Yes, I would kill them if it came to it. But if it did come to that then it would be because the situation had escalated from a burglary to my life being threatened. For instance, if guns were legal and easy to get hold of here, a burglar breaks in. I ring the police and grab my gun. If I can stop him escaping without harming him then that's fine. If he runs off, no big deal, he's been scared off and probably knows that going back isn't a good idea. The only time I'd shoot him is if he decided to try and attack me, in which case it wouldn't be in defence of my property but of myself.
same here, I'd hate to kill someone (even if they are breaking the law) but I'd hate even more if my family or I got hurt/killed
I chose the last option, but that could be because the ambiguous wording led me astray: It's the final either/or in that sentence that strikes me as disquieting. I agreed with that choice reluctantly, but only if it applied to the word threat (as in threat to others' lives). Had I reflected on the word crime (which, in this case, refers only to burglary), then I would have had to choose option two. People are justified in responding to the level of the threat posed (size, build, behavioral cues and emotional affect of intruder), not the value of the property stolen. This is a difficult question for people to answer objectively. I'm nursing a few theories about that. I would argue there's an unstated anthropological directive in American (and possibly European) culture that equates manhood with violence: Cultural programming leads people to accept that the rite of passage to manhood is achieved through violent confrontation. Thus, there is a tendency to reflexively say, hell, yes, I'd kill an intruder and defend my family because that's what culturally approved males are supposed to say.
Your kind of framing this like its about who gets to be the ****er and the ****ed, you can't keep from being a victim by smashing someone's face in. That is close to the argument I'm looking at but specifically to kill them. Are you saying that if you saw an intruder leaving with say a laptop in his arms walking out the door you would pull a gun and fire to keep from "being the victim"? Someone other than me made that poll option, likely a mod and its absolutely terrible, ambiguous and non-argumentative. I even added the adrenaline one as a kind of middleground where people can admit they dont know what would happen but that wasn't middley enough? Nahhhh lets create ambiguity between a threat to life and someone who commits crime and get everyone to agree! Seriously whoever added that option admit it because that is pretty much the most childish move I've seen here. I would say this also goes to what stuartpb was kind of going on about; people getting robbed feel like they've been violated or something, their masculinity has been challenged in public and made "the victim" of which they must return that label to someone by shooting them. The scenario (was meant to be) all about an unarmed intruder and whether people might consider their very presence a "threat" enough, and whether people just wanted to murder all the criminals in the world (hint: this isn't a good idea).
You prove a decent point, most people would say they would kill someone, but inreality they wouldn't. As for me, I wouldn't kill them, rather just incapacitate them, killing them for waltzing into my house is just extreme, and would probably end up in a bigger mess. That said, I would be more inclined to harm an intruder not because of the cultural upbringing of mine, but rather because I do not want a potential threat inside my house. Well not one I welcomed in anyways. And on a side note, you are a very articulate poster.
