Earl Jones, a 92-year-old World War II vet from Verona, KY, only needed a single shot from his .22-caliber rifle to take down an intruder at 2 a.m. Monday.
"I aimed right for his heart," said Jones, who served from 1941-46. "I didn't go to war for nothing."
When 24-year-old Lloyd Maxwell and two accomplices burst into Jones' living room through the basement, it was the third break-in at Jones' home this year.
He was waiting for them in a chair across the room.
"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."
-src = TDW
My opinion on this strongly leans toward yes. If someone breaks into your home, your life has then become under threat. They are imposing on you and any action you take cannot be judged by ANYONE else, since you are the one under the circumstances. One thing I hate hearing is "oh, that was unnessary to kill him blah blah" if you were put in a situation, especially in a place as sensative as your own home, any action taken would be that of necessatiy. Just as if a man attacked you with a knife, how are you going to stop him if you cannot disable him? You shoot him down, thats how. Your life is the most important life , if not that of your family. The number one thing to do is to use whatever you have at your disposal to ensure the safety of yourself and others from the person invading your home/attacking you.
I have heard many stories about criminals breaking into peoples homes and being attacked, then sueing the home owner for assualt. Its thanks to lawyers like Saul Goodman that they actually not only have charges dropped against breaking and entering, but also get payments from the man whos house they ultimately tried to rob. I know there would be different laws on this in different states, but what I want to know is your moral opinion. Under the circumstances in this particular event, do you believe this man had every right to do what he did? Can you think of any similar events that you could apply the same moral decisions too? if not, then why not?
If some one is a threat to you, another person or your property, I believe in using what ever force is necessary to end the threat. I have to give that old man props for killing some one with a ****ing .22, salty old WW II vets ftw. Personally, I wouldn't want to kill another person under any circumstances, but if I have a gun and they break into to my house, they're going to get an ass full of lead.
I don't see anything wrong with this situation.
However, there are greatly different circumstances that could alter the situation. It's one thing to go and shoot an intruder (with a legal, registered gun, where applicable) who was already inside your home via illegal means. It would be something else to simply shoot them if they were on your lawn, or to invite the asshole neighbor over for a beer and then shoot him, saying he was trying to break in.
It would also be different if it he had pulled his gun, scaring them off his property, and then shot them in the back as they ran. It would already be established that they were trying to escape and the point would have been made not to attempt another break-in there.
Essentially, I'm in the boat that you should use as much force AS NECESSARY to defend yourself. If you only have a baseball bat, and knock the intruder out, you just call the cops, you don't bludgeon them to death while they're already out cold. Just like if you shoot a guy, say in the leg. Maybe, if he's still coming at you, you put another one in him. You don't put the rest of your ammo into him to prove a point. That's just a show of excessive force.
Long story short, I see no problem in killing anyone who comes onto your land in an effort to do harm to you, your family or property. Just don't go overboard with it, and don't be stupid about it. If you knock an intruder out, just call the cops; don't tie them up and torture them.
SOLDIERcHoSeNCrao Porr Cock8- Rebels, Rogues and Sworn Brothers
Like Pete, I think it comes down to necessary harm.
I don't want to be prescriptive, and I can't even imagine the terror one must feel when someone is forcing their way onto your property -- so everything I say from here on out is meant to be taken in general terms. If a person comes onto your property to rob you, I do not think that you have the right to kill them, unless they are clearly intending to kill you or somebody else in the vicinity. If you have a gun, try to shoot them in the leg, not the head or the heart. Immobilise them, don't kill them. Causing unnecessary (excessive) harm to someone--even if they are trying to harm you in the first instance--is wrong in my mind. Security guards know this well; if they use any more force than the situation warrants (read: the amount of harm the offending person is likely to cause to you), then you're in the shit. In fact, security guards have been known to bait people into striking, so that they can justify pinning them to the ground with their arm twisted around their back.
