Should a person be allowed to take anothers life?

[SOLDIER #819]

Argument loop.

And S, escape should only be considered an option if you're so severely outnumbered to the point where it's certain you would die.

Something seems up with this logic. If we're always going to assume the worst (that they broke into our homes willing to harm us, and are armed), then we should also that there is more than one armed assailant. Why would you plunge headfirst into something like that? Or are you willing to assume that they're out to get you, but that you'll be able to handle it and keep your life AND your stuff?

Tying America together with effectively blowing people's heads off from attempting to take property is a bit much, haha. We have laws in place that allow us to protect our property, but part of having these rights is not just about exercising them, but doing so responsibly and humanely. We don't execute people for robbing a store, so I'm not sure why doing it for burglary is any more reasonable. Seriously, protecting your family and yourself should be #1 for anyone, but it does not apply to property. A burglar isn't going to chopper lift your house if you leave it behind, so you only stand to lose what they can carry out (and that's only if they get away). Killing someone for stealing your TV and necklaces exceeds even the eye-for-an-eye line of thought, which is already extremely brutal. If you have a different way of going about handling crises, that's cool, but retreating is in no way a "last resort".

Protecting your family is one thing... this is turning into a thread about whether or not we should be able to point a gun at a person for stealing our stuff. It's clear where we all stand.

[Heartless Angel]

Argument loop.

Something seems up with this logic. If we're always going to assume the worst (that they broke into our homes willing to harm us, and are armed), then we should also that there is more than one armed assailant. Why would you plunge headfirst into something like that? Or are you willing to assume that they're out to get you, but that you'll be able to handle it and keep your life AND your stuff?

Well, major problem with that point is that numbers is something one can detect, by listening or looking. Intent, level of derangement and armament aren't so easily discernable. That isn't to say I wouldn't be prepared to find a second intruder, but if I can't detect one, I'll assume there isn't one and act accordingly. If he has a friend outside, he won't be coming in until I've already dealt with the first, he'll be coming in to fight me in my own home, so I have an advantage there, I'll have already been in a favorable location to shoot one, so I might even be in a desirable position for a second assailant. That said, there is still a limit to how bad one needs to assume the situation is. If I assume the absolute worst, that an army of genetically engineered super soldiers infused with Chuck Norris' DNA have been sent to assassinate me, I'm ****ed anyways. So there's not really a point to my attempting to plan for that contingency.

Anyways... you assume the worst that currently available information makes likely. What exactly that means may vary by person depending on the level of paranoia. The worst thing you can get out of being over prepared is the death of a criminal who died only because he put someone in a position to make a quick judgment under stress with limited information. The worst you can get from being underprepared is the death of yourself and your loved ones. No scum of the earth criminal's life is worth risking myself or my loved ones. I don't attach much value to such a person's life even when they're NOT in my home, NOT threatening my family, and I'm NOT under stress or working with limited information. Once he's made himself MY problem, his life is worth less than nothing to me. You break into someone's house, you accept the risk that the house may be occupied by a guy with a gun ready to blow your worthless ass to kingdom come. When you gamble, sometimes you lose. Simple as that.

Tying America together with effectively blowing people's heads off from attempting to take property is a bit much, haha. We have laws in place that allow us to protect our property, but part of having these rights is not just about exercising them, but doing so responsibly and humanely.

When the criminals start worrying about being nice to me, maybe I'll start caring about being nice to them. I'm responsible for myself and my family first... I'd say a criminal putting them in jeopardy second, but I'm reasonably certain it's nowhere near second on the list of things I'm responsible for. In any case, he's nowhere near the top of the list of things I'm responsible for protecting. Should i be ut in a position to decide whether to protect either his rights, or mine and my family's, I'm not gonna pick him.

We don't execute people for robbing a store, so I'm not sure why doing it for burglary is any more reasonable. Seriously, protecting your family and yourself should be #1 for anyone, but it does not apply to property. A burglar isn't going to chopper lift your house if you leave it behind, so you only stand to lose what they can carry out (and that's only if they get away). Killing someone for stealing your TV and necklaces exceeds even the eye-for-an-eye line of thought, which is already extremely brutal. If you have a different way of going about handling crises, that's cool, but retreating is in no way a "last resort".

