http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/03/08/oregon.intruder.911/index.html?npt=NP1
TLDR - Guy in Spokane breaks into someone's house, takes a shower, then locks himself in the bathroom when the owner comes in. He then calls the cops, worried that the owner may have had guns. In the end, he got a misdemeanor charge, end of story. Listening to his 911 call, he can already be written off as "nuts," because he claims he broke in but also that he's there via having been kidnapped by Mexicans. Either way, he still falls under the "stupid criminals" title. That much is obvious.
But here's the thing. I've seen this article come up in three separate places, and what truly baffles me is how many people there are *defending* this guy and saying "it's a good thing the owner didn't actually have a gun! That could have been terrible! A harmless kid could have died!" I don't understand this logic. It reeks of complacency. Why would the homeowner take the time to assume this guy was harmless? Why would anyone assume that a guy who breaks into your house is harmless just because he can hold a conversation with you behind a door? For all the owner knew, he was bluffing until he improvised a weapon. It wouldn't be the first time someone's broken into a house and eaten its food/used its utilities with the owner lying dead in the next room. If it were my house, I'd have dragged him out and beat him into a body cast as soon as I knew he was there.
So. Discussion: Reactions to the story, and also the poll - what would you have done?
TLDR - Guy in Spokane breaks into someone's house, takes a shower, then locks himself in the bathroom when the owner comes in. He then calls the cops, worried that the owner may have had guns. In the end, he got a misdemeanor charge, end of story. Listening to his 911 call, he can already be written off as "nuts," because he claims he broke in but also that he's there via having been kidnapped by Mexicans. Either way, he still falls under the "stupid criminals" title. That much is obvious.
But here's the thing. I've seen this article come up in three separate places, and what truly baffles me is how many people there are *defending* this guy and saying "it's a good thing the owner didn't actually have a gun! That could have been terrible! A harmless kid could have died!" I don't understand this logic. It reeks of complacency. Why would the homeowner take the time to assume this guy was harmless? Why would anyone assume that a guy who breaks into your house is harmless just because he can hold a conversation with you behind a door? For all the owner knew, he was bluffing until he improvised a weapon. It wouldn't be the first time someone's broken into a house and eaten its food/used its utilities with the owner lying dead in the next room. If it were my house, I'd have dragged him out and beat him into a body cast as soon as I knew he was there.
So. Discussion: Reactions to the story, and also the poll - what would you have done?