The issue IS how to justify excessive force. Shots to the leg or arm don't always stop people. If some one is directly coming at you, ESPECIALLY on your property, you're in danger, with very real lethal consequences. I mean, if some guy is all hopped up on meth breaks into your house and charges you, you shoot him in the shoulder, it doesn't stop him, you don't have enough time for a second shot at that point. I don't LIKE the idea of a person being killed, but it is quite often necessary in some cases. The meth scenario was extreme, but you don't have to be under the influence of anything to take a bullet and keep going. Now, say a person busts in, sees you and surrenders, most force is too extreme. Same if they try to run. But therein lies a dilemma, how can any one besides the two (or more) involved know the story? So to be sure the person being attacked isn't breaking a law, you can either use a hearsay system or forbid lethal force in all scenarios.Originally Posted by Alpha
Sorry if this is non-sensible, Mr. Lacquer Head is living up to his name.
Yes. Given the choice between a criminal's life, and my rights upon which he is attempting to infringe, I'm not siding with my attacker.
As for necessary force, I agree somewhat. However I don't believe it's that easy to determine what IS necessary. If a man points a gun at me, I'm not going to shoot in the arm and hope he drops the gun, because I have no assurances that he will. He might be able to get his shot off anyways, leaving me dead, and him with nothing but a hole in his arm. If I instead go for the head, I know for a fact I'll be walking away from the confrontation. While the law would disagree with me here, I'd also be skeptical about backing down after an attacker has seemingly surrendered or attempted to flee. I have no guarantees that they won't try to come back, maybe later at night next time, so I won't be awake to defend myself. If I have any reason at all to believe that I will still be in danger, I'm taking the shot. Until I know for a fact that the threat has been neutralized, anything is fair game as far as I'm concerned. If the attacker is there to kill me, I'll show no pity in my defense, because I doubt I'd receive any in return.
Having never been in the situation, I can't say for certain I'd still be so sure of any of this when the time came, but as I am sitting here right now I can say I've got no problem with dropping someone who I have reason to believe seeks to do me harm.
For Our Lord Sheogorath, without Whom all Thought would be linear and all Feeling would be fleeting. Blessed are the Madmen, for they hold the keys to secret knowledge. Blessed are the Phobic, always wary of that which would do them harm. Blessed are the Obsessed, for their courses are clear. Blessed are the Addicts, may they quench the thirst that never ebbs. Blessed are the Murderous, for they have found beauty in the grotesque. Blessed are the Firelovers, for their hearts are always warm. Blessed are the Artists, for in their hands the impossible is made real. Blessed are the Musicians, for in their ears they hear the music of the soul. Blessed are the Sleepless, as they bask in wakeful dreaming. Blessed are the Paranoid, ever-watchful for our enemies. Blessed are the Visionaries, for their eyes see what might be. Blessed are the Painlovers, for in their suffering, we grow stronger. Blessed is the Madgod, who tricks us when we are foolish, punishes us when we are wrong, tortures us when we are unmindful, and loves us in our imperfection.
Yes. I'd never try to suggest it was possible to know, with perfect information, the intentions of a hypothetical attacker. But in cases where it may be shown that the intentions were clear, I don't have a huge problem with someone who was defending themselves being charged with causing harm. Me pick-pocketing you may be wrong, but you killing me because I pick-pocketed you is worse, even if I did invite some kind of repercussion upon myself.
I wouldn't even waste a bullet on a petty thief. But if I caught em, I'd still probably kick the crap out of em assuming I was able. If I see a weapon though, all bets are off, regardless of what the apparent intention is. If a threat is perceived, a threat will be responded to. Of course I'm far from a shining example of morality and virtue. I'm an asshole who rejects the fundamental principle of morality. So I wouldn't attach too much value to my opinion.