A fundamental flaw exists in your execution analogy. Executions are carried out AFTER a crime, after everything that went down is known, the intent, the armament, all that is clear. Execution comes after a judgment involving ALL relevant information. A self defensive killing takes place during the crime, without the benefit of all this information. Sometimes having all the facts is a luxury that just isn't available during a crisis. Now if someone could show that the victim of the break in KNEW for a fact that the criminal was unarmed, not willing to do him harm, and would have surrendered peacefully, then yeah, I could find some fault with the guy shooting a burglar. In the event that I for whatever reason possessed all of this wonderful information, I wouldn't shoot the guy either, I'd chase him off and be done with it. But you don't always have this information. When you're working with unknowns, you do what you need to do to ensure your own safety.

Protecting your family is one thing... this is turning into a thread about whether or not we should be able to point a gun at a person for stealing our stuff. It's clear where we all stand.

It has nothing to do with thinking theft justifies murder, it has to do with taking action before you learn the criminals intent IS to do you harm at the point of his gun. If you don't know the criminal's intent, I believe you're justified in assuming the worst, and taking measures to prevent it.

[SOLDIER #819]

Well, major problem with that point is that numbers is something one can detect, by listening or looking.

Looking would mean moving in on their location(s). If I didn't want to do that... Human radar. I wish I had echo location.

A fundamental flaw exists in your execution analogy. Executions are carried out AFTER a crime, after everything that went down is known, the intent, the armament, all that is clear. Execution comes after a judgment involving ALL relevant information. A self defensive killing takes place during the crime, without the benefit of all this information.

Point taken.

I am still not sure how, based on lack of information, this rules out retreating and calling the cops, as opposed to confronting them and possibly ending with someone dead (your wife, your child, you... your whole family). If you have a gun at ready, you've no doubt planned to use it, so again, what is wrong with planning a little more? Escape routes maybe? Security systems that turn every light in the house on and plays heavenly siren bell tolls? If you can't, that's one thing, but in every extreme scenario posed (burglar may a gun, will kill) it ends with them confronting assailant with their gun anyway, rather than leaving the house and calling the cops.

Again, this is more about property than your life or your family's. You endanger both by confrontation with an unknown burglar.

It has nothing to do with thinking theft justifies murder, it has to do with taking action before you learn the criminals intent IS to do you harm at the point of his gun. If you don't know the criminal's intent, I believe you're justified in assuming the worst, and taking measures to prevent it.

Pete, if someone broke into my home, and my wife was next to me and my kids in the next room, alone, afraid, I would go to them (armed with something) and proceed to peace the **** out. Not go searching for the guy, who could have a gun, hoping against hope that I get to them before they get me. Not take the gamble that if I go down, my family will make it out alive without me. And certainly not be worrying that we'll be out a ****ing TV if we can get away with our lives intact.

And S, escape should only be considered an option if you're so severely outnumbered to the point where it's certain you would die. No one should ever be forced to leave their home or their property because someone else wants to forcibly take it. It just goes against so many things that we, at least as Americans believe in. I'm sure it's a largely universal principal though. You do what you have to do to defend your family. If that involves blowing a burglar away, then so be it.

Protecting your family is one thing... this is turning into a thread about whether or not we should be able to point a gun at a person for stealing our stuff.

I don't really want to argue the same points anymore.

-------------------------

Here is a cool site.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e/burglarymain
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...me/robberymain

Let's take solace in the fact that not all burglaries are robberies, and that robberies that occur in residences only number about 17.3% of the total, and that approximately only 119.1 out of 100,000 people are the victim of any type of robbery. At least it is rarer than most would think. People could decrease that chance even more by installing a security system, and then they wouldn't have to kill someone.

Heartless, it's nice that you had one installed. I wish other people would do so before/when buying a gun.

