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

[ethaninja]

Well, it depends. I would not like my stuff gone, and the police hardly arrive on time. If the burger was armed, then yeah.

 

[El Camarado]

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.

" 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.

If they are not armed with a gun and approach you that still constitutes a threat, and you can still shoot them, obviously.

I'll say it again, if a burgular (or any type of criminal for that matter) approaches you, and gets very close you should be able to use lethal force. I am not saying that "oh, you know, you can only fire if they have a gun, and they can just slice you to bits with a knife and you cannot defend yourself" If they have a weapon (or are unarmed and approaching you with suspected criminal intent) you should be able to fire at them. This is going nowhere, we are just repeating what we have said earlier.

Edit: Also, there is no chance I'll budge you from your position of when it is okay to fire upon a gun-bearing criminal, and no chance I'll budge from mine. I'll say this though, your way of doing things does make sensem it just seems paranoid and wrong from my standpoint. My idea probably seems idiotic and idealistic from your standpoint.

 

[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.

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

Do you really believe that people in this situation make a conscious choice to murder their attackers out of anger?

 

[Crimson Cade]

ITT: People who have never been threatened or invaded make bullshit pseudo-humanitarian statements on things they know nothing about.

Fact: A hard-boiled criminal WILL win any "fair" fight against 99% of you (Not counting the superheroes in disguise and the people who live in some Disney fantasy country). They do this for a LIVING. Your ONLY chance to win without risking life and limb is by surprise or firearm.

Fact: The vast bulk of burglaries are done by said hard-line criminals there to score money for drugs or just out of greed, and NOT to "just get by". They are not cat-woman, not Trilby, and definitely not Lupin III. You MIGHT get a shaky junkie like "Bugsy" in The Wire, but odds are, you are getting a scarred ex-con of dubious moral quality, who has spent his time in prison buffing up.

If any of the valiant defenders of criminal rights have ACTUALLY been the victim of a burglary, please post a description of your experience.

 

[traceur_]

No. Never.

If someone tries to rob you, they're only trying to take your possessions, by saying you should kill them, you're saying that your possessions are more important than their life. Is your DVD player more important than a life? Fuck off, it's not.

Unless they try to take a human life in your home, you have absolutely no right to take theirs.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I lived in South Africa for three years. I was never a victim of crime, I or my parents never owned a gun. What we did have were a pair of amusingly stealthy and vicious-to-anyone-they-didn't-like dogs, which scares the crap out of any robber. Your AK47 isn't much good if 35 kilos of angry caninie just bore you to the ground and ripped your throat out, which, believe me, they could do. I recall one time, our gardner came back late at night, and they had him on the floor in a moment before they realised who he was. And then took the oppurtunity to lick his face.


My point is, well, nothing is more of a guarantee than being prepared. While we didn't have any guns, we did employ a private security firm, were on decent terms with the local police, had alarms and were generally prepared. As such, we were never the victims of any crime, aside from the fact the servants used to occassionally borrow small things and neglect to return them.


However, since criminals in the UK do not carry guns, I would not be worried to confront one and would not need to kill him. While I would argue that prosecuting a man who is scared and frightened for his life is a foolish and sends a very, very bad message to homeowners, I know that I would simply phone the police, wander downstairs, armed with a crowbar, and order them to empty out their pockets and leave. If they tried anything, well, I might have/accidentally kill them, but I doubt it.

 

[Mr. Mango]

"Yes always"

Absolutely you should be able to use lethal force on a burglar. Waiting until your life is threatened is just giving the burglar the potential to strike first. Ultimately it is your property and either your livelihood or the fruits of your labor. Nobody has the right to take that from you without your consent. If a burglar gets shot or stabbed and dies they have nobody to blame but themselves. Even if they're just left maimed or crippled they have no right to sue.

In my opinion.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Do you really believe that people in this situation make a conscious choice to murder their attackers out of anger?

Some of them do. Some people here seem to be advocating that position.

Some asshole starts fucking with me, you bet your ass I'll beat the shit out of him and most likely kill him with my bare hands.

If you break into my house, you forfeit your right to be protected from my all-consuming rage. If I'm serious when I say get off my lawn, you had better not come in my house.

Seems to me, the moment you enter anyones property uninvited you lose any rights to your life. If some fucker thinks he can come into my house and take my things without paying the ultimate price then they are surely retarded. You break into my house, i kill you. Simple as that.

See?

 

[Mr. Mango]

@cuddly_tomato

I don't think those posters can be taken at face value. If someone was in your house you would probably be flushed adrenaline and fear. In any case I don't think it's murder. The burglar has no right to be there and you do (or should) have the right to defend your property and your life.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

@cuddly_tomato

I don't think those posters can be taken at face value. If someone was in your house you would probably be flushed adrenaline and fear. In any case I don't think it's murder. The burglar has no right to be there and you do (or should) have the right to defend your property and your life.

Ohh I know that. In fact I think the mindset of running around ones house with an AK 47 because a hungry kid is trying to take your silverware is as cowardly as you can get. But for this thread, they are really advocating the position of "I can do what I like to people who break the law".

