Student kills intruder with sword

[Vuljatar]

Was the student in the wrong? Not in the slightest.

And that's exactly the point where I disagree, because you don't just kill another human being like that. He basically slaughtered him. I'm all for self-defense but it has to be proportional to the threat you're under.

He was attacked in his own home by a burglar. He had no way of knowing if the burglar was armed or not. He had no way of knowing if the burglar intended to kill him.

His life was threatened, and he incapacitated his attacker. In doing so he preserved his own life.

Sounds proportional to me.

 

[Skeleon]

Sounds proportional to me.

Whatever.
I'm glad I don't live anywhere near him.

 

[Ilovechocolatemilk]

*snip*

Yeah, I know you Americans have a fondness of vigilantism and love your guns and all that, but I don't.
I know most people on this forum'll disagree with me.
It's still fucked up, though.
You don't kill a guy for breaking into your house and nicking some stuff. You kill a guy when your (or another's) life or health are in serious danger.
We had this discussion on this forum before but because of my personal moral values, I can never change my position.

Live in Baltimore for a few years. Realize that crime is rampant and students get murdered every single year. This student was, no doubt, terrified for his life and he did what any other rational human being in the world would have done-- used whatever means available to him to protect himself.

In any state, in any COUNTRY in the world, you possess the legal right to defend your own life and the life of your family. Hell, it's more than just a legal right, it's a right inherent to every single living thing on this planet. It's as simple as that-- you can't apply pacifist philosophy which only works (if ever) when dealing with rational political entities to life-or-death situations involving people attacking you with malicious intent. When you are facing life-or-death, you fight to live. The end.

 

[obliterate]

Wow, crappy way to go, too much blood. Im staying away from your sword carrying baltimor neighborhood.

Yeah same here...couldn't they found a better way :/

 

[Ilovechocolatemilk]

Was the student in the wrong? Not in the slightest.

I'm all for self-defense but it has to be proportional to the threat you're under.

In life or death situations, taking an action immediately even if it's not the best decision is better than delaying your action until it's too late. Put yourself in the kid's shoes-- he's scared for his life and no doubt doped up on adrenaline. Did he think that cutting off the guy's hand would immediately result in that guy's death? Probably not; he was most likely trying to stop that guy from grabbing him or brandishing a weapon. While it was perhaps not the best decision he could have made, you can understand WHY he made it and considering the circumstances, he was completely justified.

 

[Seanchaidh]

How was he to know that?

Well, he charged at him. Without a knife or anything. Use your eyes before slaughtering another human being.
Where does it say he committed violent armed crimes? Maybe some other article?
Because in this one, the guy apparantly was into stealing stuff.

I know that most of you disagree with me on this. Still, to me it's a sick idea to slice a guy open over some playstations.
It's the old black'n'white-thinking all over again.
Criminal =/= murderer.

It's not black and white thinking, it's about rights and forfeiting them. If you violently attack someone in their own home, you forfeit your right to life until the conflict is resolved.

 

[norms29]

Sounds proportional to me.

Whatever.
I'm glad I don't live anywhere near him.

Why? are you in the habit of breaking into houses and charging at occupants who confront you?

 

[Zeekar]

The only response I feel is appropriate to this thread would be to address 2 issues.

1. Was he within his rights to defend himself with lethal force? Yes (probably). It's hard to say from a simple news article. No one knows what really happened (except the boy, at this point), and 9 times out of 10 the media prematurely picks a side and shoves it in your face regardless of the evidence.

2. Was he morally in the clear to cleave the guys hand off and gouge his chest out with a razor sharp sword? Highly unlikely. In my personal opinion, if you don't have the discipline and skill to use a weapon in a humane way, you shouldn't have any business wielding it.

And no, I'm not being biased. I'd have said the same thing if he shot the guy 27 times or repeatedly bashed his head in with a baseball bat. Makes no difference. If you can't incapacitate someone humanely, use another (more immediately deadly) weapon. Guns people. Use guns. Swords are obsolete. Just 'cause you can kill someone with a sword doesn't make it any less harsh.

--

Mind you, I'm not commenting on guilt or innocence here; I'm not saying the burglar's life wasn't forfeit, nor am I assuming the boy had a choice at the time he was attacked. If his story is true, I would never prosecute him. I would definitely order him to take a psychiatric review though. Violently killing someone would have a marked effect on anyone's psyche. If it didn't, there are definitely some more disturbing issues afoot.

