Lowing actually is a perfect example of how our country values property over lives. Granted, we're definitely not the only country guilty of it.DonFck wrote:
Pardon me, but what the fuck?lowing wrote:
I can not lie, to read that there are people in this world who refuse to defend themselves or their property because a "human life is worth more than property" is about the most pathetic act of pacifism I have ever heard.
Hell yes I would defend myself, with as much force as needed/possible by me. But your implication that you would in any case, regardless of circumstances shoot the burglar dead was IMO too much.
This is the time that one would normally ask you "what gave you the idea that I wouldn't defend myself?", but seeing that you are lowing -> you exaggerate and jump into conclusions that are as far fetched as the Virgin Mary actually being a virgin, I'm not even going to bother.
Murder has a very clear legal definition.DonFck wrote:
So breaking and entering warrants, what basically can be considered as, and actually is, murder?
Therefore, no. It doesn't warrant murder. It may very well warrant justifiable homicide, which is not an illegal act.
Nub wearing running shoes to shoot hoops.Superior Mind wrote:
Am I the only one who can just imagine Obama saying "Do these pants make my ass look fat?"
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
What you can do against someone breaking into your house depends upon your country. The US, in many states, takes it to a fairly extreme legal level, pretty well allowing you to kill anyone that breaks in. In the UK you can only engage in proportional self defense as documented in the Tony Martin case, a farmer who shot an killed a burglar as he tried to run away.
In terms of morality, you can't argue that it's morally ok because it's legally ok because the laws are different in different places. Personally I favour a proportional response law as the vast majority of people that break into your house have absolutely no desire to harm you, they will either be after your stuff or 'innocent' break-ins (Things like people breaking in because they think you're in trouble, a friend/neighbour being asked to break into your house by your wife/kids/parents etc. to retrieve something and you not knowing about it.)
In terms of morality, you can't argue that it's morally ok because it's legally ok because the laws are different in different places. Personally I favour a proportional response law as the vast majority of people that break into your house have absolutely no desire to harm you, they will either be after your stuff or 'innocent' break-ins (Things like people breaking in because they think you're in trouble, a friend/neighbour being asked to break into your house by your wife/kids/parents etc. to retrieve something and you not knowing about it.)
To everyone:
I view breaking into my house while my family and I are in it, as direct threat to me and my family, regardless as to any other motivation the person may have, therefore I will try and shoot them and not to wound. If a stranger is in my house and has potential of still raising a hand he is still a threat.
I promise you I will not be conducting interviews of any home intruders to find out just exactly what they are there for, be it my wallet or my TV or my kids. I will let the cops and the coroner spend their time figuring that one out.
I view breaking into my house while my family and I are in it, as direct threat to me and my family, regardless as to any other motivation the person may have, therefore I will try and shoot them and not to wound. If a stranger is in my house and has potential of still raising a hand he is still a threat.
I promise you I will not be conducting interviews of any home intruders to find out just exactly what they are there for, be it my wallet or my TV or my kids. I will let the cops and the coroner spend their time figuring that one out.
Last edited by lowing (2008-11-14 03:58:02)
This figures, I am going to have my morality questioned for protecting my home, yet no one on here is going t oquestion the morality of a home intruder.PureFodder wrote:
What you can do against someone breaking into your house depends upon your country. The US, in many states, takes it to a fairly extreme legal level, pretty well allowing you to kill anyone that breaks in. In the UK you can only engage in proportional self defense as documented in the Tony Martin case, a farmer who shot an killed a burglar as he tried to run away.
In terms of morality, you can't argue that it's morally ok because it's legally ok because the laws are different in different places. Personally I favour a proportional response law as the vast majority of people that break into your house have absolutely no desire to harm you, they will either be after your stuff or 'innocent' break-ins (Things like people breaking in because they think you're in trouble, a friend/neighbour being asked to break into your house by your wife/kids/parents etc. to retrieve something and you not knowing about it.)
Ya gotta love peace at any price pacifists.