For Our Lord Sheogorath, without Whom all Thought would be linear and all Feeling would be fleeting. Blessed are the Madmen, for they hold the keys to secret knowledge. Blessed are the Phobic, always wary of that which would do them harm. Blessed are the Obsessed, for their courses are clear. Blessed are the Addicts, may they quench the thirst that never ebbs. Blessed are the Murderous, for they have found beauty in the grotesque. Blessed are the Firelovers, for their hearts are always warm. Blessed are the Artists, for in their hands the impossible is made real. Blessed are the Musicians, for in their ears they hear the music of the soul. Blessed are the Sleepless, as they bask in wakeful dreaming. Blessed are the Paranoid, ever-watchful for our enemies. Blessed are the Visionaries, for their eyes see what might be. Blessed are the Painlovers, for in their suffering, we grow stronger. Blessed is the Madgod, who tricks us when we are foolish, punishes us when we are wrong, tortures us when we are unmindful, and loves us in our imperfection.
Theres an inherit difference between someone pick-pocketing you and someone breaking into your home. You dont know if they are armed, if they come at you, noone should be able to tell you what you should have done from there on out. If someone attacks you, its kill or be killed. We grant our police officers and security the right to use force because we acknowledge that their job is difficult and dangerous.
We grant them the right to use necessary force. A police person should probably try using a stun gun, or threatening a person in some other way*, before shooting them. The police conduct authority in NZ would defininetly find fault in a police person firing a gun when it was not justified. Certainly they first have to make it clear that they are willing and able to fire a weapon before using it. Similarly for non-police, although again I'm not willing to say I stand by this in all cases. A home invasion in the middle of the night would probably be a case of 'all bets are off', but in a case where it is possible to know with some degree of certainty what the intentions of the person offending against you are, then you are justified only to use necessary force, before you are offending yourself. Thus, if you see me run off with your wallet, feel free to chase me and tackle me, but if you punch my face or shoot me, the you have gone beyond a justified use of force. Is what I'm saying.
* I saw a man in the street once with a sledgehammer, threatening to use it. A police woman stood legs apart with a taser, told him she would use it, and prepared to shoot it. Meanwhile, two police men stood side by side with riot shields, and banged them rhythmically into the ground, making a very intimidating sound. He surrendered his weapon.
Well obviously, but that is rarely the case in a home robbery. They're invading you personal space in an extreme way, it tends to be a bit too stressful to comprehend the entire situation. All you know is that a stranger is in your house, where you thought you were safe and they do NOT have any good motives. The time it takes to distinguish whether or not they want you stereo or your organs can easily be used against you.
Then there was the guy eating a persons face, he was warned to stop, took a bullet, kept on until they had to finish him off. Some people are all bark and no bite, but some have no fear in murdering a person.* I saw a man in the street once with a sledgehammer, threatening to use it. A police woman stood legs apart with a taser, told him she would use it, and prepared to shoot it. Meanwhile, two police men stood side by side with riot shields, and banged them rhythmically into the ground, making a very intimidating sound. He surrendered his weapon.
In what instance would it be okay to kill someone? I know we have had this thread, but since its still on topic here, would you be okay to kill someone who has murdered a beloved family member of yours? Just out of interest, what is the line, Alpha? Its against the law to kill anyone for any reason, but if someone had taken something so precious from you, would you feel you had the right and the obligation to take that persons life if you had the chance? Or would you abide by law and allow the perp to get away, or worse, have him jailed and become just another tax payer problem in jail for the rest of his life?
Well, I don't believe in vengeance killings or vigilante justice. But if you catch a person in the process of it...that's a different story altogether. I remember a story of a father that caught a man molesting his 4 year old daughter, he ended up beating the guy to death, but actually called 911 because the guy was dying, urging for them to help him. Some people were crying foul that he didn't HAVE to kill the guy, but there are just instances when I can't stand unbiased, I don't know if it's a flaw, but there are just some instances when I believe a persons life is forfeit. Home break ins and stuff like that, it's common sense that people protect themselves and such, you're aware of the danger and do it anyway.
