Stand Your Ground (licence to kill)?

[RandFan]

So what's the alternative? Open the door, and let these lowlifes in and ransack the house while I sit there at the kitchen table reading the paper and sipping hot chocolate?

I'm not sure how many times I can say I agree with you before you accept that. I'm not going to continue to say "yes" over and over. If you can't accept "yes" then I don't see the point, do you?

 

[Cainkane1]

Could you pop over to the thread and describe what law he broke?

Sure threatening an unarmed person with a gun and shooting them is definitely against the law.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm not sure how many times I can say I agree with you before you accept that. I'm not going to continue to say "yes" over and over. If you can't accept "yes" then I don't see the point, do you?

I'm sorry you feel that way. To me, it's unfathomable that you or anybody would allow lowlifes into your home to take your stuff.

Can you PM me your address?

 

[Cylinder]

I'm gonna leave that for the other thread instead of derailing this useful one.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not sure how many times I can say I agree with you before you accept that. I'm not going to continue to say "yes" over and over. If you can't accept "yes" then I don't see the point, do you?

I'm sorry you feel that way. To me, it's unfathomable that you or anybody would allow lowlifes into your home to take your stuff.

I'm sorry, what?

 

[RandFan]

Thanks for the post. I really do get the point. I accept that protecting property can lead to confrontation and deadly force. I could envision myself being in those circumstances.

...

Most people honestly just want to be secure in their homes and not have to fear for losing property. I get that.

I'm sorry you feel that way. To me, it's unfathomable that you or anybody would allow lowlifes into your home to take your stuff.

You are just screwing with me, right?

 

[GeeMack]

I'm sorry, what?

Do keep up. NoahFence asked if you think people should...

So what's the alternative? Open the door, and let these lowlifes in and ransack the house while I sit there at the kitchen table reading the paper and sipping hot chocolate?

And you responded in the affirmative...

I'm not sure how many times I can say I agree with you before you accept that. I'm not going to continue to say "yes" over and over. If you can't accept "yes" then I don't see the point, do you?

And he replied that he doesn't understand how anyone could find it acceptable to sit idly by and drink hot chocolate while someone robs their house...

I'm sorry you feel that way. To me, it's unfathomable that you or anybody would allow lowlifes into your home to take your stuff.

Can you PM me your address?

Asking for your address was an attempt at humor, suggesting that if you're willing to let anyone have your stuff without defending your property, maybe he'd come have a look around and see if you have anything he'd like.

That's what.

 

[NoahFence]

Perhaps Rand would be kind enough to allow me to take the stolen items, and have a yard sale with them on his property? I could go 80-20 on the proceeds.

I'd keep the 80% 'cuz I'm a bad person.

 

[RandFan]

I'm gonna leave that for the other thread instead of derailing this useful one.

Thank you. I appreciate your willingness to engage in a discussion. Regardless of where one stands on the issue I do think it worthy of discussion.

 

[GeeMack]

Thank you. I appreciate your willingness to engage in a discussion. Regardless of where one stands on the issue I do think it worthy of discussion.

It doesn't seem like you think possible solutions to the problem are worthy of discussion...

But here's a thought, one which for some odd reason you continue to ignore: If a guy is robbing someone's house he's taking a chance. The guy robbing the house is not the victim, even if he gets himself killed. You're complaining about how these criminals are running the risk of dying in the performance of their jobs, and you're suggesting people just let the criminals take their stuff. Do you have any suggestions to reduce the amount of people committing crimes, robbing people, raping people, or otherwise victimizing innocent people? Because your let-them-do-it argument is failing.

Do you have any productive suggestions as to how me might reduce the amount of robbery, rape, home invasion, burglary, and other such crimes that might get one shot while they're doing it? Because so far you've just been suggesting that we let them do it. And so far most people don't find that an especially reasonable or compelling solution.

Of course if you're just here to complain about something you perceive as a problem and aren't able to suggest any reasonable, do-able solutions, that's okay, too.

 

[Xulld]

I have had these kinds of conversations too many times to recount. It always seems the person who is questioning using deadly force in this kind of situation is asking that we consider the thoughts and feelings of the person committing the forcible crime.

However in a situation where actions can be the difference between life and death, I would think most people are only concerned with perceiving actions, and responding to those actions.

Taking all of the danger out of the situation by looking at it from the distance of your couch using abstraction is all well and nice, but it ignores the very real danger brought to your neighborhood by unknown criminals.

No one knows their intent, no one knows their motivations, no one knows their character. Asking us to consider these things with no information about these factors from our comfy couches is all well and nice and we can have a nice abstract conversation about morality, but it is a different thing when you are the person and you are in that situation.

Actions are all that matter is such a situation. Breaking into a home is a violent action, it takes effort, intent to do harm, and offers many potential motivations which could end in a tragedy far worse than the death of the perpetrator.

Day in and day out we see in the news old ladies being raped by violent intruders, criminals pretending to the FBI and breaking in a door, armed men break into a house and shoot the occupants for no real reason. These may be statistically unlikely events, but statistics be damned when you are the person watching it happen.

IMHO a far bigger concern is that no one will choose to help you when you are in that situation because they want to, "mind their own business", or do not want to end up being questioned as if they are the criminal because they are forced to kill an intruder and then need to scramble to prove they feared for their lives.

Community means caring what happens to your neighbor. It means they look out for you, and you look out for them, and again its just my opinion, but when the members of a society stop getting involved in correcting injustice, when citizens are too scared of liability, or do not foster the level of personal responsibility to get involved to place a citizens arrest, or to even just challenge the crime, then the society is harmed for it.

The police, and authority is general is a cop out of personal responsibility. It seems many want the police, and the government to do everything for them in order to shuffle off the responsibility that each of us have to each other and to our communities.

