 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
But stealing is hurting me. Further, a large number of people who will break into my house to rob me will also be more than willing to assault me. Further, someone who breaks into my house is already committing a wrong, against me - why are you focusing on the perceived wrongness in me shooting him, rather than on what he is doing?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
It appears that your intention is not defense but murder. |
No, because I won't kill anyone who isn't already trying to commit a violent crime against me. I'm just saying that if a violent criminal gets killed while committing a violent crime, I don't care, because that piece of **** won't rob or harm anyone ever again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Looking at me funny is hurting me. Therefore it's ok to kill people who look at me funny. Since everyone who looks at me funny, is willing to assault me. I'm not going to justify any of that, but will kill the next person who looks at me funny. |
Explain to me how you have a right not to be looked at funny.
quote:
As for why the focus, the person who b&e is taking your TV, "you" are taking his life. "Your" action is far worse than burglar's. |
Worse? No, because my action is not the initial action. My action is in response to an action that is already harming me, and the action creates the quite reasonable expectation of forthcoming harm of a more serious nature.
quote:
It's not a violent crime unless he tries to physically attack you, not your property. Calling him violent doesn't make it so. |
So breaking my window in order to get into my house isn't a violent act?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
This is just absolutely unbelievable - I cannot fathom how people can have more sympathy for criminals who get shot while committing crimes than they do for the victims who defend themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
The most batshit opinions? Ramo thinks that breaking into my house isn't a violent act! How's that for a batshit opinion?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
But breaking and entering is by definition violent! You can't break and enter a house without being violent to begin with!
And my point is that when someone commits violence against me, I have a reasonable right to assume that he is capable of committing further violence against me, and I can defend myself on that basis, knowing the WHOLE time that the burglar wouldn't be in his predicament if he hadn't committed a violent act in the FIRST place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Why should I? That's not relevant to my point. |
But it's relevant to mine. You tried to equate a funny look to breaking and entering. The difference is, breaking and entering harms me, and violates my rights, and a funny look doesn't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
And what if you tell him "No", and try to stop him? It's your stuff, after all. Don't you think he might hurt you?
And if your response is, "Then just let him have your stuff", then **** it, why even install locks, or alarm systems? Why not just hang a sign that says "Please, take my stuff, I'm morally opposed to stopping you"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
You're killing him because he committed a violent crime to enter your home, and because you want to keep him from breaking into your home (or anyone else's) again. Further, you have no idea what he's going to do in your home - when a burglar breaks in, you don't have time to make a calculated threat analysis. You know that you are in danger by virtue of the fact that a (most likely armed) robber is in your home, and you don't want to become a statistic, so you shoot the mother****er. 
Seriously, shooting burglars really doesn't harm society, from a utilitarian point of view - they're a blight on society, from that point of view. From my point of view, they're a blight on society, but the justification in shooting them is that they are presented a threat to your person, and already committed a violent crime in order to present that threat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
You can't pre-emptively shoot people because they might pose a threat, only if a threat is real and present. |
But by virtue of breaking into your house, a burglar DOES present a real threat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
Shi,
quote:
Not nessecarily. If he doesn't have a gun and you do, there is not a real threat. |
But I don't have complete information, do I? That's why I get to assume the worst and shoot, and rightfully so. The criminal places himself in that position - I don't force him into anything. The easy way to avoid the predicament is - GASP - don't rob people!
UR,
quote:
How is burglaring a violent crime?
Somebody sneaked in your house, grabbed a TV and some cash, and you are going to shoot him? That sounds like murder in cold blood. |
If someone smashes in my window and starts going around my house trying to find stuff to take, that is certainly a violent act, and shooting him is not murder. Again, you may not think it's fair for the death penalty to be applied to burglary, but I don't think burglary is fair, either. Simple solution? Don't break into people's houses, and there is no problem.
Surely you don't blame the homeowner for the burglary, right?
molly,
quote:
I think this may be a Freudian slip.
I say let's kill more innocent people. |
What I mean is that you seem overly concerned with the few and far between incidents where some drunk idiot might get shot. Even assuming that happens, it certainly doesn't happen regularly, and remember that the law doesn't allow drunkeness as an excuse for committing a crime, so why should I be constrained in my actions to defend myself because the person MIGHT be drunk?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
Well its never a black+white situation, but i'd say from most of the sympathetic views towards the burglar expressed here, these people have never had to deal with a burgler breaking in while they and or there family are home?
Going back to the article for a second, these two men that were killed in london recently; I'm sure they were concerned for the safety of thier families(wives and small children), and did their best in the situation to protect them as best they could. Unfortunelty for them it appears the burglers(caught in the act of thier crime) were very prepared to commit murder.
This is the problem, when it happens to you, you really have no idea if you've got a 'good' or 'bad' burgler in your property.
Are you willing to possibly risk the lives of your family on the mental state of a complete stranger who has just broken into your home?
I just know what i'm prepared to do if the threat to the ones i love seems real at that momment.
I'm afraid the criminal who has in my eyes lost all his rights to be treated as a decent human being, will get no sympathy from me.
family vs criminal - i cant see that there is a choice, or should be, in a fair society?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2004 09:14
|