Only in kill-or-be-killed situations, which are rarer than we'd like to think. I'm not convinced that every person who breaks into our house is out to take our lives. At the same time, I think we should be able to defend ourselves in dire situations, and to a very, very, VERY limited extent our property. So, if you're being charged by someone with a knife, or if the assailant pulls a gun on you, yeah, I get it. Someone will probably die, or at best be severely injured, and you don't want it to be you. But for anything else...?
The story in the OP wasn't all that clear. Did the robbers (were they there to rob him?) have guns? Knives? Bats? Were they unarmed? Were they threatening to kill him, or did the old guy just have an itchy trigger finger and decide to shoot first, ask questions later?
The main issue for me is the way people go about preparing themselves for problems that may arise. I have nothing against guns, given that they are used with GREAT care, but I can't fathom why so many people (even one person is a lot) seem to view them as the most optimal first line of defense. Why should it be the only self-defense tool sitting around the house? Why not a taser and/or stun gun? 1st world countries aren't like the wild west. Tech has changed since the 19th century. There are options that would work just as well as lethal force in most situations, but by keeping a only firearm, a person effectively refuses to use anything but the latter.
tazers and stun guns aren't always effective, nor do they have the same range. if some one breaks in with a gun and you have a tazer, they aren't going to be afraid. guns work wonders just by intimidation. fire off a round or show them you have a gun. if you say "I have a tazer" it's not all that intimidating, unless you are close enough to actually use it.
Guns don't simply intimidate, they force the party on the end of a barrel into a desperate situation. When you draw a gun, you show an intent to kill. If a person who breaks into your home has a gun (you can assume in mortal danger, I'd think), you are not going to announce your presence and say, "I have a gun!" You're asking to be shot. There won't be any bargaining going on, nor will you want to bargain. You'll either want to put them down or get the **** out of Dodge... right? Probably the latter, unless you want to take the risk you and/or your family's life over things.
If the person is unarmed or empty-handed, why would you bring out a gun? Just taze them... or, again, run and call the cops.
Are you implying that we should take the offenders feelings into consideration when we defend ourselves? I can understand where you and Alpha are drawing the line, but in reality I dont think those situations apply. No, its not okay to maim someone, bind them with rope, and tortue them to death, that is just common sense. If you FEEL threatened, then you should be able to do whatever you consider the right thing and noone should be able to have an opinion on that because they are not the ones in the circumstance. Sure, someone might shoot an unarmed offender, but how are they to know? Theyre probably too scared that someone broke into their home, thinking that they might get hurt. Take this old guy for example, how else is he going to defend himself? He looks frail so he probably couldn't defend himself without a gun. In a disgusting world such a this, where laws and peoples rights to defend themselves can be classed as 'excessive', im going to have to side with the victim in these circumstances. It would be hypocritical of me not too. The person breaking into someones home cannot be a victim.
The thing is, if they break in while you're home, it's a night, so you can't exactly SEE if they have a weapon. Unless you flip on the lights, which could get you shot...
I don't know the story behind the old guy, and you either don't know or you're not telling us. Yeah, he may have had bad knees, couldn't move, and been cornered with only a gun to defend himself. If that's the case, yes, of course, he did what he had to do. But he also may have heard the break in from his living room, picked up his gun, and decided to wait around for the burglars to come through his basement door so he could shoot at least one dead (would never go so far as to say he knew how many there were). Yes, he was a victim... of burglary, a non-violent crime. What is important is whether or not loss of life could have been avoided. The OP, unfortunately, is just one vaguely defined example that is part of a rather complex topic (or at least I think it's complex).
If you want to survive, then yes, you should take the gun-wielding offender's "feelings" into consideration. By that I mean, consider how they may react to a gun leveled at them so you don't end up with a bullet in your chest. If you fear for your life and your family, and you and the perpetrator both have guns, why are you trying to subdue the person/chase them out? Run, or shoot. It's fight or flight, and nothing else. If you're not sure if they have a gun (and probably haven't come into contact with the person could possibly escape), why would you even take the chance in confronting them? Is it about defending your stuff? About not feeling like your palace has been violated? About showing who's on top? Is that really worth ANYONE'S life?
