Thief Attempts to Steal Xbox 360, Instigates Knife Fight, Loses

[Fbuh]

Had this been in Sweden. The man who defended himself and his belongings would've been jailed, forced to pay a huge fine to the thief. And the thief would've gotten little to no punishment.

Hope the thief dies or becomes crippled for life. Scumbag.

Or Maryland. The state with one of the most crime ridden cities in America has little to no self defense laws that protect a victim.

 

[iLikeHippos]

I believe, good sir, that you have mixed the conundrum of trifling thieves with murdering marauders, a lone-wolf burglar with a rage-induced viking. It's but my guess, since you're coming off as a tad psychopathic, as you seem to pose the same solution for both of them.

Thieves will enter your home when no one's inside and try to leave without creating a ruckus.

A marauder will bash in your door, loot your shit, and if you're home, he'll gut you and rape your wife and twist the necks of your children.
And, for good measure, light a cigar, look himself in the mirror and than light your house on fire with a grin on his ugly face.

I find your solution to be perfectly viable against the latter; the marauder. That is quite logical, actually, and not to mention necessary. One life in means to defend your family and property you wouldn't want to fund him with. And yeah, I do suspect that the conversation option is not available.

However, it's just psychotic to propose the same bloody solution towards the thief, as he's most likely to be more scared than you are if he'd find you home. He'll run away at the merest sight of you and never look back. Or, if he thinks he's in the clean, act innocent and stroll away.

It's 'The easier option + what is necessary' against 'The easier option + what is unnecessary' . The easier option is evil in the latter, but necessary in the former formula. But if you happened to have no qualms with neither, than who am I to dictate?

Here's the thing, Mr. Giggles: If someone BREAKS INTO my home, it is in MY BEST INTEREST to assume that they are there to do the absolute worst, and act accordingly.

It's about survival. Now, if said trespasser immediately goes into a fetal position and starts crying when confronted, or immediately drops what they are holding and tries to flee, then using lethal force is not entirely understandable (especially in the former, the latter can be a gray area).

If said trespasser becomes confrontational and THREATENS my life by pulling a knife on me (like in the story's situation), I'm going to assume they are the "murdering marauder" REGARDLESS of what their intent or life struggles might be. They have broken into and threatened me in my own home, and by doing so have consigned themselves to getting a .44 through their worthless skull.

HEY!

That's Mr. Hippos to you, Captain Obvious!
... No, I'm sorry. Hugs?

And yeah, when you're in an actual position to defend yourself if they draw their skinning knife on you, and granting you really have run out of options, than it is quite viable to take action, making sure you are not the one to have your face ripped off and rollen around a paper roll for him to wipe his ass with later.

BUT, just because there is a slight odds of such a thing can occur, does not excuse you of killing them potential threats just because they COULD be. That would be outright schizophrenia and paranoia, wasting them the moment they walk into your door uninvited. Yes, I understand the terror of a stranger walking in, but...

What's the big deal behind the action of just screaming simply "Get out before I blow your balls of!"?, easily identifying if they want a fight or not. WHY are so many escapists so god-damn blood thirsty, so willing to do the last possible action possible? WHY?! *Tears off hair until myself grows bald* And no, it's not a matter of necessity if you just outright kill them with no hesitation what-so-ever, that's murder, period, whatever the cause.

I think I've covered everything now. But there's always someone to continuously ask questions when there barely are any left.

(This isn't necessarily directed at you, as you seem to grasp the situation quite well, but just a general statement.)

 

[w00tage]

the article says that the victim drew his OWN knife? The victim was carrying a knife?

There's more to this story methinks....

 

[One of Many]

the article says that the victim drew his OWN knife? The victim was carrying a knife?

There's more to this story methinks....

Whats wrong with carrying a knife? I carry one with me most the time, I use it at work and often forget that it's in my pocket when I go home.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

Is stabs-to-the-torso trading favorably to the Euro at the moment?