Elton: Thanks for the props. What I find amazing is the public astonishment that often follows predictable acts of violence. The Columbine massacre is, among other things, an example of the most dangerous form of the rite of passage described above: Self + Public Humiliation = Negation of Self Negated Self + Public Murder of Tormentors = Self-Reclamation Instead of directing attention solely to the murderers and their common interests prior to the killings, why didn't local experts trace the dynamic and sequence of every interaction that preceded the bloodbath? Given the two likeliest violent reactions to public humiliation -- suicide and/or murder -- and given humiliation's potential for triggering said violence, why wouldn't experts demand a climate of zero tolerance for bullying after it was reported that the Columbine killers had been routinely targeted by school bullies? Why was it so easy to focus on their games of Doom and black trench coats instead of recognizing that systematic persecution was probably the reason they nursed urgent revenge fantasies to begin with? Why did no one address the very mechanism of their violent reaction -- locally and under the surface of the culture itself -- instead of poring over grocery lists of sartorial and stochastic hobbies? Experts and reporters seemed to seek out easy culprits (vidgames and fashion) on which to blame more easy culprits (killers disconnected from context) to sacrifice in effigy (negating them all over again in order to reaffirm the societal self after a period of fear and helplessness). What no one did was to look beyond the easy culprits to find the larger social patterns that made ordinary students into murderers. What no one sought was the signal moment of transformation: humiliation, the avoidance of which might help to avoid creating more killers. I would argue it is because questioning the level of persecution that preceded the act of murder would imply shared responsibility, which works against our cultural programming. The idea is that a strong society retaliates against violence because it is reacting to what negated its sense of safety. This is another version of the student murderers' motivation, yet no one traces the reaction back to the source. No one asks which unacknowledged act of negation set the entire machine in motion because the implication is that violence as a societally approved rite of passage is good. The important thing is to be on the right side of society, as the final experts and first bullies were. It's possible that the students who originally tormented the Columbine killers enjoyed being the subjects of later interviews and photo ops, in which they cried, held hands and professed incredulity at the inhumanity of the murderers' actions. In at least one study done on suicide bombers in the Middle East, a sociologist commented that the thing the subjects had in common was public humiliation. All had been beaten in front of their families, mocked and ejected from a group of soldiers with whom they identified, raped by other men -- in one way or another, all had been publicly negated. As long as they remain asleep to the cultural forces that provoke their reactions, certain teenagers remain as vulnerable as Manchurean Candidates: ready to use violence against others or themselves if triggered by specific events. And since humiliation is a constant high school liability, the risk of cultural programming backfiring is ever-present. Perhaps one answer is to stop treating the vulnerable as weak and unmanly people -- to encourage students to report their victimization, and for school officials to respond to it definitively. That way, sociopaths wouldn't be rewarded for demoralizing other students in order to achieve petty social goals, and victims wouldn't become sociopaths in response, feeling compelled to hurt others or themselves for narcissistic reasons. Another answer is perhaps to relegate the model itself to the junkyard. What if the socially accepted idea of manhood were entirely artificial? What if literal manhood existed simply as a matter of chromosomes and physiological stages? What if the societal concept of manhood that people and nations have fought over viciously proved completely unnecessary? If we were to discard that model, could we move on to more constructive ones -- such as mutual acceptance? No more tribal disqualification rituals, no more stoning of the strange and weak -- just rejection of the impulse to stone people whenever we feel threatened. Lock up those who are proved to be violent, but allow the weak and strange to persist, since they, too, are "men" in the most accepted sense. If it is not purely biological, then perhaps the new societal definition of manhood should be this: one who respects individuality sufficiently to avoid diminishing it in others or himself.
If you attack a criminal because you feel your manhood has been violated, you are attacking for the wrong reasons - and for reasons more calculated than a reflex, or the adrenaline-and-fear-fueled decision I mentioned in a previous post. I think people who do that are those that attack burglars when they are leaving, or even running (with or without stolen property); not - unless maybe in a very small, not-noteworthy minority - when they walk in on the burglar. I would expect such a defence ("he was taking my stuff, I couldn't stand for that!") against a criminal to be dealt with in court. I wouldn't expect "uhm, it was a reflex, I was woken up, I didn't know what was going on, I'm glad he's not all that hurt but what would you do, your honour? My girls were asleep just twenty feet away. I didn't know what to do, it was like, everything went black [red?] and I just did it and hit him over the head with that heavy ornament" to get past a hearing. Of course people can lie. There's often very little witnesses, if at all. That's the problem the law has when it comes to defending yourself in your own house. Remember when Chief Wiggum rigged up the Simpsons' house so they could catch Sideshow Bob? He then says "when he's inside, anything you do is legal". Homer then calls Flanders and asks "can you help me