Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

I think we're also ignoring the fact that you're asking someone to make reasoned judgement calls about the relative threat value of an intruder and the measured response to use....while somebody is breaking into their fucking house. Most people are going to be scared shitless in that scenario, myself included. I'm not a terribly large, strong or agile person. In a scuffle 1-on-1, I'm going to lose. Which means I'm going to use any advantage I have. I don't have firearms, but if the dude has his back turned and doesn't hear me, he's getting a baseball bat across the back. I'm not waiting to check for a gun or a knife. Not with two small children to defend.

[ChairmanPoo]

Indeed, and agreed. It's reasonable to take any advantage you can in those kind of situations. I don't think anyone can be expected to risk major bodily harm because there's risk the home invader would get hurt otherwise. If the situation can be resolved without anyone getting killed or hurt, so much for the better, but I'm not about assuming an inch of risk for myself or my kin if I can avoid it.

[Sheb]

Right, because Spain is totally not Europe. Africa ends at the Pyrenees, I forgot 

Well, the discussion was revolving around the States mostly. But yeah, nevermind, we can just broaden the debate I guess.

So you're going to... issue a challenge, so that he has a chance of killing YOU instead?
Don't be ridiculous. You assault the tresspasser with whatever you have as soon as you see him. It makes no difference that we're talking about a gun than about a knife. If anything, with the latter it would be even more justified to attack without warning.

Well, actually yes I do. Because I've got a gun pointed at him and if he do anything funny, I can still shoot him. Just killing someone because there is the possibility that they'll do me bodily harm is... Totally overreacting.

You obviously haven't followed that case, but it wasn't like you describe it.

You don't drop a case because it's "common sense", you drop it because you realize you cannot possibly win the trial. I read that article you quoted, and what they're saying is basically "We though he was in the wrong, but he turned out he just defended himself, instead of murdering someone in cold blood for no good reasons and then chasing an unarmed 14-years old in the streets to attack him".

Or badly bruised. Or dead. Your best chance is to run away so that they don't get a chance at you at all. Again, most muggers aren't reasonable, logical people.

Most of them are also reasonable enough to realize it's much easier to get away from mugging that from murder.

Have I commented anything about booby traps, or razor wire? Why do you put stuff I haven't said into my mouth?

He doesn't put sutff in your mouth, he ask you if you would condone it. You can just answer no, no need to become aggressive.


Now, to RedKing, it is true that in the heat of action, I can totally understanding attacking the mugger first. Maybe I'd do it, for all my grandstanding here about "Thou shall not kill". After all, those are situations were you cannot expect people to act rationally. Which mean it's even more important to regulate handgun use. If you must, give him a good whack on the head, but you're much less likely to kill him (Or her).

[ChairmanPoo]

Well, the discussion was revolving around the States mostly. But yeah, nevermind, we can just broaden the debate I guess.

It was you that first brought up Europe. http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3329950#msg3329950

And it had gone beyond "Tehehe stupid American gun laws" a while ago, too.

Most of them are also reasonable enough to realize it's much easier to get away from mugging that from murder.

If they are caught. Quite often they aren't. The people who mugged me certainly weren't. It's not easy to solve a crime in which the accused have no link to the victim.

Well, actually yes I do. Because I've got a gun pointed at him and if he do anything funny, I can still shoot him. Just killing someone because there is the possibility that they'll do me bodily harm is... Totally overreacting.

You're demanding a completely reasonable behavior from both the victim and the aggressors, which is unrealistic in itself. As well as overrating your ability to control the trespasser, even with a gun. Thing is, you're taking a quite big risk. Which you shouldn't have to, really.

You don't drop a case because it's "common sense", you drop it because you realize you cannot possibly win the trial.

Precisedly. Because it's common sense that, once you remove the charge of hunting around someone in the street, what you are left with is simple self-defense. Just as if he had shot the kid, instead of stabbing him.

He doesn't put sutff in your mouth, he ask you if you would condone it. You can just answer no, no need to become aggressive.

That's backtracking. He already assumes an answer with the second statement.

[Sheb]

Huzzay for quote exchange!

It was you that first brought up Europe. http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3329950#msg3329950

Well, you brought the West, I said in Europe not (And the West without Europe and the US ain't much). Anyway, not really important.

Most of them are also reasonable enough to realize it's much easier to get away from mugging that from murder.
If they are caught. Quite often they aren't. The people who mugged me certainly weren't. It's not easy to solve a crime in which the accused have no link to the victim.

Well, the police just doesn't have the manpower and will to perform a full investigation on a simple mugging or burglary. If they found your corpse in your living room, there will be a whole new level of ressources used to track and get the bastard: Scientific police etc etc. Not only do you risk much more, but the risk of being caught are much greater.

Thing is, you're taking a quite big risk. Which you shouldn't have to, really.

I really don't think it's a big risk. I guess a lot of our opposition come from the fact that you think the risk is huge, even from simply having someone in your house, while I don't think so, which mean you find shooting first justified and we don't. (And don't tell me you have the right to shoot for any level of risk: If someone is coming toward me driving way to fast, I'm at risk, but that doesn't mean I have a right to kill him).

That's backtracking. He already assumes an answer with the second statement.

Anyway. You still didn't answer. Do you? Because the same logic that make you think it's okay to shoot someone because he's rummaging through your living room would also mean it's okay to have some kind of trap that do the killing for ye.

[RedKing]

Another possible cultural divide here: in Europe, a burglar is unlikely to be armed with a firearm. In the United States, this is not the case. The introduction of a firearm into the equation greatly increases the incentive for the legal resident to strike first.