 

[Turtleboy1017]

Actually, the thief is fully at fault here. I mean, look at it. He was the one who not only broke into the guy's residence, but also the one who brandished a weapon. There's a rule of weaponry: Never pull something you're not willing to use. Therefore, the resident could assume that the criminal was willing to use the weapon.

You are aware that "Defense of property" is something enshrined under British, and thus, American common law, right? Had the thief at any point surrendered, or dropped the stuff and ran, then yes. The resident fighting would not have been justified. But we've no proof that that's what happened. You're assuming. And you know what happens when you assume... You make an "ass" out of "u" and "me"

So, it's wrong to assume that a man that carries a knife and is able to repeatedly stab a man without incurring physical injury even as the fight spilled into the city streets (and not within one's home, leading to grievous harm as in the major clause for the British 2008 Criminal Justice Act someone was kind enough to post a story about), therefore, have any capacity for extreme violence?

The simple fact that the assault ended outside someone's home would have been enough to land a person in gaol in Britain. And yes, they would have been clinically assessed in many other 1st World nations to see if there is a psychological abnormality, because it sounds like an act of impassioned violence ending in grievous bodily harm.

I need a new tv and xbox. can you give me your address so I can go and rob you? You won't fight back over something trivial like that right?

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

Much respect to the guy. Thieves need stabbing.

 

[fractured_sanity]

Note to self- If I ever go to Chicago, always wear some kind of body armour. I mean seriously I startle by the fact that one resident had carry a knife with him!

Lots of people carry knives on them as tools, not weapons.
I belong to that category.

 

[ElPatron]

Then you plug him in the head just to be sure. Sorry but people lose their right to live the moment they threaten family, me, or my belongings in my home. It's ridiculous that they punish people for protecting their own property.

That's an execution, you can't do that.

You must aim at center mass and pull the trigger. Mag dumps are justifiable because people in panic don't track their shots. Even trained police officers often can't remember how many shots they fired in their reports.

Also, aiming at the head is a bad target. You can miss, the bullet can bounce off the skull (happened before, round tipped ammunition will ALWAYS go trough the path of least resistance if it hits with an angle - and the skull is pretty hard) and very weird things have happened.


Just make sure you keep enough holes to make him bleed out faster and have a higher chance of damaging internal organs.

Just to be sure, wait a bit before calling the police. Eventually you'll call them at the same time as your neighbors.

WHY are so many escapists so god-damn blood thirsty, so willing to do the last possible action possible? WHY?! *Tears off hair until myself grows bald* And no, it's not a matter of necessity if you just outright kill them with no hesitation what-so-ever, that's murder, period, whatever the cause.

Castle Doctrine.

It means you are NOT supposed to enter my property uninvited and attempt a violent entry.

It's not a matter of being blood thirsty. It's a matter of logic. If someone breaks in, you CAN'T give yourself the luxury of giving them a chance.


You scream "get out!". He gets out of your line of fire and pulls out his own gun, shooting you.

He/she broke into the house, he/she is NOT willing to play clean. The more time you give that person to live, the worse things will end up.


Criminals can play dirty all day long. At least give citizens a chance to play dirty in one occasion.

A criminal can be wielding a illegal weapon. It might be a sawn-off shotgun, or even a full auto machine-pistol. Both would give him an advantage to you, the responsible citizen who only owns legal weapons.



So just shoot. As long as your local laws apply, of course. If not, good luck.

well to be fair, its justifiable homicide, not justifiable turning someone into a massive burden for the hospitals, possibly insurance companies.
still, you shouldnt have to kill a robber just so you don't get arrested.

If a person gets jail, it becomes a burden to the state and to the tax payers.

 

[DeadFOAM]

Am I the only one who thinks anybody stabbing a thief multiple times rather than just letting him go, over a tiny ass tv (Fits in a suitcase afterall) and a 200 dollar gaming console is perhaps a sign that the owner of said equoipment should be psychologically examined? The guy walks around with a knife as a matter of course, and is willing to kill a guy to protect negligible assets. And they just let him go about his business ...?

Ehhhh ... stop the world, I want to get off. Please tell me I'm not the only one who thinks the resident is batshit insane and should be examined -multiple times- for possible violent malignancies. If only to know whether this guy is the type of person who will slit the throats of any coworker that steals his sandwich.... please~ tell me this guy is now seeing a psychiatrist for evaluation...

You seem to believe that a person who carries a knife carries it for the sole reason of bodily harm. I carry a knife, and I have never stabbed anybody. I have pulled it in self-defense, but that has been enough to end the conflict. You also are saying that he stabbed the thief to protect his assets. It clearly states that the thief threatened him first. And yes, you are the only one who thinks he should be examined. A person pulling a knife on you with malicious intent is a far different case than a stolen sandwich.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Had this been in Sweden. The man who defended himself and his belongings would've been jailed, forced to pay a huge fine to the thief. And the thief would've gotten little to no punishment.

Hope the thief dies or becomes crippled for life. Scumbag.

Same thing in America, actually.

I've been told by a police officer that if someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, empty the entire clip into them to make sure they die. If they survive, they can sue you for everything you own. If they break into your house.

Here in California, we're told to leave the house and let the thief steal everything. The only time we can show any force is if there is a direct verifiable threat to our life, i.e. they are brandishing a gun and even then it's still a grey area. Yay for human rights!!

Here in Kentucky were told off record to fire one shot into the waste of flesh trying to rob you. Then shoot one warning shot into the floor! When my uncle asked why the second shot the officer replyed " we cant tell when you fired that warning shot an besides its easyer to patch the floor than the roof." .

Funny how houses with out gun owners out here get targeted when their gone from home.Criminals take path of least resistance.

Yeah, same with businesses too. I got a buddy that works in a pawnshop in a bad area of town. In the store, employees are allowed to open carry. Every stone on their block has been robbed except for that one.

 

[TheDooD]

I use to be a Thief until I took a knife to the knee

OT

Seriously though I hate it that criminal can sue after the fact they committed a crime. You try to rob somebody and get your teeth kicked in as a result for you being stupid they shouldn't fly in court. It's like when those fat fucks suing Fast Food places for them getting fat. People need to have more personal responsibility, when you're the main reason you got hurt you can't blame others for the shit you done.

 

[Nathan Dewar]

Had this been in Sweden. The man who defended himself and his belongings would've been jailed, forced to pay a huge fine to the thief. And the thief would've gotten little to no punishment.

Hope the thief dies or becomes crippled for life. Scumbag.

Same thing in America, actually.

I've been told by a police officer that if someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, empty the entire clip into them to make sure they die. If they survive, they can sue you for everything you own. If they break into your house.

Then you plug him in the head just to be sure. Sorry but people lose their right to live the moment they threaten family, me, or my belongings in my home. It's ridiculous that they punish people for protecting their own property.

Quoted for the truth, no matter which country you are in there will always be people that will try to get away with anything they can because they believe they have the right. I just love it when people get their just deserts.

 

[Nathan Dewar]

I love reading the comments on here in threads like these. Apparently a large chunk of The Escapist would cower in a corner, and if they did have to hurt the thief, they would probably cry and try to turn themselves in for defending themselves. Self defense apparently = psychotic to most of you. The hilarious worlds you must live in, that are full of candy cane gumdrops and chocolate rivers.

OT: I imagine the multiple stab wounds was probably because the thief wasn't even trying to stop attacking, so the resident continued to fight, since it was still going on when police arrived. Sounds like a pretty standard case of defense after having a deadly weapon pulled on you, which most do not seem to register. When you have a bladed weapon drawn on you, and you happen to have one with you, why the hell would you cower and let the man stab you and get away? The logic in this thread is... broken.