The thing is this - yes you have the right to defend your life, but a burglar in your home does not put your life at risk. It is possible that he would kill you, but it is far more likely he will flee. Could it not also be said that a drunk driver on the road is also putting your life at risk? If I see a man, clearly drunk, fumbling with his car keys, am I to break his neck?

Taking a life is, much like arguing on the internet, serious business. It takes serious consideration.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Unless they try to take a human life in your home, you have absolutely no right to take theirs.

Says who?

The law, obviously. The law doesn't stop being the law when you arrive at your front door.

The thing is this - yes you have the right to defend your life, but a burglar in your home does not put your life at risk. It is possible that he would kill you, but it is far more likely he will flee.

First you say he will not endanger you, and then you say he might kill you. This is contradictory.

No. "Might" is not the same as "will". You have to accept risks in life. If an intruder is trying to take your stuff stop him. If he attacks you fight back. But if your first response is to try to kill him "just in case" then why shouldn't he be allowed to respond in kind?

The fact is that a burglar is a threat to your life, because you don't know what his intentions are, and unless you are stupid not a coward you are not going to wait and find out.

Fixed.

Could it not also be said that a drunk driver on the road is also putting your life at risk? If I see a man, clearly drunk, fumbling with his car keys, am I to break his neck?

I'm rolling my eyes so hard right now.

Good. You could probably do with the excersise.

 

[Seanchaidh]

No. Never.

If someone tries to rob you, they're only trying to take your possessions, by saying you should kill them, you're saying that your possessions are more important than their life. Is your DVD player more important than a life? Fuck off, it's not.

Unless they try to take a human life in your home, you have absolutely no right to take theirs.

My possessions are more important to me than the lives of a great many people. If they weren't, I'd give them to charity until I lived like a starving Ethiopian. I don't do that, and I'd wager you don't either. My stuff is much more important than the degenerates who would go about stealing from me with the expectation of legal protection against my response to their misdeeds. Unlike the case of you failing to give all your unneeded money to the starving of this world, at least burglars seem to have done something wrong.

Now I might be horribly mistaken. Maybe you live like a Franciscan monk. Maybe your presence on this earth involves absolutely no unnecessary consumption. Maybe your life and your net worth is absolutely devoted to making the lives of others better, and to saving lives. But if not? If not, you're just making an arbitrary moral distinction that lets ending the life of a criminal be worse than letting an innocent die. They are both choices that you make and they both end in death.

 

[Doctor_Insano]

an interesting topic, in canada if a burglar injures itself while in your house they can sue you. if they DIE in their injury: then they cant sue you, i say kill the burglar, after all, how do we know the burglar wasnt intending to kill you? because they said so? criminals... lying...?? say it isn't so.
we have no real rights to defend ourselves in north america from intruders, so if you kill them, make sure they have a weapon (throw a knife at them so they can catch it, a kitchen knife, and have a defensive wound first)
ironic since the police would tell you, when in doubt in a fight: kill the other person: since it is your word against theirs, and well... the dead aren't really good eye witnesses, just remember not to execyte them, that's pretty easy for the CSI to figure out.
if we were allowed to kill criminals, then i think that would discourage said criminals from commiting said crimes.

 

[TheSeventhLoneWolf]

I do recall a farmer shooting someone with a shotgun for trespassing, same fate there too.

 

[Pimppeter2]

[HEADING=3]The Crown Prosecution Service said it decided to charge him because it believed he used "excessive and gratuitous force".[/HEADING]

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2702412/Murder-rap-for-Omari-Roberts-who-knifed-burglar-and-accomplice.html#ixzz0VLbom9RG

Its not like he just found the kid and shot him. He fucking murdered him, excessively.

 

[ArcWinter]

Do you really believe that people in this situation make a conscious choice to murder their attackers out of anger?

Some of them do. Some people here seem to be advocating that position.

Some asshole starts fucking with me, you bet your ass I'll beat the shit out of him and most likely kill him with my bare hands.

If you break into my house, you forfeit your right to be protected from my all-consuming rage. If I'm serious when I say get off my lawn, you had better not come in my house.

Seems to me, the moment you enter anyones property uninvited you lose any rights to your life. If some fucker thinks he can come into my house and take my things without paying the ultimate price then they are surely retarded. You break into my house, i kill you. Simple as that.

See?

Actually, I'd go for maiming the nerves in the legs, or the lower spine, crippling them for the rest of their lives. However, if someone asks for something, I'll try the best I can to give it to them.

 

[Mr. Mango]

The thing is this - yes you have the right to defend your life, but a burglar in your home does not put your life at risk.

I disagree. Someone who has broken into my house has shown that they have malicious intent simply by committing the act. Why should I have to give the burglar the benefit of the doubt? I am not the criminal trespasser here.

If you see a drunk driver keep your distance (but keep him in sight) and immediately call the police.

I know that taking a life takes serious consideration and I am giving it just that.