Again, my issue is with preparation. We all think about what would we do if we were in this situation. We make little plans in our head on what we would do (we're doing it right now). Some people act on those plans... and of those, some do so by buying a gun. The reason most even have a gun to defend themselves with at all is because they thought through the situation. That's why it's registered, and why it just some hand-me-down stuck in a cabinet where no one can get to it. My issue is, why did they buy ONLY a gun? Are they planning to just defend themselves from intruders, or to kill them too?
Edit: Has the option of retreating even entered this discussion, or has everyone just been assuming that the most probable situation is kill-or-be-killed?
Last edited by SOLDIER #819; 09-12-2012 at 05:13 PM.
I guess the difference between us is that I dont see anything wrong with that. If someone breaks into my home, I assume they are armed, I assume they are going to harm me and my family, so I take the necassary precautions and I kill out of necessity. Its not safe to assume they are unarmed and good luck to you if you atttempt to find out before you make your move, therefor increasing the risk of your injury/death just so you can justify defending yourself. You think bringing a gun to a gunfight makes things worse? You know what, it could go both ways. Perp might leave (most likely as the risk isnt worth the burglery) or he might be out for blood. How do you know its a burglery? Maybe someone is trying to kill you or your family? These are things you can never know, therefor circumstances are uncertain other than the fact someone has broken into your home. What im pushing really hard for here is that these kind of circumstances warrant you to shoot someone if you are able.
Why are you so hell-bent on confronting them with a gun and shooting to kill? It's not a given that you're cornered, nor that you need to even be around after the first signs of trouble. Confirmation is not necessary. I'm not saying defending your home isn't an option, but I'm not clear on where this obsession with confrontation is coming from. It's like the only thing that's being offered as a valid solution here.
Well, what would you do, S, if someone broke into your house in the middle of the night. You waken to the sound of glass breaking and an obvious intruder attempting to access your home. What would you do, if you had a wife and children in your house?
Personally, I don't care if it's the freakin Pope coming to personally bless my family and annoint my kids as saints. You do not enter another persons house without permission. It's as simple as that. What gives anyone the right to try and take what is yours?
The idea of the confrontation comes from the situation at hand. It wouldn't make sense any other way. There's no split second decision to take a life if your shit is already stolen, or if you know who stole it, but they aren't in the process of it. This situation is about the here and now. Someone comes onto your property, breaks into your house with the express intent of harming you or your property. You have every right to end them. What do you do? That is the question being asked. It's entirely about confrontation, because the situation is purely based out of it. Are you saying you'd go and hide, and run around your house hoping that the intruders didn't see you, while you called the cops and hoped for the best? I'm not gonna lie, my apartment isn't big enough where I can simply hide in the attic while people loot my home. If someone were to barge into my house right now, I'd be about 30 feet away from them, and I don't have a choice as to where to run to. I'll be straight ahead, with the baseball bat I have in the closet.
SOLDIERcHoSeNCrao Porr Cock8- Rebels, Rogues and Sworn Brothers
I'm not sure what the obsession with ambiguity is. The fact remains, you dont know anything about the reason why a person is breaking into your home, let alone if they are armed or not. All im saying is that people should not be prosecuted for defending themselves, that's all.
Exactly, it's the same situation if some one pulls a fake gun on you, but you don't know it's fake. Regardless if they COULD hurt you, it's the way the situation seems to be. I'm not saying burglary deserves death, I'm saying potential danger should be met with defense, and I really can't think of a situation with more potential UNKNOWN danger. The reason a lot more people have guns is due to the fact that guns serve more purpose than just self defense. People shoot for sport and hunting. It's also damn good for intimidation. If you're in a situation like this, you can't wait around to determine whether or not your in danger, because what ever you do to determine the situation could cost you your life. It's also not a good idea to go head first into such a conflict. Based on the fact that he had been burglarized 2 times before, I assume he lives in a bad neighborhood. When you deal with gang shootings and stuff like that, you realize that a lot of people hold no value on a victims life and will kill you if you try to get in their way.
