Poll: Poll: Shall we allow deadly force on a burgular?

[Vuljatar]

It's as simple as this you walk down your stairs in the middle of the night weapon in hand you see a man and just fill him full of holes or beat him to death you are a MURDERER, you walked down those steps with the intent to kill, not to injure, not to incapacitate, but to kill and this makes you a killer.

Now on the other hand you walk down those steps and see a man taking your stuff and knee cap the son of a ***** that's an entirely different thing in one you are defending yourself in the other you are murdering someone.

The intent is not to kill, the intent is to stop the threat. If they don't die, that's fine. If they die, that's fine too, it's their own fucking fault for breaking into your house.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I'm not sure I get this concept. It's okay to wing a guy if he's robbing your house, that's not a crime, whether you knew his intent or not, but it's suddenly bad if "winging him" involves killing him? I know we'd all like to draw a nice, neat little line between "defending yourself" and "intent to kill," but throwing that into the debate as if a few seconds of panic-fueled violence and confusion involves something more than basic instinct and reaction speed is clouding the real issue, that being the rights of the burglar and the homeowner.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I'm not sure I get this concept. It's okay to wing a guy if he's robbing your house, that's not a crime, whether you knew his intent or not, but it's suddenly bad if "winging him" involves killing him? I know we'd all like to draw a nice, neat little line between "defending yourself" and "intent to kill," but throwing that into the debate as if a few seconds of panic-fueled violence and confusion involves something more than basic instinct and reaction speed is clouding the real issue, that being the rights of the burglar and the homeowner.

No because that is the real issue. Defending yourself through fear or murdering someone through anger.

 

[paragon1]

Yes, I don't think I'll ever live anywhere that doesn't go by the Castle Doctrine.

 

[firedfns13]

^ I disagree, I think they would. Though you are right, it comes down to what you say against the dead man. However, it's not likely that I'll have someone over just to kill them.

 

[firedfns13]

You also forget that in the US, people's family's have won lawsuits against the homeowners because their loved one was burglarizing a home, fell through the skylight onto a kitchen counter that had knives on it. (killing them)

 

[JRslinger]

When someone breaks into your home you have every right to feel in fear for your life. You'll likely be very scared and your heart will be racing. You'll make a fight/flight/submit decision. When confronted by an intruder some will choose to fight. There is nothing immmoral about this. Some will use a weapon to increase their chances of winning the fight. In a boxing match there are rules to make the fight fair. When a criminal smashes his way into your sanctuary there is only the law of the jungle. If you hurt or kill the criminal, having the law punish you is being victimized twice.

British law seems to want people to flee or submit. Promoting cowardice and favoring the safety of criminals is an insult to every civilized person.

 

[El Camarado]

It's as simple as this you walk down your stairs in the middle of the night weapon in hand you see a man and just fill him full of holes or beat him to death you are a MURDERER, you walked down those steps with the intent to kill, not to injure, not to incapacitate, but to kill and this makes you a killer.

Now on the other hand you walk down those steps and see a man taking your stuff and knee cap the son of a ***** that's an entirely different thing in one you are defending yourself in the other you are murdering someone.

So I should shoot him in the knee and HOPE he doesn't recover enough to turn around and blow ME away? No thank you. I'm not taking even the tiniest risk to my/my family's well-being so that a criminal may live.

Well, that is understandable, but that is extremely paranoid. Also, if the burgular draws his gun or is pointing a gun at you, than you should be able to shoot him, as that would be a threat.

So you're willing to take that chance in that situation? He can shoot just as quickly as threaten. Why do you all assume this burglar is a reasonable human being?

I agree that shooting someone in the knee is a stupid idea. However I don't know why you assume that every burgular just wants to break into your house to kill you. Again, a burgular is probably more interested in burgulary than murder. I can tell you did not read what I said last time though, or you are completely misunderstanding what I am saying. If a burgular has a gun and draws his gun, or has already drawn his gun and is pointing at you, then you can shoot him, even if he did not threaten you verbally, understand?

 

[slopeslider]

If the occupants of a house are legally allowed to kill a person burglarizing (That does not look like a real word) them, then burglars will just start killing occupants first then steal, sure the crime rate might go down but the number of deaths in burglary's would rise doesn't seem like a equal trade off to me.

SO in florida and Texas we should see a higher deathrate of homeowners involved in burglaries. But wait we dont! Whatisthisidonteven-

 

[slopeslider]

It's as simple as this you walk down your stairs in the middle of the night weapon in hand you see a man and just fill him full of holes or beat him to death you are a MURDERER, you walked down those steps with the intent to kill, not to injure, not to incapacitate, but to kill and this makes you a killer.