in the kitchen?". If you make all self-defence in your own house legal, there will be crimes that go unpunished. That's why every case should - and as far as I know, is - looked at individually. I disagree: it's in every culture. There seems both a cultural ("you have to be a/the man") and a primal reason, though. I've seen fights for both reasons, together and separate. I would like to believe (or should I say hope?) that most people who attack a burglar do so out of some primal survival instinct, because there's an intruder in the nest: and if you've ever watched any nature documentary, you know an intruder in the nest is never good news. (And, when possible, in the animal kingdom, an intruder is dealt with a lot more violently than in the human world!) I'm sure I've read somewhere on this forum that a psychologist (or someone in a related profession) is a regular poster? Or maybe people just ask for one regularly But as I tried to touch upon above, survival instinct goes deep and I'm not exactly qualified to explain that in words. The ego goes deep too, of course, but I'm not touching that with a <insert long length>-foot pole I'd like to add some examples from my country here: A man was asleep, with his wife next to him (and a rifle under his bed). He heard noises downstairs. He stayed in bed, grabbed his rifle and pointed it at the bedroom door. One of the burglars opened the door. The man fired one shot, killing the burglar. The other burglar fled. The man got off scott-free. Another man was woken up by two burglars, too. He (not waking his wife) went downstairs and, as he admitted to in court, attacked one of them after confronting him (and him not running away). He ended up injuring both burglars. He was convicted to one year of imprisonment for assault. The burglars were convicted to 200-something hours of community service for burglary. Same country, very different outcome. Should the man in the second case have been imprisoned? I don't think so. As far as I know, he contronted the one burglar he saw. That burglar didn't run. Welcome to the worst feeling in your life. It was unclear in the media if the man was aware of the second burglar when he confronted the first. But when the first didn't run, he made a split-second decision alike to "the best defence is the attack". These two men both made a decision based on potential threat. The first man had more time to make a calculated decision (though still greatly adrenaline-and-fear-fueled): I will shoot if someone enters this bedroom. His bedroom became the last resort: there's no escape; not for him or his wife, nor for the burglars. The second man could only make his decision after walking in on at least one of the burglars: that's a lot less time. However, there was an escape route for both him and the burglars. But should this man have fled his own house, leaving his wife? By all accounts, the burglars should have fled, but they didn't.
No I wouldn't pull out a gun, because I disagree with personal gun ownership. I wouldn't let the robber just walk out of my house with my property either. Why should I? Should I sign a few cheques for him on the way out too? Maybe open my safe and give him the taxi fare home with some beer money for later? Of course not. It's not about my masculinity at all, it's about protecting me and mine. If someone invades my personal space, where my family are and my property is, then they had better be ready for a fight, it's as simple as that. You may think it's macho crap or similar, but I see it as a basic human instinct, and I happen to think that anyone who invades anothers property in an act of aggrevated burglarly loses the right to demand their personal safety is ensured. If a burglar was killed by anyone who was protecting their property and family, I certainly wouldn't shed a tear or see any drama in this. It's a dog eat dog world, and one less thieving scumbag is OK by me.
Oh come on, lighten up, your original poll was phrased in such a leading and biased way I fail to see how some one altering it and adding another choice is childish. You question was, is "murder" justified if you see an unarmed intruder, you've admitted that its a tiny slice of what could happen in this situation to the point that you later said we have to imagine that the intruder is unarmed because we have yet to see a weapon. I am unsurprised that the phrasing was altered and another choice added I think what you've really wanted to know is, would we act out of revenge on someone stealing our property enough to kill them even if they posed no danger to ourselves. If that’s what you want to know, then no I probably wouldn't. However, if I'm finding someone in my house, I am aware of several things. 1. They must have used something to break in through the door (I live in a top floor flat) and therefore I have to presume that said object could be used as a weapon. 2. I have very little training in a any useful martial art, unless said burglar is dressed in fencing kit and wants to hang around for a few minutes till I put on a mask and jacket and etch out a duelling pieste. Because of this I am aware that in a fair fight I will probably lose. As such I would cheat and use whatever came to hand to increase my chance of survival. Nor would I try for a non life threatening incapaciting blow, wouldn't know how to perform one with an chance of success. And I would certainly never announce my presence with a quick fire question round on if they are armed, do they intend to hurt us etc. So my best chance is to hit hard fast with a heavy or sharp item to head chest or groin make them go down and stay down, worry about consequence after situation is resolved. 3. If I notice said burglar and in an effort not to cause a fight so as to avoid any chance of death and violence, and then open the door for them to wander out, I would likely violate some term in home insurance policy for assisting and get nothing from them, so getting screwed twice. Finally I am of the firm opinion that criminals and their families should not be allowed to raise civil suits against any party if they are injured in the carrying out of a criminal act.