[Heartless Angel]

You endanger yourself and your family only by entering a conflict in which you can lose. Taking a guy from behind before he has a chance to react, you're pretty much safe. You don't walk up to the guy, slap him in the face with a latex glove and challenge him to a duel, you shoot him before he knows what happened. You can figure out where he is and what he's doing without announcing your presence and sending a formal request for a gunfight, You can listen through walls, look for shadows, there's any number of ways you can catch him before he catches you. He's playing on your turf, you've got the advantage. And you can engage in a confrontation without going to them. As i said, my guns are located in strategically advantageous locations in the rooms i keep them, so that I would be shooting from an angle an invader wouldn't be looking as he entered the room. If you're not confident in your ability to win the confrontation, then confrontation is longer your best option. However, I'm confident that I could kill an intruder safely, so I'd likely do so.

Leaving and calling the cops isn't always a viable option. The cops don't have transporter technology yet, they have to reach your location. If they're 20 minutes out, you're on your own. (also if you're that far from cops, a security system isn't going to deter many burglars either, it just sets a time limit on their shopping spree) And you're not always going to be a in convenient place to escape. If there was a burglar in my living room, there'd be no way I could exit my home without going past him, unless I felt jumping from a 3rd story window was safer than a confrontation. If you're not confident enough in your ability to fight the criminal you're well within your rights to try the window. I'm well within mine to try the gun.

The debate isn't about whether or not hunting a criminal down is the best solution to any given crime, but whether or not that action is justified if taken.

[SOLDIER #819]

If you're not confident enough in your ability to fight the criminal you're well within your rights to try the window. I'm well within mine to try the gun.

The debate isn't about whether or not hunting a criminal down is the best solution to any given crime, but whether or not that action is justified if taken.

The thread is about that. I do not think it always is (not without taking certain precautions and actions first). That's more or less where it ends. If you think keeping your things is more important than allowing a burglar to live, there's not much more I can say, either. The debate... has been jumping from point to point. For me, it was about how you do not need to try to hunt a burglar down to keep your family safe, and that retreating with your family is the "best" way to handle the situation in most cases.

Whether or not we're actually within our rights to defend our homes as described depends on the castle laws/stand your ground laws of each state and how they're interpreted. Some states recommend retreat (and will condemn not doing so), others do not give a shit.

[Heartless Angel]

I wish you'd stop attempting to reduce this to a comparison between the value of a burglar's life and property, that's not even close to what anybody else is arguing. Nobody is suggesting if you come home to find your house was broken into while you were gone that you're justified in hunting down the offender and killing him in cold blood. You're arguing as some arbiter outside of the situation, in possession of absolute knowledge of the circumstances of the attack. You're arguing as if you're debating whether or not execution is an appropriate punishment while sitting in a courtroom examining the evidence after the fact. That is not the position a victim finds himself in when he makes the decision. The real world isn't always as nice as your imaginary scenario where the criminal is unarmed, not mean, and as unwilling to harm another person as you are, and is leaving you a clear escape route, and ignoring your movements. Many of the assumptions your scenario is based upon are simply unrealistic, others are based on having information you could not possibly have in that situation. Again, in the case of my own home, if the burglar was anywhere on the second floor of my home, I could not possibly get to an exit without going right past him. So, should I risk my entire family's lives on the assumption that the criminal is a kindly pacifist who won't shoot as we walk by? Nobody is obligated to put their lives and the lives of their family on the line for the protection of a criminal.

[SOLDIER #819]

Reread my posts, please. I'm not advocating that you risk your life for a burglar, nor do I believe that anyone thinks they should chase after and gun down a burglar. And before you start quoting single sentences, please look at the statement in light of the paragraph, or in reference to who I am replying to. Hell, reread my first post. It comes down to this:

If you feel you need to kill someone to keep you and your family safe, fine. But if you're going to keep a gun in your house--if you're going to take the steps necessary to purchase and maintain a gun for the purposes of self-defense--make other plans and purchases as well. Having just the gun is careless. (This is not aimed at you directly, nor were most of my other posts. You walked in on the conversation.) When you have a gun as your first and last line of defense, it locks you into a volatile position that could easily escalate into a kill-or-be-killed situation. Yes, I understand, not everyone have these other options available to them, but most do.

