Quote Originally Posted by SOLDIER #819 View Post
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.