Hypothetically, if you catch an unarmed person, and are aware of the fact that they are unarmed, and kill them, it's pure murder. But how can you even determine such a thing? However, if I were in such a situation, I would definitely hold them at gun point and call the cops.
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.
You're asking me if I would sneak around in my house, in the dark, with a gun trying to get out? No, probably not. If I feared for my safety or the safety of my family enough to where I'd keep an instrument made to kill, I'd have gotten security system that I could advertise to the public beforehand, because buying a gun first is like putting the cart before the horse. Burglars can't check if you have a gun, but they'll stay away from a house that will go berserk if they try something stupid. That alone guarantees I wouldn't have to be wandering around my own home blind. I'd probably have bought some alternative weapon to go along with the gun.
Again, it's not that I think that guns are bad, or whatever, it's just that when you keep one for self-defense, it's an admission that you will most likely end up killing someone should you have to use it. Taking a life is not something to be taken lightly, even if it is a person that has broken into your own home. If you're worried about you and your family's safety that much, don't do it halfway. Security systems are affordable, and certainly cheaper than what you stand to lose.
Rowan, I think even if you do not know who is in your house, or what they may have on them, there are still ways to avoid having to kill WITHOUT ending up dead. If you have a gun, you should have other tools. You should rehearse methods of escape. You can always run. Jump out your bedroom window.It's the least you can do, given how terrible the alternative is. Not doing so is amazingly careless, and could end with you doing something unpardonable.
Lacquer, if I managed to catch a person in my home unaware, I'd probably tase them, no questions asked. I doubt this would fall under use of excessive force, as a bullet to the back would. They won't die, and probably won't get back up if you warn them. If they do... well, you know what you'd do. But that's only if you're lucky, and not something that you can really plan for. If you're assuming they have a gun... confronting them, holding them at gunpoint and hoping they don't try anything is just too dangerous. If they pull something in the dark, or try to use your own weapon against you, it'd be a disaster. So again, I think you have to be prepared to shoot on sight if you draw a gun.
And you're right, people do keep guns for sport around... but if you're not keeping them for security in mind, they probably won't be placed somewhere you (or your kids, or anyone really) could easily get to, nor would they be loaded. It's not viable. So again, people don't JUST HAPPEN to have guns lying around, ready for use. It's planned... so I say plan more. There are very, VERY few situations where you can't.
Last edited by SOLDIER #819; 09-12-2012 at 08:16 PM.
If gun legislation in the States is anything like what it is here, don't guns have to be kept apart from ammo, in two different locked containers, in different rooms? How, pray tell, does one move between two rooms, in the dark, stressed out beyond measure, trying to find the correct key two different times, load your gun, declare that you have one to the intruder (I'm assuming you want to talk first, shot later, to some extent), aim it in such a way that you won't be endangering your own family, and then shoot the intruder -- all before the determined intruder tackles you to the ground to stop you (and then steals your weapon to use against you)?
Rowan (I'm not sure if you're still addressing me directly, but I'll assume you are in some way), I keep stressing the point that I would never blame you for shooting someone in the heat of a home invasion IF IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT YOU HAD REASONABLE CERTAINTY THAT THE PERSON YOU SHOT DID INTEND TO PHYSICALLY HARM YOU OR YOUR FRIENDS/FAMILY. If after the fact, a witness attests that there were ways that you could have stopped an intruder without resorting to gun violence (making it known that you have a gun, or that you have rung the police), then you are responsible for those decisions. Of course, I'll emphasise with such a person. They were and are a victim, but we also live in lands governed by laws. We don't put convicted petty criminals in the chair; similarly, we don't allow citizens to indiscriminately shoot anyone they may afraid of, even if the person they are afraid of is in the process of committing another crime. Try tazing them, punching them, hitting them with a bat, slashing them with a knife -- all of these things are violent, but they are less violent that shooting someone. If someone dies, irrespective of who it is and what their intentions were, then it is a worse outcome than if that person lived--especially if they aren't actually committing a crime that would warrant a death sentence (and in most 'first world' countries, that is all crime).