Last edited by lowing (2008-11-14 04:04:36)
Good... so if you walk in while he is in the middle of stealing your TV and he dashes off immediately to escape you would not try and shoot him as he made his exit? Seen as the threat to your family is no longer there at that stage.lowing wrote:
To everyone:
I view breaking into my house while my family and I are in it, as direct threat to me and my family, regardless as to any other motivation the person may have, therefore I will try and shoot them and not to wound. If a stranger is in my house and has potential of still raising a hand he is still a threat.
I promise you I will not be conducting interviews of any home intruders to find out just exactly what they are there for, be it my wallet or my TV or my kids. I will let the cops and the coroner spend their time figuring that one out.
You have the same argumentative technique as a brick wall lowing. No one is attempting to stick up for home invaders here, if someone is in your house and they are a real threat then by all means do whatever is necessary to remove that threat. But if someone is in your home and you can deal with the situation with non-lethal force then do so... you never know, you might even get compensation for your damaged property out of them in a court of law. Proportional self defense is the key, why kill someone if you don't have to?lowing wrote:
This figures, I am going to have my morality questioned for protecting my home, yet no one on here is going t oquestion the morality of a home intruder.PureFodder wrote:
What you can do against someone breaking into your house depends upon your country. The US, in many states, takes it to a fairly extreme legal level, pretty well allowing you to kill anyone that breaks in. In the UK you can only engage in proportional self defense as documented in the Tony Martin case, a farmer who shot an killed a burglar as he tried to run away.
In terms of morality, you can't argue that it's morally ok because it's legally ok because the laws are different in different places. Personally I favour a proportional response law as the vast majority of people that break into your house have absolutely no desire to harm you, they will either be after your stuff or 'innocent' break-ins (Things like people breaking in because they think you're in trouble, a friend/neighbour being asked to break into your house by your wife/kids/parents etc. to retrieve something and you not knowing about it.)
Ya gotta love peace at any price pacifists.
You're obviously a real life tough guy who has lots of notches on their gun handle at this stage but I'd personally like to get through this life without having to kill another human being if at all possible.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-11-14 05:14:07)
If he dropped the tv in his hasting getaway, does that threaten the families ability to entertain themselves?
Nope, because I do not walk around town armed. You will be happy to know Braddock that in that scenerio, the intruder would have the upper hand and it would probably be me or someone in my family who would be hurt. Leaving the criminal, who is "misunderstood" "outta luck", or might even be a "victim of slavery", justifiably unharmed.Braddock wrote:
Good... so if you walk in while he is in the middle of stealing your TV and he dashes off immediately to escape you would not try and shoot him as he made his exit? Seen as the threat to your family is no longer there at that stage.lowing wrote:
To everyone:
I view breaking into my house while my family and I are in it, as direct threat to me and my family, regardless as to any other motivation the person may have, therefore I will try and shoot them and not to wound. If a stranger is in my house and has potential of still raising a hand he is still a threat.
I promise you I will not be conducting interviews of any home intruders to find out just exactly what they are there for, be it my wallet or my TV or my kids. I will let the cops and the coroner spend their time figuring that one out.
and you seem to fail to understand that someone in my home IS THE THREAT. I will not be engaging in any conversations to make sure we are on the same page before I shoot him.Braddock wrote:
You have the same argumentative technique as a brick wall lowing. No one is attempting to stick up for home invaders here, if someone is in your house and they are a real threat then by all means do whatever is necessary to remove that threat. But if someone is in your home and you can deal with the situation with non-lethal force then do so... you never know, you might even get compensation for your damaged property out of them in a court of law. Proportional self defense is the key, why kill someone if you don't have to?lowing wrote:
This figures, I am going to have my morality questioned for protecting my home, yet no one on here is going t oquestion the morality of a home intruder.PureFodder wrote:
What you can do against someone breaking into your house depends upon your country. The US, in many states, takes it to a fairly extreme legal level, pretty well allowing you to kill anyone that breaks in. In the UK you can only engage in proportional self defense as documented in the Tony Martin case, a farmer who shot an killed a burglar as he tried to run away.