[Leafsnail]

Well it's perfectly logical to arm yourself with a firearm and try to kill the residents of the house you're robbing if people in your area would (legally) kill you on sight.

EDIT: In retrospect that seems too black and white.  It's not that simple and it doesn't have a simple solution, but I'd say a culture of heightened violence would be at least partly to blame for thieves being more violent.

[MonkeyHead]

Another possible cultural divide here: in Europe, a burglar is unlikely to be armed with a firearm. In the United States, this is not the case. The introduction of a firearm into the equation greatly increases the incentive for the legal resident to strike first.

There was a case in 2009 here in the UK where a home owner came home to find his family being held at knifepoint. Through the use of disproportionate force he caused brain damage to the burgular, chasing him when there was no need. No-one will dispute his right to defend his family I hope, but clearly the amount of "force" used was disproportionate and he was punished as a result. AFAIK the decisions made by courts in this country in cases such as these are based on the idea that the use of force should be in proportion to the threat faced (so killing could be justified if there was a direct threat to life, which as RedKing points out is going to be far more prevalent a case in countries with more availiable weaponary, but brain damaging a person who is running away is over the top), with the courts holding the value of life above that of the value of property (see: Tony Martin case) - this to me seems 100% reasonable as it protects the life of the intended victim of the crime, but once you deicde that they as a living human have a right to life, so must all other living humans. In the eyes of the law people do not forefit thier inherant human rights by making choices that take them outside the law - if you feel that is right or wrong is another matter.

Well it's perfectly logical to arm yourself with a firearm and try to kill the residents of the house you're robbing if people in your area would (legally) kill you on sight.

EDIT: In retrospect that seems too black and white.  It's not that simple and it doesn't have a simple solution, but I'd say a culture of heightened violence would be at least partly to blame for thieves being more violent.

Ah, but which group armed themselves first, and wihch responded as a result? Is the culture of violence down to criminals or the victims? Or even some other factor? Again, it not going to be as simple as that, but you cant really carry a gun into a property with the intent to use it to cause harm and then complain that you got shot without looking pretty stupid.

[Leafsnail]

Yeah I considered that after making the post, and I suppose it's perfectly possible.  I'm just not entirely sure why the US would start off producing more violent criminals than other places.

[GlyphGryph]

Drug war, mostly.

[MonkeyHead]

I wouldnt put it down to more violent people, but instead the relative ease of obtaining firearms - especially by those involved in things like the "drug war" who are probably more likley to use force in this manner.

[Sirus]

Dropping in real quick to say that as someone who has had their house burglarized, if it happens again and I catch it I'm gonna hit the guy with whatever hefty item I can find. GlyphGryph said it best: my home, where everything and everyone I care about it, was violated, in the middle of the night, by some punks who waltzed in and stole everything valuable they could get. What if they had something more sinister in mind? Now I'm so freaking paranoid that I stay up late and check every door and window to make sure they're locked before going to bed.

So yeah. Probably wouldn't shoot the bastard, but a baseball bat to the back is no more than he deserves.
*drops back to lurk mode*

[Descan]

I don't know about in the past, but it's lately (Last 30 years, maybe 40?And I think in Prohibition too, but that's less relevant) been about the Drug War and, as Truean said, petty thieves and stoners getting huge sentences in prison and coming out as hardened criminals and gang members.

[RedKing]

@MonkeyHead:
Wow....I...that's just difficult for me to process. If I came home and found somebody holding my wife and kids at knifepoint, brain damage would be the LEAST of his worries by the time I was through. I'm going to attack him, I'm going to chase him, and I'm most likely going to kill him if I have the opportunity, or at the very least beat him so thoroughly that he will never do that again to anybody.

Maybe it's partly my personality, maybe it's the deeply-embedded American value of "righteous violence" (which I would argue is one of the reasons we have a more violent society)....but in my mind, when you threaten my loved ones (far moreso than my property) with bodily injury, death, rape, etc. you have just forfeited your right to exist as far as I'm concerned. I'm a generally mellow, conflict-averse kind of guy, but that's one area where I have a berserk button. My wife is the same way. Hell, my wife is terrified of firearms, but if somebody came in and pointed a gun at our kids, she'd be likely to rip their throat out barehanded. The maternal/paternal instinct can be a very powerful thing.

To elaborate on the culture of "righteous violence", there's a long-standing meme in American culture that the bad guys deserve to die by virtue of being "bad". This is why the white-hat cowboy lawman doesn't have to arrest the black-hat cowboy. He has to *try*, but in the end the black-hat typically tries to pull his gun on him after faking surrender, and then gets cut down in a hail of lead. Nobody sheds a tear for the black-hat. And most Westerns ended that way because it appeals to an American sense of justice that is more about who's left standing than courtrooms. Americans have never quite fully been satisfied with courts of law as the final arbiter of justice. We much prefer the self-empowered form of 'frontier justice', wherein the hero is judge, jury and executioner. And the villains are unmistakably, umambiguously deserving of their fate.

[GlyphGryph]

Which is not to say villains aren't capable of redemption. Or that someone who does something bad will always be bad or is bad in all ways. But simply the being the bad guy is more than enough for people to want to see you eliminated.

On the other hand, this sort of thing DOESN'T really adhere to someone running away. If you're off the property and running away, very few people would consider it okay to shoot you. The "righteous violence" only extends to the point where you are actively 'wrong-doing' - it's also why the hero doesn't kill the villain until he draws his weapon.