So, while I'd feel for someone being charged with manslaughter for killing a home intruder, I still think it's justifiable (to charge them with manslaughter) in cases where there are alternatives--and what with the existence of tazers and stun guns, I'd be willing to suggest that this is 95% of cases.
Last edited by Alpha; 09-12-2012 at 10:55 PM. Reason: Grammar's important!
To my knowledge they don't have to be in separate rooms or containers, I'm not even sure that they can't be loaded, but i know I always have my sport guns unloaded, mostly because there's really no reason for me to have ammo in them, and partially because I grew up in an in home daycare, and my mother keeping her license for that DID have to meet extra requirements on firearm safety in the house, so we actually DID have to have all guns locked somewhere other than where the ammo is stored; but I'm fairly certain that was just a requirement for her daycare license, I don't believe it's legally required to have them like that otherwise. If it is, nobody really FOLLOWS that law. While my hunting/sporting clays guns are always unloaded at home, I do keep two loaded .22 cal handguns in places where they're out of view, but easily accessible in case of emergency. In the event that I couldn't easily reach them, I could still get to the shotguns and ammunition, unless I had three different criminals each preventing me from reaching a firearm. And the whole tackle and get held at gunpoint with your own weapon bit only comes into play if you try to play nice, threaten him and give him a chance to react. all of my firearm locations have a strategic advantage in the room, in a place where I can easily get cover, and not be in a direct line of sight with somebody walking straight into the room from outside it. In fact there are home defense courses I've heard about that actually detail these tactics for use against intruders in the event of an emergency. Also in the heat of the moment, I'd probably be willing to break the glass on my shotgun closet thing. I can replace that easier than people's lives. And again, the other two firearms not stored with them, aren't under lock in key, just hidden in locations that nobody would look unless they already knew the gun was there. And no, I'm not paranoid or anything. I very seriously doubt I'll ever experience a home break in when I'm around, I have dogs, and a security system, both good deterrents for would be break ins. But if somebody should happen to break in anyways, they're most likely going to have a bad day.
The average person isn't in the heat of the moment going to calmly try to analyze the burglar who may or may not be carrying a deadly weapon and may or may not already be looking for YOU to determine his intentions. They're going to see somebody in their house, know they don't belong there and that they are definitely a criminal of some sort, the fight or flight instincts are going to kick in, and that person is either going to attempt an escape, or to fight. Given the knowledge that the person IS definitely a criminal, it is not a safe assumption that this person has set a limit on how bad a crime they're willing to commit today, and is not willing and able to kill you. if he happens to be unarmed and i go in with my baseball bat, or crowbar, or whatever other close range weapon I could find, I'll be just fine. If however he happens to have a gun, as I'm crossing the room to get into range to nicely disable this criminal, he's already got a bullet in me. What did my mercy earn me? Worst case scenario? Death. Best case scenario, the sparing of the life of a criminal who put me in a bad position to make a hasty judgment on limited information while under extreme stress. On the other hand, if I just grab my gun, and drop him as soon as I see him, what am I risking now? Worst case scenario here is the best case scenario for the more merciful close range weapon incapacitation option. Best case scenario, I've done what was appropriate and justified, and saved lives.Rowan (I'm not sure if you're still addressing me directly, but I'll assume you are in some way), I keep stressing the point that I would never blame you for shooting someone in the heat of a home invasion IF IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT YOU HAD REASONABLE CERTAINTY THAT THE PERSON YOU SHOT DID INTEND TO PHYSICALLY HARM YOU OR YOUR FRIENDS/FAMILY. If after the fact, a witness attests that there were ways that you could have stopped an intruder without resorting to gun violence (making it known that you have a gun, or that you have rung the police), then you are responsible for those decisions. Of course, I'll emphasise with such a person. They were and are a victim, but we also live in lands governed by laws. We don't put convicted petty criminals in the chair; similarly, we don't allow citizens to indiscriminately shoot anyone they may afraid of, even if the person they are afraid of is in the process of committing another crime. Try tazing them, punching them, hitting them with a bat, slashing them with a knife -- all of these things are violent, but they are less violent that shooting someone. If someone dies, irrespective of who it is and what their intentions were, then it is a worse outcome than if that person lived--especially if they aren't actually committing a crime that would warrant a death sentence (and in most 'first world' countries, that is all crime).