[Heartless Angel]

I've read your posts. Thoroughly. You just set unreasonable, if not ridiculous requirements on when you think it's finally OK to take action which i do not agree with, and your apparent solution for a person currently being burglarized is that they should've put that security system in last month, and be ninjas who can succesfully get in range with a tazer before a burglar can pull a gun, or try threatening him with your gun, giving him time to react AND making him se you as a threat to HIS life, in spite of the drastically increased odds of you dying this way. Or jump out their bedroom window and break both legs to avoid having to hurt the criminal forcing them to harm themselves to escape from their own home. Your solutions are all based on either costly preparations (for example, that security system, I pay more for it in a year than it costs me to buy a cheap handgun and some ammo, not everyone can afford that for a less effective preventive measure that does nothing for you when the burglar breaks in anyways), or waiting until you've obtained information, which you can't obtain safely. It's not about what someone who has already killed the burglar could have would have and should have done if the situation had been different, it's about now. The burglar is in my home, what do I do NOW?

The question is not, and never was whether deadly force was the best or only option in a crisis, or if that's how all crises should be handled; but whether or not that action is justified when taken. Not everybody HAS a security system or the money for one, not everyone has invested in a taser or the martial arts lessons to fight off a burglar without hurting him. Not everyone HAS a secret escape route through their house in the event of burglary. Not everybody has invested time and energy into calculating the best way to show mercy in the event that somebody threatens their lives. These discussions are made in a slit second, under considerable stress, and fear. The question is, if somebody happens to react to this situation with deadly force, is it justifiable, or are you saying they should be punished for not dedicating all the additional time and money, and learning the mental discipline to think clearly while being burglarized? You've evaded this simple question, and answered another which isn't based on the same situation. That's why I'm arguing with you.

[SOLDIER #819]

I don't know what posts you've been reading, but they're not mine.

I don't know when the thread title was changed to, "Is it okay to kill a person in self defense when you wake up to a burglary in the middle of the night, you have no way out, and only have a gun to protect you?", but that's not what I read when I clicked the thread. We've had this same issue before. You have your own interpretation of what the course of the topic should be, and I come in and take issue with something else, then we end up having two different conversations at once. I've stated my line of thinking from the beginning, and it shouldn't be hard to infer that I do not take issue with defending oneself with lethal force in the scenario you described (it's a "dire situation", similar to having a knife pointed at you in the middle of the street, or having a gun pulled on you). We both know that 2+2=4. You don't have to confirm that I agree. Few would condemn you for something like that.

[Alpha]

Any further ass-wiping about what the topic 'should be' should be taken to VMs to avoid cluttering up the thread, thanks. It's OK to have two veins of thought on a topic; in fact, I encourage it, because nothing is achieved when a topic is reduced and reduced to the point where it no longer resembles anything interesting to read.

EDIT: Also, Rowan, can you link to the original article, please? It might be more informative to debate in the context of something, rather than each of us leaping into the distinct abstractions of our brains.

[Heartless Angel]

I'm not at all trying to reduce the scenario to one thing as you are, I'm trying to expand to force you to see that your answer is not a universally acceptable one. There are of course situations in which you can be nice. When you have all the available tools and information to make that a safe possibility, go for it. If it can be proven that you WERE in possession of all the means, knowledge, mental discipline, and opportunities in the heat of the moment to be nice and you killed the guy anyways, yes, you have committed murder as legally defined. Find me a scenario in which this is the case (or even a case in which it's possible to determine this) and i'll be quite surprised. What i'm saying is, it isn't the fault of the victim of a crime that they didn't have these costly measures in place ready to deal with a burglar, and didn't KNOW they had a better options available, because they're not sitting on the outside observing like you and I are, they're in the situation, under stress, influences by fear, and lacking in some of this extremely useful information. When people are forced to act under extreme stress and fear, you can't expect them all to be paragons of virtue and mercy. Some of them aren't going to stop and calculate the nicest thing they can possibly do.