In terms of morality, you can't argue that it's morally ok because it's legally ok because the laws are different in different places. Personally I favour a proportional response law as the vast majority of people that break into your house have absolutely no desire to harm you, they will either be after your stuff or 'innocent' break-ins (Things like people breaking in because they think you're in trouble, a friend/neighbour being asked to break into your house by your wife/kids/parents etc. to retrieve something and you not knowing about it.)
Ya gotta love peace at any price pacifists.
You're obviously a real life tough guy who has lots of notches on their gun handle at this stage but I'd personally like to get through this life without having to kill another human being if at all possible.
Possibly, but killing the perpetrator would definitely threaten your family's ability to seek compensation for their damaged property!TheAussieReaper wrote:
If he dropped the tv in his hasting getaway, does that threaten the families ability to entertain themselves?
Nope but the fear of retaliation from him does threaten my family. I am telling you now, I am gunna shoot his ass, you can discuss how evil I am as much as you care to.TheAussieReaper wrote:
If he dropped the tv in his hasting getaway, does that threaten the families ability to entertain themselves?
Of course because everyon knows home intruders are loadedBraddock wrote:
Possibly, but killing the perpetrator would definitely threaten your family's ability to seek compensation for their damaged property!TheAussieReaper wrote:
If he dropped the tv in his hasting getaway, does that threaten the families ability to entertain themselves?
Maybe you need to read my scenario again lowing... the criminal is running AWAY from your home and your family because you have caught him in the act i.e. the threat is no longer there and no one is getting hurt.lowing wrote:
Nope, because I do not walk around town armed. You will be happy to know Braddock that in that scenerio, the intruder would have the upper hand and it would probably be me or someone in my family who would be hurt. Leaving the criminal, who is "misunderstood" "outta luck", or might even be a "victim of slavery", justifiably unharmed.Braddock wrote:
Good... so if you walk in while he is in the middle of stealing your TV and he dashes off immediately to escape you would not try and shoot him as he made his exit? Seen as the threat to your family is no longer there at that stage.lowing wrote:
To everyone:
I view breaking into my house while my family and I are in it, as direct threat to me and my family, regardless as to any other motivation the person may have, therefore I will try and shoot them and not to wound. If a stranger is in my house and has potential of still raising a hand he is still a threat.
I promise you I will not be conducting interviews of any home intruders to find out just exactly what they are there for, be it my wallet or my TV or my kids. I will let the cops and the coroner spend their time figuring that one out.
More loaded than corpses.lowing wrote:
Of course because everyon knows home intruders are loadedBraddock wrote:
Possibly, but killing the perpetrator would definitely threaten your family's ability to seek compensation for their damaged property!TheAussieReaper wrote:
If he dropped the tv in his hasting getaway, does that threaten the families ability to entertain themselves?
Yeah Braddock, I am gunna just laugh it off with a "Boy that was close" and have supper and go to bed.Braddock wrote:
Maybe you need to read my scenario again lowing... the criminal is running AWAY from your home and your family because you have caught him in the act i.e. the threat is no longer there and no one is getting hurt.lowing wrote:
Nope, because I do not walk around town armed. You will be happy to know Braddock that in that scenerio, the intruder would have the upper hand and it would probably be me or someone in my family who would be hurt. Leaving the criminal, who is "misunderstood" "outta luck", or might even be a "victim of slavery", justifiably unharmed.Braddock wrote:
Good... so if you walk in while he is in the middle of stealing your TV and he dashes off immediately to escape you would not try and shoot him as he made his exit? Seen as the threat to your family is no longer there at that stage.
Only a pacifist pussy is going to simplu allow someone to just walk out the door because they got caught. Any chance you wanna get real with your scenarios?
good point Braddock, I will pull a credit report on him before I blow him awayBraddock wrote:
More loaded than corpses.lowing wrote:
Of course because everyon knows home intruders are loadedBraddock wrote:
Possibly, but killing the perpetrator would definitely threaten your family's ability to seek compensation for their damaged property!