Stun guns are all well and good if you manage to hit and neutralize the target in one shot. They're not the most accurate things out there by any means, and you've only got one shot. You blow it, you're even worse off than you were with the baseball bat.
For Our Lord Sheogorath, without Whom all Thought would be linear and all Feeling would be fleeting. Blessed are the Madmen, for they hold the keys to secret knowledge. Blessed are the Phobic, always wary of that which would do them harm. Blessed are the Obsessed, for their courses are clear. Blessed are the Addicts, may they quench the thirst that never ebbs. Blessed are the Murderous, for they have found beauty in the grotesque. Blessed are the Firelovers, for their hearts are always warm. Blessed are the Artists, for in their hands the impossible is made real. Blessed are the Musicians, for in their ears they hear the music of the soul. Blessed are the Sleepless, as they bask in wakeful dreaming. Blessed are the Paranoid, ever-watchful for our enemies. Blessed are the Visionaries, for their eyes see what might be. Blessed are the Painlovers, for in their suffering, we grow stronger. Blessed is the Madgod, who tricks us when we are foolish, punishes us when we are wrong, tortures us when we are unmindful, and loves us in our imperfection.
As far as I know, the only thing close to that is keeping gun cases locked up if you have kids. I'm not even sure if that's a law or not. Anyway, if I spotted a person in my house, unarmed and they hadn't caused any damage or anything, I'd tell them to get the **** out. But most likely, some hoodlum is going to break my window, which I shall not allow. e_e
But in all seriousness, I'm not saying it's a good idea to TRY to engage anyone in such a stand off, but I'm not going to allow them to go through my house and not try to stop them. But it's REALLY subjective. But when I hear weird noises outside or something, my first reaction is to grab the nearest possible weapon and see what I can see. You have to remember that YOU are the victim, and depending on the situation, you'll need to defend yourself and your property. I will agree that the best home security you can have IS an alarm system. No question, but there are always instances when the person breaking in isn't after a few valuables...
How can you be certain of anything in such circumstances? The only thing I could think of that I would have certainty of in such a situation, is that someone has broken into my home and that mine and my families life is in potential danger. What witness could there be anyway who would testify against you? The intruder's partner? your wife? , kids? As if they would say to a court "my father probably didnt have to shoot him..." Nah , son, I was only trying to protect you , you little brat. You're grounded for as long as I stay in prison."
Anyway, I dont own a gun so I dont have the luxury of feeling as safe as I would in that situation. Instead, I have a steel baseball bat which I would use to disable the intruder and could possibly kill him or make him paraplegic. Ill end by saying that my whole point revolves around me believing that its not possible to safely determine whether or not someone that breaks into your home is going to harm you and your family and because of that, its not only your right to defend yourself with whatever means you deem neccassary, noone should be able to judge your actions under the circumstances.
You guys also have to remember that help isn't always two minutes away. For those of us who live in cities, it's a much different story than those who live in the more rural parts. Sometimes, especially out in the middle of nowhere, it can take police over half an hour to arrive to an emergency call. Even with an alarm system, it won't change much. There would still have to be a signal sent from the house to the alarm company, and a corresponding 911 call placed to the local authorities. If that's the case, taking the defense of your home into your own hands becomes a necessity.
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.
SOLDIERcHoSeNCrao Porr Cock8- Rebels, Rogues and Sworn Brothers
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks