Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I REALLY struggle with the argument "Home invader = Murderer" there's a difference, and if someone ACTUALLY tried to kill me or a member of my family, of anyone for that matter, I'd do what I could to stop it, of course, going a bit further in the case of me or my family. If that in some cases means killing the perpetrator, so be it, but there's a BIG difference between that, and shooting a person for being on your property.
I REALLY struggle with the argument "Home invader = Murderer" there's a difference, and if someone ACTUALLY tried to kill me or a member of my family, of anyone for that matter, I'd do what I could to stop it, of course, going a bit further in the case of me or my family. If that in some cases means killing the perpetrator, so be it, but there's a BIG difference between that, and shooting a person for being on your property.
There's no question what's going to happen to somebody if I find them having broken into my home. It has something to do with an oak ballister and his head.
But I'm curious how you feel about a different scenario...
I find that same guy having broken into my garage, where he is helping himself to thousands of dollars worth of tools. Maybe even trying to steal my motorcycle. For me, he's fair game - same as if he were in my house.
I REALLY struggle with the argument "Home invader = Murderer" there's a difference, and if someone ACTUALLY tried to kill me or a member of my family, of anyone for that matter, I'd do what I could to stop it, of course, going a bit further in the case of me or my family. If that in some cases means killing the perpetrator, so be it, but there's a BIG difference between that, and shooting a person for being on your property.
There's a difference, but how long are you willing to wait to make that determination? Are you willing to let someone, who has already broken into you house and is there to cause harm in some form, make the attempt before you would be willing to take active measures to stop them? You indicated that you'd "go a bit further" if the perp were trying to harm you or your family. Does this mean you wouldn't do as much were they trying to harm someone else, perhaps a visiting guest, within your home?
And if in the tragic case of someone killing your wife and/or kids, would you be in any way satisfied with them being merely locked up, knowing you had not taken action pre-emptively, maybe upon discovering them in the house, to terminate them if you had the opportunity?
Could this be likened to discovering a termite and deciding to wait to see if it's going to cause damage before you step on it? In both cases, the termite or the intruder, they're not there to help you. Do you place value on the life of a person who has taken premeditated and active steps to cause you harm, even to the point of inflicting deliberate injury or death?
There's no question what's going to happen to somebody if I find them having broken into my home. It has something to do with an oak ballister and his head.
But I'm curious how you feel about a different scenario...
I find that same guy having broken into my garage, where he is helping himself to thousands of dollars worth of tools. Maybe even trying to steal my motorcycle. For me, he's fair game - same as if he were in my house.
What's your view?
Why don't you just insure your things?
If I walked in on a guy stealing my tools and motorcycle I'd call the cops, and tell him so. He'd probably run off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workin_Hard
There's a difference, but how long are you willing to wait to make that determination? Are you willing to let someone, who has already broken into you house and is there to cause harm in some form, make the attempt before you would be willing to take active measures to stop them? You indicated that you'd "go a bit further" if the perp were trying to harm you or your family. Does this mean you wouldn't do as much were they trying to harm someone else, perhaps a visiting guest, within your home?
It means I wouldn't sacrifice my life trying to save someone who's not my family, but I'd do what I could. Doesn't matter if it's in my house or not.
And yes, I wouldn't shoot or kill someone (I wouldn't shoot anyone simply because I don't own a gun) unless it was very clear that mine or a member of the households life is in danger. And before you ask "What about if he tries to rape your wife/children etc" I'd do what I'd have to do, if he/she ended up dead as a result of that I wouldn't be heartbroken over it.
But if you don't see the difference between say, surprising a thief and either scare him off or immobilizing them until the cops get there, and straight up kill someone, simply for theft, then I'm not sure if you'll ever understand what I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workin_Hard
And if in the tragic case of someone killing your wife and/or kids, would you be in any way satisfied with them being merely locked up, knowing you had not taken action pre-emptively, maybe upon discovering them in the house, to terminate them if you had the opportunity?
Could this be likened to discovering a termite and deciding to wait to see if it's going to cause damage before you step on it? In both cases, the termite or the intruder, they're not there to help you. Do you place value on the life of a person who has taken premeditated and active steps to cause you harm, even to the point of inflicting deliberate injury or death?
I didn't know that my satisfaction was what should determine the sentence. If he killed my wife, I would never be satisfied, no matter what were to happen to whoever did it. The result would still be the same, my wife would still be dead, and I don't need to kill someone to try and mend my feeling of inadequacy. I'd be just as inadequate, only I'd be a murderer as well.
So no, I would not be satisfied with them being locked up, but I certainly wouldn't be satisfied with killing them either, and if by some slim chance whoever did it manages to turn their life around and do some good with it, then at least that's something, though I doubt I'd ever see it that way. But that's why we have a judicial system, because whoever is left behind won't have the clearness of mind to put things in perspective.
As far as termites go, I don't think it's a valid example, because you know what a termite will do, you don't know what some intruder will do.
If I walked in on a guy stealing my tools and motorcycle I'd call the cops, and tell him so. He'd probably run off.
First of all, my stuff is insured.
But please note the word "my"... It's my stuff, not his. It doesn't not belong to some pissant loser who wants to steal things rather than simply work for a living.
In addition, if I called the cops and they actually arrived and actually arrested the guy, he'd be back on the street that same day. And he'd come back to visit.
On the other hand, if he has a long conversation with my baseball bat, he probably won't be back.
What do you suggest, incarcerate them after they have killed your wife and kids?
The number of non-drug-related, non-gang-related homicides in the USA in which "wife and kids" are murdered by a stranger or an intruder is, in some years, zero. So, stop associating with drug dealers, and get out of the gang, and you have nothing to worry about.
What do you suggest, incarcerate them after they have killed your wife and kids?
Which means our tax money goes to take care of the morons.
Executing them is much cheaper.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.