Are trolling? I mean its just forum no body really knows what they would do if they where in that situation because you would have a limited amount of time to make a decision, some people who think they would run away might decide to stand up for themselves. The only way you would really know is if it would happen to you. I personally would probably be to scared to do anything but then again I might just snap and then it would just be overkill and I probably would get arrested. You just never know until your in that situation unless your the kind of person that has to deal with this type of thing on a regular basis and even then most cops will tell you that every situation is different. Anyway I've muddied the waters enough. Next post plz

 

[Nathan Dewar]

Am I the only one who thinks anybody stabbing a thief multiple times rather than just letting him go, over a tiny ass tv (Fits in a suitcase afterall) and a 200 dollar gaming console is perhaps a sign that the owner of said equoipment should be psychologically examined? The guy walks around with a knife as a matter of course, and is willing to kill a guy to protect negligible assets. And they just let him go about his business ...?

Ehhhh ... stop the world, I want to get off. Please tell me I'm not the only one who thinks the resident is batshit insane and should be examined -multiple times- for possible violent malignancies. If only to know whether this guy is the type of person who will slit the throats of any coworker that steals his sandwich.... please~ tell me this guy is now seeing a psychiatrist for evaluation...

You seem to believe that a person who carries a knife carries it for the sole reason of bodily harm. I carry a knife, and I have never stabbed anybody. I have pulled it in self-defense, but that has been enough to end the conflict. You also are saying that he stabbed the thief to protect his assets. It clearly states that the thief threatened him first. And yes, you are the only one who thinks he should be examined. A person pulling a knife on you with malicious intent is a far different case than a stolen sandwich.

I've always considered people that carry knives to be either cowardly/psychotic or a cowboy. As long as they are wearing a cowboy hat then its ok because usually cowboys will only draw in self defence.

 

[Sentox6]

And B: your rationalisation before makes a case for vigilantism, which I willnever endorse because it has -never worked-. The law exists to protect all it's members of society, and the second we start using the law as a weapon rather than a shield first and foremost we degenerate as a culture and we can kiss our civility goodbye.

Bleeding heart sympathy for the "rights" of criminals and the almost total disregard for the victims of crime is a much stronger example of cultural degeneration than some thief getting stabbed while attempting to steal someone else's property.

I don't condone people actively meting out "justice" outside of the system. But an immediate situation like this one, where you are personally involved, is another matter entirely.

The law should exist to protect all the members of society; but to be a member of society, you should follow the law. If you don't, why should you still be afforded equal rights? To do so is a grave injustice to the victims of crime.

 

[krazykidd]

Had this been in Sweden. The man who defended himself and his belongings would've been jailed, forced to pay a huge fine to the thief. And the thief would've gotten little to no punishment.

Hope the thief dies or becomes crippled for life. Scumbag.

Same thing in America, actually.

I've been told by a police officer that if someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, empty the entire clip into them to make sure they die. If they survive, they can sue you for everything you own. If they break into your house.

Thing is , unless the criminal , attacks you , you technically aren't suppose to hurt him . Now in this case , the burglar took out a knife ,therefor the guy has the right to defend himself . Had the burglar not done that the victim could face charges .I'm guesing it's inhopes of resolving the dispute ( can it be called that?) peacefully . Or maybe avoid someone getting killed due to a misunderstanding . You know to prevent people for shooting first and asking question later .

 

[Alar]

Had this been in Sweden. The man who defended himself and his belongings would've been jailed, forced to pay a huge fine to the thief. And the thief would've gotten little to no punishment.

Hope the thief dies or becomes crippled for life. Scumbag.

Same thing in America, actually.

I've been told by a police officer that if someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, empty the entire clip into them to make sure they die. If they survive, they can sue you for everything you own. If they break into your house.

Then if you want to make sure they die, aim for the head or the heart. Or you can just only shoot them once and then again in the leg or arm to make sure they won't try to fight back.