Toggle sidebar

Right to defend yourself?

  • PATRONS: Did you know we've a chat function for you now? Look to the bottom of the screen, you can chat, set up rooms, talk to each other individually or in groups! Click 'Chat' at the right side of the chat window to open the chat up.
  • Love Gotmead and want to see it grow? Then consider supporting the site and becoming a Patron! If you're logged in, click on your username to the right of the menu to see how as little as $30/year can get you access to the patron areas and the patron Facebook group and to support Gotmead!
  • We now have a Patron-exclusive Facebook group! Patrons my join at The Gotmead Patron Group. You MUST answer the questions, providing your Patron membership, when you request to join so I can verify your Patron membership. If the questions aren't answered, the request will be turned down.
Barrel Char Wood Products
chiasburb,

I still go back to the point that the burglar has NO, ZERO, NADA right to be breaking into my home. I think we probably agree on that fact.

I also think we agree that death is probably a harsh penalty for burglary.

My point is that whatever laws are applied to the situation of a burglar in the house, NONE, ZERO, NADA of them should be structured to the detriment of the homeowner or cause even the SLIGHTEST increase in risk to the health and well-being of the homeowner. While it may be harsh, if the homeowner's safest method of dealing with an intruder is to shoot them, they should have EVERY right to do so without the fear of being sued or jailed later.

If a law is structured in such a way that it increases the risk to the homeowner or business owner that is in the right, then the law is just plain wrong. If a law protects the criminal in a way that makes it easier or less risky for him to commit a crime, then it is just plain wrong...

Peace,
Pewter
 
Shrub,

I think the real point is that when someone breaks into my home I have a fiduciary responsibility to protect to the best of my ability my family, myself and to defend our lives against any and all perceived threats from an intruder whether real or imagined. Self defense, protection of life, limb and property is hardly vigilante justice.

Speaking from personal experience on this subject I had the amazing good fortune of not being shot because my dog attacked and helped me subdue a sneak-thief in my home who had a gun and was lying in wait to kill me for all I knew. I would have been dead if this guy had managed to get the drop on me if it weren’t for my dog. I'd have very likely been wearing a toe tag according to the sheriff. Also the method of entry indicated a familiarity with the house and the neighborhood. According to the sheriff's office this is not unusual in burglaries/home intrusions/takeovers.

I'm sorry but I don't buy for one second that I should think of anything other than staying alive, defending my family with whatever force and means necessary and winning in this kind of a situation. Trying to rationalize the sanctity of life in a split-second life and death situation will get you killed in my experience. I've been on the wrong end of guns, knives and several other unpleasant weapons on more than one occasion, and I have the marks to prove it.

The very second someone comes willingly and notoriously into my house with or without a weapon, to take my life, liberty or anything I use in the pursuit of happiness, all bets are off and it’s them or me. I cannot and will not risk my life (or anyone's life in my house) worrying about the sanctity of the intruder's life no matter how old, young, drunk or otherwise they happen to be. My family’s life and my life are more important to me than an intruder who is looking to score some silverware and may be carrying a gun or other weapon. I cannot and will not waste time wondering if he/she/it means to do harm to myself, my family or my stuff, period, end of story.

Cheers,

Oskaar
 
Gotta agree with Oskarr on this one, if someone breaks into a house not only is he violating the law he is also setting himself into a behavior pattern as a chriminal, if he gets away with it he will do it again and again. There is a point where the thief steps over the line and begins to use violence as a means to the end. I don't care if the intruder is a first time violator or multiple offender he need to be stopped by the police or homeowner. Once the decision has been made by the thief to break into a house there is no difference between a first timer or long time criminal.
 
The way I see it, we are entitled to our oppinions! To each his/her own. As far as I'm concerned, regardless of the intruder being a first time offender or repeat offender, he will most definitely be a last time offender. I will protect my family and myself to the best of my ability, and if someone is in my house uninvited, well, he is SOL! The wellbeing of my family is paramount!

I dedicated my life to the medical field, I have saved lives as an EMT and now i still save lives through the work i do in the lab. A life is sacred! By the same token, my life and my family is sacred to me and I will actively protect them. Why are we concerned with the rights of a lowlife, scum of the earth? What about the victim's rights? I would like to see the day when we can legally carry guns. So far, when the guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns!

To me, gun control means being able to hit my target.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Brewbear
 
It's about a moral judgment that the loss of a human life is an inherently bad thing and that the taking of that life should only happen if there's no other option reasonably available.
Click to expand...

I think this is a lot of lip service to another utopian ideal, that being the "Sanctity of life". Clearly we have many states and the federal government that uses capital punishment when life without parole is another rather obvious "option".

If humanity really did believe in the sancity of life then there wouldn't be wars. That's not the case, society in general devalues young males to the point that we burn them up in wars over land, religion, oil and too many other stupid reasons even to mention.

Sanctity of life only is mentioned when someone else is looking down their nose and Monday morning quarterbacking someone else's life.

I think we'd be much better off and were honest with each other and say "a criminal's life isn't as valuable as a productive member of society". We have a long history of rationalizing away taboos against killing in the case of war, abortion, capital punishment, ect. It shouldn't be any great leap for us to admit to the behavior that we all engage in, that being, some lives are much more expendible, some lives are more important than others.

And just to bring this back on track; If someone wants to steal your posessions they're a much less worthy life. Would be killers and rapists obviously fall into this category as well.
 
kash said:
If humanity really did believe in the sancity of life then there wouldn't be wars. That's not the case, society in general devalues young males to the point that we burn them up in wars over land, religion, oil and too many other stupid reasons even to mention.
Click to expand...

A lot of good thoughts but coming at it from a different angle than I would take. I suppose if ALL humans believed in sanctity of life, then what you say would be true. The trouble is that those that believe in the sanctity of life are left with a paradox on how to protect themselves (and their loved ones) from those that do NOT believe in it.

I am scared right now that a country (Iran) that would love to turn New York, Chicago, or any other large US city into a nuclear wasteland is developing weapons grade plutonium. What choice of response does someone that believes in sanctity of life have in this situation? Because I believe that most of the wars we (the US) are fighting right now are based on these sort of issues. Are the lives of several million of my countrymen worth not having a war with Iran? Or to bring it back to the thread, are the lives of my family worth sparing the life of an intruder?

kash said:
I think we'd be much better off and were honest with each other and say "a criminal's life isn't as valuable as a productive member of society". We have a long history of rationalizing away taboos against killing in the case of war, abortion, capital punishment, ect. It shouldn't be any great leap for us to admit to the behavior that we all engage in, that being, some lives are much more expendible, some lives are more important than others.
Click to expand...

I have to say that I think the thought process in this argument is backwards. It isn't that a criminal's life is less valuable, it is that the lives of my loved ones are priceless. I know it is a very subtle difference, but a homeowner is not going out of his home armed with guns to eliminate threats to his home, he is dealing with someone that has chosen to put his family (or himself) at risk by illegally entering his home.

Are you claiming that if I believed in the sanctity of life, I would allow the burglar/murderer/rapist to have his way with me and my possessions/life/body? I suppose if sanctity of life was my highest priority then the answer might be yes. But generally, self-preservation is higher on the list.

But again, I enjoyed your thoughts,
Pewter
 
Pewter_of_Deodar said:
kash said:
Are you claiming that if I believed in the sanctity of life, I would allow the burglar/murderer/rapist to have his way with me and my possessions/life/body? I suppose if sanctity of life was my highest priority then the answer might be yes. But generally, self-preservation is higher on the list.
Click to expand...

Pewter, I am confused! You talk about sanctity of life and self preservation as if they were different things!

So many apologies. This reply was both a little kibbitzing and a bissela noodge from a nudnik. :-)
Click to expand...
 
Sigmund,

I believe that the two are different, although possibly related issues.

Sanctity of life (IMHO) would have a person doing whatever is necessary, taking whatever risks are required (to themselves and others) in order to possibly spare the life of another. In terms of the discussion on intruders in a home, the individual with sanctity of life highest in their priorities would do everything possible to give the intruder an opportunity to flee, to take the possessions and leave, restraining from the possible use of deadly force until they had been shot at or at least seen a weapon brandished in their direction, or even fleeing themselves to avoid a possible loss of life (even if it was the intruders).

Whereas I would call self-preservation as a "sanctity of MY life" where the lives of others would not necessarily be a consideration. I suppose I consider that someone with self-preservation highest on the list would feel like they are endangered, their well-being, financial or physical is threatened, and respond accordingly, including the use of deadly force, so as to minimize the risk to themselves.

Certainly either standpoint is valid depending upon the beliefs of the individuals. What is wrong is if the laws FORCE the opposing belief onto a person and prevent them from minimizing the risk to themselves. I'll go back to my earlier premise:

If a law is structured in such a way that it increases the risk to the homeowner or business owner that is in the right, then the law is just plain wrong. If a law protects the criminal in a way that makes it easier or less risky for him to commit a crime, then it is just plain wrong...

Am I missing something?
Pewter
 
Nu, I was kibbitzing more than replying. :-)

You wrote here:

>I believe that the two are different, although
>possibly related issues.
>
>Sanctity of life (IMHO) would have a person doing
>whatever is necessary, taking whatever risks are
>required (to themselves and others) in order to
>possibly spare the life of another.
>
>Whereas I would call self-preservation as a
>"sanctity of MY life" where the lives of others
>would not necessarily be a consideration.