Listen macho man... I have already said that if I'm in a 'him or me' life threatening scenario I'll pick 'him' every time. I've been in plenty of fights in my lifetime and I've always followed the adage of being prepared to do what the other guy is not and that applies to this kind of scenario too. But why use lethal force if you can do the job without using lethal force? How many people have have you killed in your life lowing? I dunno, maybe you're a stone cold killer but I can't imagine I'd rest easy with the knowledge that I took a life when it wasn't necessary.lowing wrote:
Yeah Braddock, I am gunna just laugh it off with a "Boy that was close" and have supper and go to bed.Braddock wrote:
Maybe you need to read my scenario again lowing... the criminal is running AWAY from your home and your family because you have caught him in the act i.e. the threat is no longer there and no one is getting hurt.lowing wrote:
Nope, because I do not walk around town armed. You will be happy to know Braddock that in that scenerio, the intruder would have the upper hand and it would probably be me or someone in my family who would be hurt. Leaving the criminal, who is "misunderstood" "outta luck", or might even be a "victim of slavery", justifiably unharmed.
Only a pacifist pussy is going to simplu allow someone to just walk out the door because they got caught. Any chance you wanna get real with your scenarios?
And as I've said before corpses can't buy new TV's for you.
You're just dying to kill someone... remind me never to try and enter your house if I hear an alarm or see smoke, not without a bullet proof vest on at least!lowing wrote:
good point Braddock, I will pull a credit report on him before I blow him awayBraddock wrote:
More loaded than corpses.lowing wrote:
Of course because everyon knows home intruders are loaded
You have been in plenty of fights in your life time? Well, I have only been in 5, I am (4 and 1). You can "get real" by stop trying to tell me how you are going t opause and size up the situation, find out why he is there, if he is armed and what his intentions are. Until you do "get real" your scenarios are bullshit.Braddock wrote:
Listen macho man... I have already said that if I'm in a 'him or me' life threatening scenario I'll pick 'him' every time. I've been in plenty of fights in my lifetime and I've always followed the adage of being prepared to do what the other guy is not and that applies to this kind of scenario too. But why use lethal force if you can do the job without using lethal force? How many people have have you killed in your life lowing? I dunno, maybe you're a stone cold killer but I can't imagine I'd rest easy with the knowledge that I took a life when it wasn't necessary.lowing wrote:
Yeah Braddock, I am gunna just laugh it off with a "Boy that was close" and have supper and go to bed.Braddock wrote:
Maybe you need to read my scenario again lowing... the criminal is running AWAY from your home and your family because you have caught him in the act i.e. the threat is no longer there and no one is getting hurt.
Only a pacifist pussy is going to simplu allow someone to just walk out the door because they got caught. Any chance you wanna get real with your scenarios?
And as I've said before corpses can't buy new TV's for you.
Also stop trying to invent a situation where all events lead up to me committing murder if you please, also part of that "get real" thing
Make ya deal, I will just give you fair warning not to try and enter my house unexpected or while I am sleeping. If my house is on fire and you hear the alarm, assume I am already dead or already left. I am not that heavy of a sleeper.Braddock wrote:
You're just dying to kill someone... remind me never to try and enter your house if I hear an alarm or see smoke, not without a bullet proof vest on at least!lowing wrote:
good point Braddock, I will pull a credit report on him before I blow him awayBraddock wrote:
More loaded than corpses.
You're a rookie... I'm at 15 (12 and 3), though I would rather not be to be quite honest!lowing wrote:
You have been in plenty of fights in your life time? Well, I have only been in 5, I am (4 and 1). You can "get real" by stop trying to tell me how you are going t opause and size up the situation, find out why he is there, if he is armed and what his intentions are. Until you do "get real" your scenarios are bullshit.Braddock wrote:
Listen macho man... I have already said that if I'm in a 'him or me' life threatening scenario I'll pick 'him' every time. I've been in plenty of fights in my lifetime and I've always followed the adage of being prepared to do what the other guy is not and that applies to this kind of scenario too. But why use lethal force if you can do the job without using lethal force? How many people have have you killed in your life lowing? I dunno, maybe you're a stone cold killer but I can't imagine I'd rest easy with the knowledge that I took a life when it wasn't necessary.lowing wrote:
Yeah Braddock, I am gunna just laugh it off with a "Boy that was close" and have supper and go to bed.
Only a pacifist pussy is going to simplu allow someone to just walk out the door because they got caught. Any chance you wanna get real with your scenarios?