Now on the other hand you walk down those steps and see a man taking your stuff and knee cap the son of a ***** that's an entirely different thing in one you are defending yourself in the other you are murdering someone.

So I should shoot him in the knee and HOPE he doesn't recover enough to turn around and blow ME away? No thank you. I'm not taking even the tiniest risk to my/my family's well-being so that a criminal may live.

Well, that is understandable, but that is extremely paranoid. Also, if the burgular draws his gun or is pointing a gun at you, than you should be able to shoot him, as that would be a threat.

So you're willing to take that chance in that situation? He can shoot just as quickly as threaten. Why do you all assume this burglar is a reasonable human being?

I agree that shooting someone in the knee is a stupid idea. However I don't know why you assume that every burgular just wants to break into your house to kill you. Again, a burgular is probably more interested in burgulary than murder. I can tell you did not read what I said last time though, or you are completely misunderstanding what I am saying. If a burgular has a gun and draws his gun, or has already drawn his gun and is pointing at you, then you can shoot him, even if he did not threaten you verbally, understand?

You forget that not everyone is a physically fit 20-something with equal chances in a fight with the burglar. The elderly shouldn't have to be defensless just because they were threatened by fists, and unable to shoot. Your making everything into a perfect lab scenario when it's not. There are cases of eldery citizens being tortured for DAYSN by a group of teens because he didnt have what they wanted from him (I think this was in the UK). What would you have that man do?

An older man was walking down the street when he was threatened by a robber. He gave him his wallet immediately, but the robber continued advancing towards him. At that point he drew his gun and the robber fled. What it he had not had his handgun on him?> Would you limit him to a fistfight because the robber was unarmed?

 

[tipp6353]

I think all these people who want a free hand to kill burglars irrespective of whether they pose a threat should go ahead.

Firstly, it decreases the number of burglars. Secondly, the uncivilised, violent-minded citizens who pose a potential threat to society can get locked away for excessive use of force.

It's a double win for everyone not involved.

So if we kill it makes us uncivilized? your and idiot my friend, I will kill anyone on my property, house or that is trying to harm me with no problem and I'll makes sure its quick and painless

 

[ma55ter_fett]

Its a bummer for their families but yeah, as long as they arn't begging for there lives while groveling at your feet, use all the force nessisary to protect yourself and your belongings.

but no shooting people in the back, thats just cold... shoot em in the ass

 

[El Camarado]

Well, that is understandable, but that is extremely paranoid. Also, if the burgular draws his gun or is pointing a gun at you, than you should be able to shoot him, as that would be a threat.

So you're willing to take that chance in that situation? He can shoot just as quickly as threaten. Why do you all assume this burglar is a reasonable human being?

I agree that shooting someone in the knee is a stupid idea. However I don't know why you assume that every burgular just wants to break into your house to kill you. Again, a burgular is probably more interested in burgulary than murder. I can tell you did not read what I said last time though, or you are completely misunderstanding what I am saying. If a burgular has a gun and draws his gun, or has already drawn his gun and is pointing at you, then you can shoot him, even if he did not threaten you verbally, understand?

You forget that not everyone is a physically fit 20-something with equal chances in a fight with the burglar. The elderly shouldn't have to be defensless just because they were threatened by fists, and unable to shoot. Your making everything into a perfect lab scenario when it's not. There are cases of eldery citizens being tortured for DAYSN by a group of teens because he didnt have what they wanted from him (I think this was in the UK). What would you have that man do?

An older man was walking down the street when he was threatened by a robber. He gave him his wallet immediately, but the robber continued advancing towards him. At that point he drew his gun and the robber fled. What it he had not had his handgun on him?> Would you limit him to a fistfight because the robber was unarmed?

I absolutely hate how you are purposely misquoting what I say to make my point of view look completely incorrect. If they are not armed with a gun and approach you that still constitutes a threat, and you can still shoot them, obviously. Also, if the eldery man did not have a gun, than your point is invalid anyway because the eldery man does not have the option of using a gun IF HE DOES NOT HAVE A GUN, obviously. Of course, I doubt you will even read what I have typed.

Edit: Also, if I am making everything into a "perfect lab scenario", you are making everything a "but what if this, this, and this all happen... scenario."

 

[dpc3]

It think it's funny how all the people that say he should be charged with murder seem to think that he could have subdued them.
This is real life not some action movie. One guy cannot handle two people without exceptional skill and training.
When fighting two people at the same time the only way that a normal guy can have any chance of success is to take one of them out ASAP or he will lose.
I bet all the ignoramuses that think you can simply subdue two people have never been in, or even seen, a real fight. I used to bounce and take it from me, when you are in a fight (not posting on some boards) "necessary force" is generally maxim force, or you have no chance of winning.