My kibbitzing was with the idea of the sanctity of life, all life. That would include yourself along with the others. Would it not? How could it be otherwise? That is where the two ideas are related.

The differences lie along the lines moral reasoning will take you. How will you act? What will you do?
 
So the 64,000 dollar question...

It seems like the vast majority of Americans (at least based on discussions here and elsewhere) are against laws that give the criminals more rights than their victims so what happened that allowed these extremely unpopular laws to be enacted?
 
Pewter_of_Deodar said:
... so what happened that allowed these extremely unpopular laws to be enacted?
Click to expand...

That's easy, Most of the people that make the laws (i.e. politicians) do not have any concept of what the average person thinks, feels or wants.

Brian
 
I'll take it a step further and say that the considerable majority of the voting public doesn't bother to educate themselves past the tripe that's peddled on the television set in their homes. I feel that many people vote without a grasp or understanding of the fiscal, social or personal liberties rammifications.

Here in California I see a lot of people who aren't interested in taking responsibility for their own actions so the way the deflect is to incite a public outcry over the fact that there are no laws preventing something from happening. Then the News Media picks up on it, and then there are rallies and school walkouts, and interviews with lawmakers and all of a sudden . . . lawn darts are illegal (sorry couldn't resist) but you get the idea!

BTW, I still have my lawn darts and they'll have to pry them from my cold dead fingers to take them away!

Cheers,

Oskaar
 
Pewter_of_Deodar said:
Rape my wife, rape my daughter, even rape Vicki or Mynx or Scout or anyone I know and somehow feel that you have a right to be all safe and secure? I think not... Not no but hell no!!
Click to expand...

Awww, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers, and Pewter, honey, you're as strange as they come, love! *big huggs and grins* Popping in again, and this topic really sucked me in. My two cents? There have been a lot of really great posts on this topic. My basic instinct is that everyone has a right to do what they want, until it touches another person. i.e. Sure, go ahead get totally jacked up on heroin, the minute you get in a car or start interacting with someone else in any way, you're no longer okay in my book. On the punishment side, my utopian punishment would be very Hammrabian - eye for an eye with no extended court times. Murderers and rapists killed. And frankly, I think that "murder" should be extended to the executives of companies who currently get to say things like, "Ooops! We didn't know that the drug we manufacture was going to kill you . . . Sorry!"

Back on topic. *snirk* I have a two level security system. It starts with my very loud, very deep throated, very barky German Shepherd. My neighbor, a very slight woman whose husband's job takes him out of town often, told me how grateful she was that we moved in BECAUSE of the dog (we were afraid she would be annoyed by the barking). When the time comes (my dog is old), she will be replaced by a pair of weimeraners, dogs bred to hunt and take down bears while still be excellent family dogs. I plan on having them well trained. Layer two is me coming at any intruder with a very large, very sharp knife looking rather insane and perfectly willing to kill in a very painful and not very happy way anyone who tries to come inside my home who should not be here.

Sorry guys, but scary b**** with a knife generally beats out rational man with a gun on the intimidation scale. Hopefully enough to make most burglars run away.

Okay, this is another reason I hate being pregnant. I go from nearly being in tears from Pewter's lovely statement to feeling like Rambo in less than 20 minutes. Hello, hormone roller coaster! :P 7 weeks left
 
Scout,

Hugs... good luck on the last 7 weeks. I can remember trying to make sense out of my wife's mood swings those last couple months. I couldn't do it... *chuckle*

The idea of a crazed woman, brandishing a knife, loses some of the ferociousness when coupled with the normal waddling associated with being 7 or 8 months pregnant. *grin*

Anyway, good luck with the remaining weeks!

Pewter
 
memento said:
My thoughts - too many people have the lawyer mentality. But put yourself on the other side. Say that your son broke into someone's house. Isn't killing him a bit extreme? Wouldn't shooting both his legs be enough?
Click to expand...

Perhaps... But try hitting the guy just in the legs using a shotgun loaded with buckshot at close range.

The reason I keep a loaded shotgun at home? About 6 years ago I decided to see how well I could hit the target with my .40 in a dark gun range with no flashlight at 15 yards without my prescription glasses on. (I think I only got something like 3 out of 10 rounds in the center mass.) That and everyone should realize the importance of the word "Ka-Chunk".

Oh yeah, I'm not sure if it's changed since I read up on it 5 years ago but... In California, the law states that if there is physical evidence of illegal forcible entry (into your house) by a non-family member, a jury must be instructed to make the presumption that you acted in self defense. While I'd much rather not have to go to trial in the first place, it's nice to know that the burden of proof goes to the prosecution to prove that you did not act in self defense.

And while I would really prefer not ever having to kill anyone, what was that saying again? Better to be tried by 12 than to be carried by 6...

Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Barrel Char Wood Products

Viking Brew Vessels - Authentic Drinking Horns

Top Bottom