Even the criminal when they enter into a house, get wounded and then try to sue the owner is saying he is not responsible for his own actions. He wants the government to be responsible, he wants the law abiding citizen to be responsible, he wants his child hood to be responsible, he wants anything and everything other than himself to be responsible.

I do not accept this line of thinking. I think it is what degrades society, and removes accountability.

/rant

 

[crimresearch]

It doesn't seem like you think possible solutions to the problem are worthy of discussion...

​

Do you have any productive suggestions as to how me might reduce the amount of robbery, rape, home invasion, burglary, and other such crimes that might get one shot while they're doing it? Because so far you've just been suggesting that we let them do it. And so far most people don't find that an especially reasonable or compelling solution.

Of course if you're just here to complain about something you perceive as a problem and aren't able to suggest any reasonable, do-able solutions, that's okay, too.

The OP was asked to discuss rational solutions in Post #2... and hasn't demonstrated any interest in contributing to the dialectic yet.

 

[Almo]

I don't understand why people want to take the law into their own hands. Frankly, I'd rather let the crooks take what they want; my stuff is insured. What I want is to stay alive and not get me or anyone I know hurt. If that means hiding and waiting for the cops, then that's what I'll do.

Inevitably, whenever these things crop up, the vigilante types invent all sorts of scenarios where they'd be in trouble because of restrictive laws regarding citizens doing the job of the police.

I find the situation in Reservoir Dogs much more believable. The civilian goes for a gun, and gets shot by the crook, who probably would not have shot her had she just gotten out of the car and let the crook have what he wanted.

And that crook was a cop anyway! So a cop had to kill a civilian to protect himself.

Sure, it's only a movie. But when I see that play out, and read these hypotheticals from the vigilantes here, I know which I find more realistic.

 

[GeeMack]

Inevitably, whenever these things crop up, the vigilante types invent all sorts of scenarios where they'd be in trouble because of restrictive laws regarding citizens doing the job of the police.

The job of the police is to come over after someone has been robbed, raped, invaded, assaulted, killed, etc., and do interviews, check for evidence, and write up reports. Police almost never prevent a crime from being committed or stop a crime as it is being committed.

 

[lionking]

Use of disproportionate force described in the OP would have the shooter charged with manslaughter in Australia. I'm comfortable with that.

 

[Xulld]

The job of the police is to come over after someone has been robbed, raped, invaded, assaulted, killed, etc., and do interviews, check for evidence, and write up reports. Police almost never prevent a crime from being committed or stop a crime as it is being committed.

This is true. SCOTUS made it clear the police are not responsible for our safety.

The more the criminals are given protection in the name of morality the more crime we will have.

Use of disproportionate force described in the OP would have the shooter charged with manslaughter in Australia. I'm comfortable with that.

Its easy to know they are not armed after the fact, but during the situation you can only respond to actions. One reaches for his waistline the second you challenge his unlawful entry would you not think he had a weapon?

 

[RandFan]

Inevitably, whenever these things crop up, the vigilante types invent all sorts of scenarios where they'd be in trouble because of restrictive laws regarding citizens doing the job of the police.

Mad Max, Dirty Harry, Death Wish, it's an age old narrative. Our sense of fairness and the difficulty o of seeing the world from a different perspective makes it difficult to imagine anything else. A number of posts in this thread illustrate that perfectly. I'm more than happy to grant the premises of those who disagree with me. I can see it from their stand point.

 

[sarge]

Do keep up. NoahFence asked if you think people should...




And you responded in the affirmative...




And he replied that he doesn't understand how anyone could find it acceptable to sit idly by and drink hot chocolate while someone robs their house...




Asking for your address was an attempt at humor, suggesting that if you're willing to let anyone have your stuff without defending your property, maybe he'd come have a look around and see if you have anything he'd like.

That's what.

Curiousier and curiouser.

I'm getting a different impression of RandFans opinion. It reads to me as if he is saying that he can certainly understand why someone wishes to feel secure in their home, and that he can understand that a home invasion might legitimately result in the justifiable use of deadly force - indeed, I suspect that is what he was agreeing with.

It also seems that he does not consider the use of deadly force justifiable soley to protect personal property or to prevent a simple tresspass.

He may well correct any or all of my understanding of his position. Otherwise, while I don't completely agree with him, I can't imagine thinking his position unreasonable.

 

[Xulld]

Curiousier and curiouser.

I'm getting a different impression of RandFans opinion. It reads to me as if he is saying that he can certainly understand why someone wishes to feel secure in their home, and that he can understand that a home invasion might legitimately result in the justifiable use of deadly force - indeed, I suspect that is what he was agreeing with.

It also seems that he does not consider the use of deadly force justifiable soley to protect personal property or to prevent a simple tresspass.

He may well correct any or all of my understanding of his position. Otherwise, while I don't completely agree with him, I can't imagine thinking his position unreasonable.

I do not know that he has stated what he thinks should be done. ie, he has really said nothing yet except to criticize and characterize anyone who might use deadly force in such an encounter.

Some vague references to changing the law . . .

 

[sarge]

I do not know that he has stated what he thinks should be done. ie, he has really said nothing yet except to criticize and characterize anyone who might use deadly force in such an encounter.

Some vague references to changing the law . . .

He has stated that he would use a gun to protect the lives of his neighbors children, he has stated that he would not kill to protect his personal property, he has stated that he would not leave the safety of his home to confront prowlers outside his home, and he has stated that while he would not automatically kill an intruder, he would have no issue with someone killing an intruder if the victim legitimately felt his life to be in danger.

These positions (some of which I disagree with) are not vague and state quite clearly what he thinks should be done.