And as I've said before corpses can't buy new TV's for you.
Also stop trying to invent a situation where all events lead up to me committing murder if you please, also part of that "get real" thing
You speak as though you know some sort of absolute truth that applies to every break-in scenario, whereas what I'm saying is use as much force as is necessary. If the guy looks like he means business then take him down, if you can make the situation safe with a shot to his leg then do that, if the situation requires more then act accordingly. Similarly, if the guy is having it on his toes and is halfway down the street then it's probably not necessary to kill him... of course there may be special exceptions to this e.g. if you live in the country and are fairly certain the culprit will be back with backup and the cops will not be there before they are (like the Padraig Nally case in Ireland).
At the end of the day though property is not worth a human life. If an intruder is killed because he was a threat to the occupant family I have no sympathy for him... but if he was killed because yer man was annoyed that someone would want to take his TV then it's a sad waste of life (albeit not a very worthy life).
Surprise parties would be good fun in your house...lowing wrote:
Make ya deal, I will just give you fair warning not to try and enter my house unexpected or while I am sleeping. If my house is on fire and you hear the alarm, assume I am already dead or already left. I am not that heavy of a sleeper.Braddock wrote:
You're just dying to kill someone... remind me never to try and enter your house if I hear an alarm or see smoke, not without a bullet proof vest on at least!lowing wrote:
good point Braddock, I will pull a credit report on him before I blow him away
"Shhhhh, he's coming.......... SURPRISE!"
...Boooooooooooooooooom
There is an absolute truth, if you break into a home you are a threat to those inside and you have warranted a gun shot wound. Yup and it might even kill you. Nothing else matters.Braddock wrote:
You're a rookie... I'm at 15 (12 and 3), though I would rather not be to be quite honest!lowing wrote:
You have been in plenty of fights in your life time? Well, I have only been in 5, I am (4 and 1). You can "get real" by stop trying to tell me how you are going t opause and size up the situation, find out why he is there, if he is armed and what his intentions are. Until you do "get real" your scenarios are bullshit.Braddock wrote:
Listen macho man... I have already said that if I'm in a 'him or me' life threatening scenario I'll pick 'him' every time. I've been in plenty of fights in my lifetime and I've always followed the adage of being prepared to do what the other guy is not and that applies to this kind of scenario too. But why use lethal force if you can do the job without using lethal force? How many people have have you killed in your life lowing? I dunno, maybe you're a stone cold killer but I can't imagine I'd rest easy with the knowledge that I took a life when it wasn't necessary.
And as I've said before corpses can't buy new TV's for you.
Also stop trying to invent a situation where all events lead up to me committing murder if you please, also part of that "get real" thing
You speak as though you know some sort of absolute truth that applies to every break-in scenario, whereas what I'm saying is use as much force as is necessary. If the guy looks like he means business then take him down, if you can make the situation safe with a shot to his leg then do that, if the situation requires more then act accordingly. Similarly, if the guy is having it on his toes and is halfway down the street then it's probably not necessary to kill him... of course there may be special exceptions to this e.g. if you live in the country and are fairly certain the culprit will be back with backup and the cops will not be there before they are (like the Padraig Nally case in Ireland).
At the end of the day though property is not worth a human life. If an intruder is killed because he was a threat to the occupant family I have no sympathy for him... but if he was killed because yer man was annoyed that someone would want to take his TV then it's a sad waste of life (albeit not a very worthy life).
Nope if you are planning a surprise party for me at 3 in the morning while me and my family are sleeping, you will probably get shot. Of course in my world, I do not have any friends stupid enough to do that to anyone.Braddock wrote:
Surprise parties would be good fun in your house...lowing wrote:
Make ya deal, I will just give you fair warning not to try and enter my house unexpected or while I am sleeping. If my house is on fire and you hear the alarm, assume I am already dead or already left. I am not that heavy of a sleeper.Braddock wrote:
You're just dying to kill someone... remind me never to try and enter your house if I hear an alarm or see smoke, not without a bullet proof vest on at least!
"Shhhhh, he's coming.......... SURPRISE!"
...Boooooooooooooooooom