The question I am now posing TO YOU is whether or not it's acceptable to consider the VICTIM of a crime for reacting with fear and trying to protect himself as a criminal himself for not being this perfect paragon of virtue possessing all necessary information to do the best possible thing. Is he a criminal, guilty of homicide for not being perfect and prepared in advance?

[SOLDIER #819]

VERONA, Ky. -- Earl Jones had just turned off his new TV shortly after 2 a.m. Monday when he heard a bang in the basement.

The 92-year-old Boone County farmer walked eight paces to get his loaded .22-caliber rifle from behind the bedroom door. He unwrapped a beige cloth and returned to the living room, sitting in a chair with clear view -- and shot -- of the basement door, waiting with the gun across his lap.

Some 15 minutes later, when he heard footsteps moving closer up the stairs, he raised the rifle to his eye. The intruder kicked open the door. Jones fixed his aim on the center of the man's chest and fired a single shot.

The Boone County sheriff later announced the death of the intruder, Lloyd "Adam" Maxwell, 24, of Richmond, Ky.

"These people aren't worth any more to me than a groundhog," Jones told The Enquirer. "They have our country in havoc. We got so many damned crooked people walking around today."

Two men with Maxwell, Ryan Dalton, 22, and Donnie Inabnit, 20, both of Dry Ridge, Ky., were charged with second degree burglary and tampering with evidence. Police say they removed Maxwell's body from Jones' home.

The Boone County sheriff had no information Monday night on whether Jones would be charged, but he appeared clearly to act within Kentucky's legal definition of justifiable force in defense of his home and property. An investigation is ongoing. Police haven't said if the intruders were armed.

Kentucky, like at least two dozen states, has a "castle doctrine" enshrined in its laws. That's the right to defend one's home with deadly force.

Kentucky law allows the use of physical force if someone believes it's needed to prevent criminal trespass, robbery or burglary in his or her house.

Some states, including Kentucky, have expanded the castle doctrine in recent years, giving people the right to use deadly force outside of their homes. Called "no retreat" or "stand your ground" laws, they do not require an individual to retreat before using force and allow the individual to match force for force, including deadly force, in public places.

Florida's stand-your-ground law is at the core of the Feb. 26 shooting death of black teen Trayvon Martin by crime-watch volunteer George Zimmerman.

The number of killings by private citizens nationally of a felon during the commission of a felony has increased in recent years, from 196 in 2005 to 278 in 2010, according to FBI Uniform Crime Report statistics.

In Earl Jones' mind, his actions are justified. He said he was completely within his rights to defend his life and ranch home on the 500-acre farm he has worked since 1955.

"I was hoping another one would come up -- I aimed right for his heart," said Jones, who served in the U.S. Army Air Forces from 1941 through '46. "I didn't go to war for nothing. I have the right to carry a gun. That's what I told the police this morning."

Not long after the shooting, Kenton County police responded to a call of a man who had been shot. There they found Maxwell's body and two uninjured men in a 2001 Chevrolet Impala who later, during questioning, would admit to being at Jones' home.

The break-in was the third Jones has experienced on his farm this year. In April, thieves stole 90 head of cattle from a field behind his house. In August, burglars took his television, a few thousand dollars cash and a personal check they unsuccessfully tried to cash, and they ripped his phone out of the wall.

"I can't leave the damn house to do my work outside," said Jones, removing his World War II veteran cap with his right hand and running his left through his thin white hair.

Jones has lived alone since his wife, Virginia Pearl, died in 2006. The couple had no children. Jones grew up hunting squirrels in Boone County and volunteered for the forerunner to the Air Force in 1941. He went through weapons training in the military.

He is not happy that police took the rifle used in the shooting.

"How am I going to protect myself if they come back looking for revenge?" he said.

Maxwell fell back seven steps onto a landing. Jones didn't pursue the intruders into the basement.

He called a neighbor and calmly said, "I need help. I just shot a man,' " Maxwell said.

At the same time, the two unhurt intruders, Dalton and Inabnit, fled Jones' property with Maxwell's body. Not long afterward, having driven across the county line, they called Kenton County police with a bogus story of how Maxwell had been shot.