I can't presume to speak for the poster to whom you're responding, but I feel confident in saying this much: He knows that. 1. You're not disagreeing with me, since I mentioned North America (where I live) and possibly Europe (where many on bit-tech live) alone out of deference. The universal possibility is implicit, for those who don't feel compelled to detach themselves from my generalization's application to "every culture." What isn't there is the denial of universality: Some countries are mentioned, but none else is not. 2. I would argue that the rite of passage described might not be inherent in "every culture" (unless, of course, you prove to possess sweeping knowledge of every culture in the world -- one thinks of matriarchal societies, for example). But what seems most apparent is the question of degree. The comparatively high level of violence in America is often linked to the prevalence of guns. Another factor is the level of identification with guns, gun culture and what that means in terms of ordinary citizens' interactions. I would argue that the level of a culture's conflation of violence with manhood is often indicated by the level of violence within that culture. Compared to America, European countries are relatively less violent. I would also argue that the profitable industry that has formed around guns in America is served by the systematic conflation of firearms with socially accepted selfhood. In the temporary absence of said illustrious shrink, proven thinker and excellent rhetorician, why not consult an anthropologist? Since virtually everyone in my family is either a therapist or a clinical psychologist, I'm a bit too familiar with their ways of looking at human problems. I'm often surprised and edified by anthropologists' analyses of those same problems because their approach seems fresher to me. With all due respect, why are you responding to each rhetorical point as if it were literal? "Well, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence." "How dare you say that, when you know perfectly well that the grass on the other side of the fence is more than likely the same color!?" "Well, you know what they say: 'He who laughs last laughs best.'" "What the hell do you mean!? The person who laughs last isn't necessarily better at it than anyone else: Another lie! Let me give you twenty examples showing why you're wrong! One! Last year on Rue Bezout, there was a laughing contest and the next to last person was judged the best laugher of them all! Two! . . . . Three! . . . ."
Personally, the problem I had with that option wasn't the tone of the question but the inexactitude of the language. I voted for it without noticing the connotations of the word on the other side of the virgule; so could someone who failed to notice the connotations of the word for which I voted. Thus, a misleading subgroup is created by the faulty wording, which it is perhaps too late for the mod to fix given the number of votes already placed. Not the end of the world, of course, but not ideal either.
I have not read the whole thread so i may be going over old ground so i apologise. Your original question is flawed imo as to me there is a very clear difference between property and HOME. Your home is your personal space, a place of refuge where you feel secure. Its the place where you can truly be yourself and you spend your most intimate time with your family. The place where you raise your children and form the bonds that will last a life time This has no monetary value but has a huge emotional value and that's why we feel so threatened when a stranger violates its sanctity. My property is not worth more that a human life but me and my families home is. I will use my cat as an example. I provide him with food, water, shelter and companionship so his base needs for life are covered. He has his territory outside which he violently defends against the intrusion of other cats, often with a result that he is physically injured defending it. Why would he do this when he can come back into the house and have everything he needs? Its because if he was wild his territory IS his existence. Its contains his food supply, his place of shelter and directly relates to his ability to find a mate. If he does not defend it, he could loose everything he needs to survive. We are 'civilised' human being but we are still animals and we still feel the need to defend our territory as much as a 'wild' animal needs to. An alternative way of looking at it would be if you owned two houses. One was your home and the other was purchased and let purely as a business decision. Would you be more upset at the rented property being burgled or your home being burgled?