What I'm really saying is that 1 bullet could have quickly solved the problem without causing unreasonable trauma to the assaulter. Hell, it would have probably been a much better deterrent than the sword.

P.S., No, I don't give a care about the NRA, before anyone goes assuming I'm some gun nut. Lol.

 

[Ilovechocolatemilk]

The only response I feel is appropriate to this thread would be to address 2 issues.

1. Was he within his rights to defend himself with lethal force? Yes (probably). It's hard to say from a simple news article. No one knows what really happened (except the boy, at this point), and 9 times out of 10 the media prematurely picks a side and shoves it in your face regardless of the evidence.

2. Was he morally in the clear to cleave the guys hand off and gouge his chest out with a razor sharp sword? Highly unlikely. In my personal opinion, if you don't have the discipline and skill to use a weapon in a humane way, you shouldn't have any business wielding it.

And no, I'm not being biased. I'd have said the same thing if he shot the guy 27 times or repeatedly bashed his head in with a baseball bat. Makes no difference. If you can't incapacitate someone humanely, use another (more immediately deadly) weapon. Guns people. Use guns. Swords are obsolete. Just 'cause you can kill someone with a sword doesn't make it any less harsh.

--

Mind you, I'm not commenting on guilt or innocence here; I'm not saying the burglar's life wasn't forfeit, nor am I assuming the boy had a choice at the time he was attacked. If his story is true, I would never prosecute him. I would definitely order him to take a psychiatric review though. Violently killing someone would have a marked effect on anyone's psyche. If it didn't, there are definitely some more disturbing issues afoot.

What I'm really saying is that 1 bullet could have quickly solved the problem without causing unreasonable trauma to the assaulter. Hell, it would have probably been a much better deterrent than the sword.

P.S., No, I don't give a care about the NRA, before anyone goes assuming I'm some gun nut. Lol.

The student didn't have a gun. He happened to have a katana though for whatever reason.

If an intruder breaks into your home, you use whatever you have at hand to defend yourself, even if it's a butcher's knife or a baseball bat. Also, unlike other terrible things that can happen to you, killing someone in self-defense is something that most people can live with. Yes, it's far from pleasant but it's unlikely to make you lose sleep years after the fact.

Edit: Just looked it up, in Maryland you can't even purchase a gun legally until you're 21. Thus, it's very unlikely that this student would have had a gun to begin with.

 

[Zeekar]

@Ilovechocolatemilk:

I'll grant you that; Like I said in my comment, I'm not claiming he had a choice at the time. I'm saying he should have been better prepared to use the weapon responsibly, if at all. Honestly, though, if he can't legally own a gun I doubt he can legally own a sharpened sword either; Obviously weapon laws weren't in his top priorities anyway.

I'd argue you should be able to use a gun at any age (with plenty of limitations on the "any" factor obviously) so long as you go through a thorough training process.

This is about my opinion on the morality of humanely taking a life versus causing unwarranted suffering. I'm not making a statement about the boy himself, since I don't know for sure the actual details of the situation or anything about him/his past.

 

[13lackfriday]

Pretty cool story, can't help but think of Pulp Fiction though. Hope the kid isn't punished, just defending himself from an intruder.

Yeah, talk about Tarantino-eque overkill.

Those katanas are deadly sharp...I had no idea that much.
They must be like only a molecule or 2 thick in the blade.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Honestly, though, if he can't legally own a gun I doubt he can legally own a sharpened sword either;

In America??? Really? I don't think we keep track of sharp objects anywhere.

 

[Zeekar]

In America??? Really? I don't think we keep track of sharp objects anywhere.

Trust me, they do. I went through a sword phase as a teen.

 

[Seanchaidh]

In America??? Really? I don't think we keep track of sharp objects anywhere.

Trust me, they do. I went through a sword phase as a teen.

Pretty sure you just need a parent to buy it for you or whatever.

 

[twistedshadows]

Wow, that's crazy. All the components of the story don't seem to add up quite right to me, though.

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

In America??? Really? I don't think we keep track of sharp objects anywhere.