When Boone County sheriff's deputies arrived at Jones' house, they found the basement door ajar and no one except Jones in the home.

Jones didn't like how deputies treated him.

"They stood down there with their guns on me, yelling, 'Get your hands up! Get your hands up!' " he said. "I told them, 'I'm not putting my damn hands up.' "

Finally, he did. Police approached up the long gravel driveway, flanked by a field of tobacco that Jones rents to another farmer, and questioned him.

"Was I scared? Was I mad? Hell, no," Jones said. "It was simple. That man was going to take my life. He was hunting me. I was protecting myself."

The question I am now posing TO YOU is whether or not it's acceptable to consider the VICTIM of a crime for reacting with fear and trying to protect himself as a criminal himself for not being this perfect paragon of virtue possessing all necessary information to do the best possible thing. Is he a criminal, guilty of homicide for not being perfect and prepared in advance?

Given what you have described: no, I wouldn't consider the victim of burglary a criminal.

[Alpha]

See now the problem I have with this story id that he shot, without warning, deliberately trying to kill on the first shot. Now, I understand (and it has been clearly established) that in the heat of the moment, nothing is 20-20. But before the first man approached the room he was in, he could have said, 'If you don't leave, I will shoot you'. Then he could hace fired a warning shot. Failing these, he could have shot the man in the leg, rather than the heart.

His overzealousness in the protection of his home prevented the true course of justice, because (while admittedly it is sonewhat understandable) a life is not the price of burglarly. Better to harm him non-lethally so he can be bought to justice and face a punishment -commensurate with his crime-. That's my problem with those stand your ground laws, which to my non-American eyes are positively baffling. One should only kill as a last resort. In this case, he used death as his first line of defense. I find that unjust, even while I empathise with him as a victim.

[Heartless Angel]

Warnings aren't always a good idea. Nothing is more dangerous than a scared and wounded animal. By causing non, lethal injury and proving you are capable of killing, just puts the criminal into the same fight or flight mindset. If he chooses flight, all is well, if he chooses fight, someone's going to die anyways, and by giving that warning, you've increased the chance that it's going to be you. I'd much rather see a victim kill a criminal when there was a chance that he didn't have to than see a victim killed while trying to show mercy.

[SOLDIER #819]

Reading the article makes me sad. The guy/victim isn't at fault or a criminal for what he did, but a man had his life snuffed out over property. Crooked or not, he was still human.

Yes, Heartless, I realize this is being evaluated in hindsight. Even if I can't agree with the man's mindset, I don't blame him.

[Lacquer Head]

Being a human, he understood the risks just as well as the home owner. Say the guy was sitting there in his chair and didn't shoot and the guy breaking in had a gun. In the same heat of the moment surprise, he could have fired as well. If you're aware that you legally can be killed for breaking in to a home, you're either coming in with your own weapon, or a moron. Not to mention the fact that the burglar knew the man was home and recently awake. He didn't sneak in, he kicked down the damn door. That's a bit noisy. Whether or not he had a gun, it seems that he either a) doesn't understand how sound works or b) Had some plan of intimidation to scare the home owner into THINKING they are in danger c) is santa claus and can move fast enough to get in and out before the home owner has enough time to get out of bed. The burglar took his own life into his own hands and lost it.

No one has looked at this from the burglars point of view, he is just as high strung, nervous and ready as the home owner, if not more. A burglar is a VERY dangerous person because they are in danger. But the one putting everyone in danger is the intruder. Maybe if the law WAS such that intruders can basically do whatever they want, unless you're a law enforcement agent, they would be more relaxed about it. But it's much different when the law is very clear about it.

[Pete]

One thing that is being forgotten in this thread is that this was the THIRD break-in attempt at the guys house in the span of a year. You have to take that into account when looking at his propensity for using violence. His home is being targeted for some reason, maybe because the criminals figure an older guy is living there and it would be an easy target.

If you had two previous break in attempts at your house within the past year, and say you lived far away enough where the police couldn't get to you in mere minutes, I think that it's safe to say that anyone would have an itchy trigger finger.