So basicly you're saying that theft is OK with you? In that case i'll be coming over for a visit soon, hope you won't miss your entertainment electronics.
property no, it is all insured and that is what insurance is for, however i see no difference in someone entering my house uninvited (armed or not) and someone making a violent threat upon my GF. i would battle to the death to protect her. which does not mean that once no longer a threat i would continue to beat them. however this raises the question i'm a 17st semi pro rugby player and i'm trained for power, if i where to hit (fist) the intruder (just the once) and kill him morally i see no problem here as i used no weapon nor can it be argued that i used excessive force ( i only hit him once ) and the guy was posing a threat to myself and family. where would the majority of the forum stand in the above instance
also thinking about it the OP needs to distinguish between returning home from a night out to discover someone in your property and waking up int he middle of the night to discover someone tip-toeing around your bedroom as these are 2 very different situations that would encourage 2 very different reactions from myself
This is a great post! After Prestidigitweeze made such thoughtful points about the anthropological influences in male-dominated cultures, especially regarding the often violent rite of passage for males to prove their machismo, yakyb offered this interesting example. In particular, I like the the use of the phrase battle to the death. Such wording is immediately associated with the brave and chivalrous knight, valiantly protecting the damsel in distress. The imagery is reinforced as yakyb explains that he is trained for power. The further suggestion that a single blow from his mighty fist is all it would take to fell the evil troll wraps up the story quite well; all it needs now is a "happily ever after." If I'm not mistaken, this is the kind of thing that Prestidigitweeze is talking about when he references the cultural identity complex that young males often encounter as they mature into adult men. I don't know where yakyb resides, but here in America we see this kind of identity reinforced almost on a daily basis. Throughout popular culture, women often are portrayed as week and in need of the strong, protecting arm of a man. The more we drink from this cultural brew - potent after steeping for millenia - the more we're given to fantasies of overtaking the simple burglar with our dead-eye accuracy. One shot, one kill. Or, if we have that rare streak of humanity, our accuracy is so good that even with the heightened emotions of the moment we can analyze the situation and opt to shoot to incapacitate. After all, we've trained long and hard in L4D. Although I did not vote in the poll, I think that if I awoke to an intruder in the house, most likely I would be scared out of my wits. I might have the sense of mind to pick up the phone next to the bed and call the police, but who knows what would happen when panic took over. -monkey
The truth is, most of the males here will answer to what Prestidigitweeze said. However to answer the question on why government decided to blame video games instead of having a no tolerance to bullying, the answer is this: It would simply be against the idealism of survival of the fittest, so instead of protecting the weak, they just created another scapegoat. that said, I still do not condone gun control, it would encourage thieves. Just think for a second, would anyone rob a neighborhood fully knowing that everyone has at least a .22 under their pillow.
I believe the burglars would; but, instead of going unarmed or with small arms intent only to threaten, they would either bring bigger weapons or shoot first. Burglars are already content to break the law. If you raise the stakes to life and death, then they're already prepared to deal with the consequences. It's one reason why the 3 strikes law is flawed. If the burglar has nothing to lose, he'll have no choice but to shoot. Your argument is that an armed public would send a message to petty burglars that the house is dangerous. Fair enough. They'll wait until you're at work. On the other hand, we can look at areas with traditionally high crime (such as East LA), and wonder why all the armed citizens aren't keeping the crime rate down. -monkey
Well then I can offer the counter argument that looking at cities with sever gun control, how is it that they have an astronomical crime rate(e.g Detroit)? East LA is a region that is know to be relatively poor, especially when you look at the disparity between East LA and the other areas around it.