Trust me, they do. I went through a sword phase as a teen.

Californian I'm guessing?

No, we don't keep track of sharp objects in any state I've ever lived in. Also, and this will blow your mind I know, but any metal object of a certain range of shapes can be sharpened using common household tools. Unless you want to control bench grinders and kinda rough textured rocks in addition to swords people who want edged weapons are going to have them. Give me the the dullest butterknife in your drawer and a concrete floor and I'll be able to shave with it ten minutes later.

 

[StercusCaput]

I was reading my hometown paper online when I came across this article [http://pantagraph.com/news/article_ac7c8fcc-a20c-11de-8cb4-001cc4c002e0.html] which talks about a college student who killed an intruder with a samurai sword. To sum up the article, on Monday there had been a burglary at the house where a couple of laptops and a PlayStation were stolen. On Tuesday morning one of the students who lived in the house noticed the garage door was open and took his sword to investigate. The student saw a guy in there and when the student told him to leave the guy attacked him. The student then cut off the guy's hand with the sword and gave him a huge cut to the chest which led to the intruders death.

What do you guys think? Crazy? Awesome? Crazy awesome?

(Also, I searched and couldn't find anything but if someone beat me to the punch on this just let me know)

Edit: To add a few more details, this happened in Baltimore, Maryland and it doesn't look like any charges have been pressed against the kid but I'll keep looking for updates on it if anything changes.

As someone who was compelled to sign up for this board (before I just came here to watch Zero Punctuation) to argue in favor of the 2nd amendment, I hope I don't start seeing threads about banning the sale of swords on here.

 

[StercusCaput]

*snip*

Yeah, I know you Americans have a fondness of vigilantism and love your guns and all that, but I don't.
I know most people on this forum'll disagree with me.
It's still fucked up, though.
You don't kill a guy for breaking into your house and nicking some stuff. You kill a guy when your (or another's) life or health are in serious danger.
We had this discussion on this forum before but because of my personal moral values, I can never change my position.

i believe that property rights are just as sacred as life and health. if we dont have the security to know that our hard earned possessions cannot be taken without our permission then we might as well not live because then we turn into rightless sacrificial lambs where another can take whatever they want because they can and because they arent threatening our life.

Wait, are you saying that you believe human life is worth the same as, say, a CD player?

Actually, it seems more as if you are stating that FEELING secure is equal to saving a life. That's just rediculous.

The kid should get off with some mandatory counseling and possibly community service or a short period of jail time. The proper response would've been to call the police, not go Rambo and attack the guy with a sword. I seriously doubt an unarmed burglar posed much of a threat, especially to someone with a sword.

That man would still be alive if he didn't break into the student's home, bottom line. How could the student know if he was unarmed or not? Should the student have just let the guy pick out what he wants and shown him the door? Also, John Hopkins students are not known for their physical skill. As a matter of fact, I would venture to guess that the student was built like the average gaming geek (said with love) found here. I would bet the burglar was bigger than the student, maybe he was hopped up on meth? The burglar had a criminal history and spent time in prison. I doubt he was a cream puff.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/15/samurai.sword.killing/index.html

From the article:

"Police did not release the name of the suspect, who Guglielmi said had a long criminal history, or that of the student.

...

The burglary suspect had been released from prison Saturday, Guglielmi said."



Do you want to fight an ex-con barehanded yeliw?

When did it become wrong to defend our property? Why are we sympathizing with a criminal?

 

[bigolbear]

seriously that guy deserves a medal - not a court case.

The right to defend your home is one of the things i realy admire about america.. its a short list but that point is well up there.

If that hapened in england the guy would get life. Ive been muged 3 times (all unsuccesfull) and i only reported the first one to our police force. After the fiasco of the investigations i had for defending my self AND the uselessness of the police in catching the muggers i chose on the second 2 ocasions simply not to report the incident for fear of legal reprisal and the fact i felt the whole effort a waste of time. Too many legal systems favour the guilty party, the original agressor.
My view: the second some one enters your property without your permission or makes agresive moves towards you they forfit any rights.

Id also like to say that the fact the guy made the first strike at the hand is a clear point he was defending himself - the fact he HAD to make a second strike and still chose to aim at the chest rather than the head or neck tells me even under duress this person did not want to kill.