Stand Your Ground (licence to kill)?

[Resume]

Okay, brief question for all.

If your house were to be burgled would you prefer to be at home or out?

I was home when someone began to work the lock on my front door; I said something to the effect that I had a weapon and the jiggling stopped. I let my 100lb Samoyed out that door and that was that. The dog chased what I presume to be a very frightened person over an 8-foot privacy fence.

That's how I'd prefer any future attempts to end.

 

[Resume]

Hmmmm.....

You would seem to agree with me. You drew a distinction, right?

Yes. If I'm allowed to make that distinction.

 

[Xulld]

I acknowledge the responsibility to do so, and I realise that my statement doesn't hold much water without it.

I don't have the time to go through the thread right now and do so, but I will try to take the time to do so.

Sorry.

Was just wondering. I see it stated, but it seems if it is subtle, as you said, that it might just be imaginary. I certainly did not read the same vibe myself.

I posted this a ways back, just trying to get back on track a bit.

Do you think Joe Horn should be arrested for challenging a crime?
For going over to his neighbors house?
For shooting robbers who posed a threat?
What exactly?

 

[Cylinder]

Wait, what? I can't reconcile those.

Huh?

I'd prefer to be home to protect and secure my property, not to blast somebody.

 

[3point14]

I was home when someone began to work the lock on my front door; I said something to the effect that I had a weapon and the jiggling stopped. I let my 100lb Samoyed out that door and that was that. The dog chased what I presume to be a very frightened person over an 8-foot privacy fence.

That's how I'd prefer any future attempts to end.

Could you answer without qualification?

 

[3point14]

Was just wondering. I see it stated, but it seems if it is subtle, as you said, that it might just be imaginary. I certainly did not read the same vibe myself.

I posted this a ways back, just trying to get back on track a bit.

It could just be me being emotive.

It may be that the act of looking for the offending language will make me rethink, it's true.

The only one that springs to mind is the use of 'blown away', but that could simply be an outlier.

 

[Xulld]

Could you answer without qualification?

Why without qualification?

It seems clear he would want to be home so that he could prevent the crime and in the situation he outlined it seems favorable that no one was harmed, and yet the crime was prevented.

The only reason I could see that you would want no qualification is so that you can better straw man from that unqualified position . . .

'blown away', but that could simply be an outlier.

. . and an extremely common expression.

 

[3point14]

Huh?

I'd prefer to be home to protect and secure my property, not to blast somebody.

Being at home comes with the risk of injury or death to you and your family.

Not being there doesn't.

 

[Resume]

Could you answer without qualification?

I would prefer to be home but resolve the conflict without escalation. I wouldn't care if the indvidual "got away."

 

[RandFan]

Yes. If I'm allowed to make that distinction.

That's all I need.

 

[Xulld]

I would prefer to be home but resolve the conflict without escalation. I wouldn't care if the indvidual "got away."

Same here. Some things cannot be replaced by insurance. I do not feel the need to explain that, but the best outcome is one where I do not loose such things, yet also no one is harmed.

Being at home comes with the risk of injury or death to you and your family.

Not being there doesn't.

Life is full of risks, I am told it is more dangerous to leave the house than stay in it . . . .

 

[3point14]

Why without qualification?

It seems clear he would want to be home so that he could prevent the crime and in the situation he outlined it seems favorable that no one was harmed, and yet the crime was prevented.

The only reason I could see that you would want no qualification is so that you can better straw man from that unqualified position . . .

I ask for it without qualification because the reply pre-suppposed that the 'home defence' was going to be successful. Of course, one cannot say in advance if it is to be successful, so I want the answer to the question when the success or otherwise of defending one's home is in doubt. Not when it has been pre-supposed.

 

[RandFan]

Huh?

I'd prefer to be home to protect and secure my property, not to blast somebody.

No one accused you of wanting to kill. It follows that if it comes to it your property is in effect more important than their life. If you could retreat and spare them their life but lose your property you would not.

 

[RandFan]

I would prefer to be home but resolve the conflict without escalation. I wouldn't care if the indvidual "got away."

What is your opinion about the OP? Did he escalate the situation?

 

[triforcharity]

How certain are you that, having decided there is only one person invading your home, that you're right?

There are just too many unknown variables here for me to consider initiating violence.

I am going to assume that most people, whom break into houses, that if they say saw their partner shot, are going to take off running for the hills.

But, who knows. At least at that point you're now just one on one.

 

[3point14]

I am going to assume that most people, whom break into houses, that if they say saw their partner shot, are going to take off running for the hills.

But, who knows. At least at that point you're now just one on one.

That seems a mighty big assumption to rest your life and the lives of your family on.

 

[Cylinder]

Being at home comes with the risk of injury or death to you and your family.

Not being there doesn't.

I wouldn't want my family to be there. I'm misogynist - it's not primarily my wife's responsibility to protect stuff. Ideally, I'd rather be away and the police waiting for the bad guy, but that's not what you were asking, right? I'd rather be there to protect my property than have my stuff carted of and replaced by insurance.

Why? Because of my sig.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

I've a question that may or may not belong in a separate thread;

If it is acceptable to shoot a burglar in the act would it also be acceptable to shoot the burglar as punishment for committing a burglary after they've been convicted?

No. Would you consider self-defense as a form of punishment for the burglar? As I understand it, people are talking about reacting to possible and likely threat to you and your family, not shooting the telly-carrying bad guy on his way out in the back.

• A man breaks into your house with apparent intent to steal property.
• At this point you have a choice either to confront him - to protect your property - or leave him be. The choice is presumably made depending on your assessment of the situation (ie danger level).
• If you choose to confront him, and he acts aggressively to it, this is not you protecting your property any more. This is you protecting you. His aggression is not a choice you are making anymore, this is his. What's left for you to do, is react accordingly with (non-)lethal force (again, situational).

I understand some are arguing that confronting a burglar anytime is the worst choice, because it can lead to potential aggression. I can understand that viewpoint, but the alternative, to me, seems absurd. Let the thieves go and take what they may?

 

[triforcharity]

I've a question that may or may not belong in a separate thread;

If it is acceptable to shoot a burglar in the act would it also be acceptable to shoot the burglar as punishment for committing a burglary after they've been convicted?

Wow. How ridiculous. Why would you even think that?

People like myself and some of the other "Castle Doctrine" supporters, don't shoot people as PUNISHMENT, we would shoot them for protection of ourselves and our family.

Not because they stole our TV and Xbox 360, but because I don't know if this guy's intentions is to diddle my son when he gets my stuff outside, and I am not willing to take that risk.

 

[Cylinder]

Well stated, TC.