't listen, the next shot better not miss. Personally, aim for the torso. Unless you're a really good shot, you won't hit the arms and legs if you aim for them. In that situation, most laws would cover you.

[SoulReaver]

calling 911 might get you shot by the cops responding

took you long enough to get it but better late than never. distrust of Godvernment authority's the first step toward curing that disease called conservatism

maybe there's still hope for Annoyed *_*

[LtColCarter]

maybe there's still hope for Annoyed *_*

Don't hold your breath!

[Annoyed]

And regarding your scenarios, calling 911 might get you shot by the cops responding, depending how long it plays out and how fast the cops respond. And cops generally shoot straight.

took you long enough to get it but better late than never. distrust of Godvernment authority's the first step toward curing that disease called conservatism

maybe there's still hope for Annoyed *_*

Hardly, that's just common sense. Police are understandably on hair triggers when entering a possible armed conflict situation, that is quite proper, it gives them a better chance of surviving the encounter.

Knowing that, is it all that wise to summon them when you yourself might be armed and might be the first person they encounter?