Go get some real life experience.

 

[El Camarado]

I agree that shooting someone in the knee is a stupid idea. However I don't know why you assume that every burgular just wants to break into your house to kill you. Again, a burgular is probably more interested in burgulary than murder. I can tell you did not read what I said last time though, or you are completely misunderstanding what I am saying. If a burgular has a gun and draws his gun, or has already drawn his gun and is pointing at you, then you can shoot him, even if he did not threaten you verbally, understand?

Sigh. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I didn't read your post or am too dense to understand it. MY point is that why should I give a criminal a chance to reach into his coat and grab his gun? If you wait until you see HIS gun, that's enough time for him to pull the trigger and end you. If he's already pointing his gun at you, you've already lost. And as for assuming EVERY burglar is out to kill me, I know that's not the case. But you know what? It only takes ONE. And not even be out to kill me. Maybe see me, not want to go back to jail, and kill the witness. Again, would you really be willing to follow your own 'rules' in the situation, with the potentiality of you and your family being killed?

I'm sorry, it just seemed like you were completely ignoring everything I said. In any case, yes, I would be perfectly willing to wait until a criminal aims a gun at me before I choose to kill him, even if it means that I might be killed first, even if the person goes on to kill hundreds of other people, I would rather die than risk killing someone that does not actually intend to kill me.

 

[slopeslider]

Well, that is understandable, but that is extremely paranoid. Also, if the burgular draws his gun or is pointing a gun at you, than you should be able to shoot him, as that would be a threat.

So you're willing to take that chance in that situation? He can shoot just as quickly as threaten. Why do you all assume this burglar is a reasonable human being?

I agree that shooting someone in the knee is a stupid idea. However I don't know why you assume that every burgular just wants to break into your house to kill you. Again, a burgular is probably more interested in burgulary than murder. I can tell you did not read what I said last time though, or you are completely misunderstanding what I am saying. If a burgular has a gun and draws his gun, or has already drawn his gun and is pointing at you, then you can shoot him, even if he did not threaten you verbally, understand?

You forget that not everyone is a physically fit 20-something with equal chances in a fight with the burglar. The elderly shouldn't have to be defensless just because they were threatened by fists, and unable to shoot. Your making everything into a perfect lab scenario when it's not. There are cases of eldery citizens being tortured for DAYSN by a group of teens because he didnt have what they wanted from him (I think this was in the UK). What would you have that man do?

An older man was walking down the street when he was threatened by a robber. He gave him his wallet immediately, but the robber continued advancing towards him. At that point he drew his gun and the robber fled. What it he had not had his handgun on him?> Would you limit him to a fistfight because the robber was unarmed?

I absolutely hate how you are purposely misquoting what I say to make my point of view look completely incorrect. If they are not armed with a gun and approach you that still constitutes a threat, and you can still shoot them, obviously. Also, if the eldery man did not have a gun, than your point is invalid anyway because the eldery man does not have the option of using a gun IF HE DOES NOT HAVE A GUN, obviously. Of course, I doubt you will even read what I have typed.

Edit: Also, if I am making everything into a "perfect lab scenario", you are making everything a "but what if this, this, and this all happen... scenario."

You said if they have a gun pointed at you THEN you can shoot. I gave examples that defeated that point. " DID YOU EVEN READ MY POST" No I did not read you post at all. I randomly selected a post and just started ranting. OBVIOUSLY.
And those were actual examples, not what-ifs(unlike yours). If you NEED it, I can get you the info so you can check for yourself.

Statistically if I get a revolver and load one round into it, spin it and say I will fire it once at your leg, you have a high chance of ot being shot at all, and then a high chance of it not being lethal if it does hit. Maybe some people take comfort in the statistics and aren't worried, but there IS a small chance the gun will kill you. Many dont want to take that chance.

There is a small chance overall the robber will kill you. Many dont want to even risk that much.

I personally dont like killing people. I dont believe in capital punishment. Yet I also dont believe in waiting until you see a gun and ONLY a gun to fire on the criminal. I also dont think you should just shoot a fleeing criminal. But I've never been robbed, and never had to go through what those victims have. I do know if an unarmed criminal charges me at night, Im groggy and tired and he stands a good chance at defeating me, being that he's a robber and Im not a trained robber-fighter. I'd probabl shout GET OUT and If he turned and ran I would not shoot, but if he charges me I shoot center mass.