No linked news story here, I'm just interested in finding out from here: if you found an entirely unarmed intruder on your land would you consider it entirely justified to kill them i.e. with a gun? If the language here seems incendiary or bias that should be a sign of what (at least I believe) is the real answer to this. If you want to argue about why it is alright to shoot people dead because they've attempted to steal from you go ahead. edit: There is no "edit poll" option but clearly I mean "Waste life"
If said person was in my home, and threatening my family, then yes. Otherwise no. I'd incapacitate them without killing them and alert the authorities. Nothing is worth taking a human life unless the only alternative is they take yours or your families.
If they are unarmed killing them would be over the top. If they armed in anyway or are threatening a family member in anyway then sure shooting them dead seems perfectly justified if they didn't want to get shot they shouldn't have broken in simple. Edit: My GF doesn't agree apparently kneecapping them so they don't run is the answer. Re-edit: And then forcing them to use correct grammar is her second option apparently.
I am very explicitly stating they are entirely unarmed. Now because we arn't gods we can't be certain of that fact in situ, so to imagine such a situation you must accept that an unarmed man = a burgler you have not (yet) seen with a gun/knife. But is merely being in your home a sign that they threaten your family?
They could be. I've used force for employers before, I will definitely use it for my family. Real criminals (i.e. people who knowingly commit a criminal act, such as burglary) lose a lot of rights, in my opinion, when they commit said act. If someone "pirates" my music, I won't batter him to death. But I may not think twice about doing it to a burglar who is in my house, posing a potential threat to me and my family. It's not just about property. If a person or multiple persons are in your house, already committing criminal acts (stealing your stuff); what is there to stop them from potentially harming you or your family? These are people that have willingly chosen to break the law, to take from you. What is stopping them from taking it one step further? You never know who you're dealing with, how desperate they are (drug addicts, for example) - until the day all evidence on those people and their past is presented in court. Courts cannot deal with primal instincts like self-protection or protection of your family/offspring. People go crazy over that stuff - they feel like they can't take the gamble that the person(s) will just take the property and leave. Add to that being awoken in the middle of the night (I don't know about you, but I need a few minutes to wake up and get my brain in order) and acting in that state of mind.... and you've got a murderer in a normal family man. It's a complex subject, and I don't think burglars abdicate their right to life (unless posing a direct threat); but I don't think victims of burglars should be imprisoned if they fight back and injure/kill the criminal in the process. (Unless you shoot a running burglar in the back, even adrenaline would be a bad excuse for that.) The man's got a point. When I read a news report on a criminal getting hurt whilst in the middle of a criminal act, I laugh (as I suspect most people do). It serves them right. No? I wouldn't dream of breaking into a house in a country with "lax" gun/self-defence laws. Getting shot < getting stuff. (And if you're a drug addict who needs to steal & sell stuff for your habit... too bad. Drug addiction = your choice. For whatever reason, you started it, and our modern Western nations offer plenty of ways to get off it.)
Shoot? No. if you enterr my house, my infirmity has made me abandon the 8-foot bo staff for a nastier weapon. 5 feet long, 1 1/2" PVC Schedule 50. Caps are chemically welded on it, it's half filled with buckshot and water. Force multiplier. I could kill with that, but why when I can break both your legs? Especially when I can do it in one shot. I have many tens of thousands of dollars of equipment in my house. Some of it is customer PCs. I run my business from here, I have two daughters I would be instantly worried about. I could stand and scrap without them there. With them there, I will take no chances-and in this state, even if I use lethal force, the law is on my side. Plans are available for the modified jo staff I have described, just PM.
If someone broke into my house and was stealing things, non-violently, I would hold them at gun point and call the authorities. However, if i felt threatened by them, i.e. they charge at me, then I wouldn't hesitate pulling the trigger. Property can be replaced, life cannot. If I am about to be attacked and have to fend for my life then I will "watch out for number 1" and make sure I am the one left standing. As stated by KayinBlack as well, if I do end up killing someone in my house that has broken in, then the law cannot do a damn thing against me. Huzzah for Castle Law
I think that a criminal looses any rights for their own safety once he enters someones property without permission. Anyone loses their right to life once they threaten the life of anyone else, be it in public or on someone's property. But if you find someone in your house, especially with loved ones around, you probably aren't going to be calm and rational in your decision making process! So i voted to blame adrenaline. ninja edit: and if the intruder uses bad grammar then it's definitely go time!
well thats one advantage you have, if you do it in this country EVEN in self defence and you get imprisoned. this countrys legal system has become a joke a sick sick joke.
i wouldnt kill an intruder unless it was the only option. instead a gun in their face without pulling the trigger and waiting for police is better.
So you would say your thousands of dollars worth of equipment are worth more than someone's life Part of this is to find out whether people believe castle doctrine is a good thing or bad thing. Would anyone see someone running out the house with laptops/TV in hand, and shoot them?
with chavs running rampant around where I live, I wouldnt think twice about giving an intruder a ****ing good beating. its a shame the law is never on the victims side in the UK
Zoë: Preacher, don't the Bible have some pretty specific things to say about killin'? Book: Quite specific. It is, however, somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps. Seriously though, I'm with Gunsmith. A dead chav is a service to society.
Having been the victem of a Burglary myself, knowing the financial and emotional damage (and my own long term Psycological effects). If this situation came up i would definately use violent force, but i wouldn't kill them. Probably disable them enough to tie-wrap their hands and feet together, then call the police. The only time when i would willingly use lethal force is if my GF's life is threatend (or the unmentionable "R" word).
No offence to those who have different beliefs to me, but I find the idea that some people would even consider the question whether it is right to shoot an unarmed man or women posing no danger sickens me. THEY POSE NO DANGER, they have entered your property yes, but what have they done to harm you, tread on your flower beds, knocked over a vase, anything coming close to ending their life it totally unreasonable in my opinion. If they were obviously intent upon theft, then using reasonable force to stop and detain them of course, but lethal force? No
If they are unarmed and pose no actual threat to my family then I would not kill them. Incapacitate them till the cops arrive sure, but kill them? No. Sure humans can be scum, but I wont take a life unless it's defending myself or my family from a very real threat.
and here in the UK his family would sue you for a loss of earnings. welcome to the UK justice system, please keep your hands inside the car at all times.
"Murder" is a rather loaded term, don't you think? Still, violent force isn't out of the question if someone violated my sovereignty and stole my goods, armed or not. I wouldn't consciously try to KILL them, but they shouldn't get away with this **** until the police can get around to figuring out who-dunnit. They're an overloaded force as it is.
Well. I reckon it's situation dependant. If i wake up in the middle of the night go look around the house and see some dude in my kitchen/brother's bedroom/whatever, you can rest assured i am in my groggy state ot gonna ask any questions. It's gun out and fire away. Law here dictates one warning shot if he's in your garden. In your house, none needed. There's advice floating around here that says "if you're going to shoot at someone, shoot once, shoot to kill" Shooting for wounding WILL result in the wounded person pressing charges against you (and you know the legal system is f**** enough to let him get away with that, provided he has a good enough lawyer). Shooting a second shot would mean that one shot was premeditated. On my yard, i'd probably not hoot at the person... in my house, i would. Anyone in my house without my consent and/or knowledge is a threat, is trespassing, and as such qualifies as a danger to me and those i love.
