Stand Your Ground (licence to kill)?

[Resume]

Yup - Jerome Ersland got life. Wow.

See, that's rough. On then one hand, don't do heists; on the other hand the guys down and out, why bother with five more rounds? Go outside and sit on the curb.

 

[RandFan]

I'd be OK with it.

Thanks for your honesty. I'm glad we don't have cruel and unusual punishment. It's typically correlated with autocratic govts and little freedom. For some bizarre reasons the nations highest in personal liberty and well being don't countenance it. I wonder if there is some meaningful relationship?

 

[Resume]

I would tell Jerome that if you don't want life then don't summarily kill people. Then again, perhaps it's not that simple. Perhaps there are mitigating circumstances. Oh well. If you can't do the time don't do the crime. Sorry Jerome.

See, but that works both ways. Not a single life would have been altered and lost had those three individuals not tried to get over by robbing.

 

[triforcharity]

Thanks, and BTW, I do apologize for the acrimony. This is an issue that can get emotional and it is unfair to make broad brush accusations. People have the right to be safe and secure in their homes. So, I'll beat that dead horse some more.

No harm no foul Rand.

And yes, this can be a very emotional issue, especially for some people, including myself. Having been on the receiving end of such a violation, it's hard to even fathom having to end someone else's life. But, I wouldn't hesitate for even one heartbeat.

 

[RandFan]

See, but that works both ways.

Ya think?

 

[luchog]

Thank you for your response. I can see that there are times where using a gun as either a weapon or threat is desirable, even necessary, but the impression I get from a few people here is that they go to violence as the first port of call, without a moments pause for other options.

That is typically little more than braggadocio. The number of people, who are not members of gangs or militant groups, who actually would use lethal force as a first option is miniscule.

As I say, provided no threat is made to myself or my family, I'm quite happy for the incident to end without gunfire and with me not being able to watch TV.

Unfortunately, the safest assumption is that someone invading my home while I am present, as opposed to a burglar targeting what he believes to be an empty domicile, is going to be a clear and present danger. For what should be fairly obvious reasons.

The way I read others posts, they would, first and foremost, prefer a firefight to anything else. for me, violence is always the last resort.

Actual firefights are almost unheard of outside of entertainment media. In the rare occasions where they do occur, they almost invariably involve some combination of police forces, gangs, and/or militant organizations (militias, religious cults, terrorist cells, etc.). Firefights between ordinary criminals and civilians is almost unheard of; and I cannot think of a single example off the top of my head.

 

[Cylinder]

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.

Not really - the third option is that I prevent the property loss without loss of life.

 

[3point14]

Fair enough. And I should note that most people who support SYG obviously care about human life. I'm sorry the discussion tends to drift toward accusations and acrimony. That's not fair.

This. Me too.

 

[luchog]

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

This question is a pointless red herring. Preferences are completely and totally irrelevant. I would prefer to live in a world where I don't have to worry about being affected by burglary, home-invasion, or any other sort of criminal act. But I don't live in that world, so all that matters is being prepared to deal with any criminal activity that does affect me; in a way that reduces the risk to myself, my family, and my neighbors in the most reasonable and effective way available to me.

 

[luchog]

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.

The issue you seem to be ignoring is that it's not anyone's duty or responsibility to retreat. When confronted, it should be the criminal that retreats. It is only when the perpetrator fails to retreat, and instead makes himself a threat, that forcible response becomes necessary. I see no reason to cower in a closet just to avoid the possibility that a criminal invading my home may be hurt as the consequences of his own actions. I'm not the one invading, he is; therefore he is the one responsible for the outcome of his activity, regardless of what that outcome is. Anyone invading my house will be considered a threat to myself and my family until he effectively demonstrates otherwise by surrendering or fleeing.

 

[3point14]

Unfortunately, the safest assumption is that someone invading my home while I am present, as opposed to a burglar targeting what he believes to be an empty domicile, is going to be a clear and present danger. For what should be fairly obvious reasons.

Snipped by me.

See, my belief is that a burglar simply wants to get in, get the stuff and get out. They're not interested in confrontation or violence. I believe that, left to their own devices, they will take my stuff and get out (Anecdotal, I know, but that's the stated aim of those burglars whose opinion I have heard).

Waiting at the top of the stairs seems far more reasonable to me. If they don't come up the stairs, then there is no confrontation, which I like.

Once again, to state, I'm talking about property, not people. My reaction is very different from one to the other.

 

[RandFan]

Not really - the third option is that I prevent the property loss without loss of life.

Let's what are the options here.

1. You confront the thief and and prevent property loss without loss of life.
2. You confront the thief and you die.
3. You confront the thief and they die.
4. You don't confront the thief and everyone lives.

Given a choice I would take #4. It's the only guaranteed option. Yes, I acknowledge all of the arguments about the right to protect your property. I'm not insensitive to that. This is simply an abstraction about the value of life compared to property. I accept that you don't see it drawn in such sharp contrast. I do agree that it is to some point a matter of perspective.

 

[3point14]

This question is a pointless red herring. Preferences are completely and totally irrelevant. I would prefer to live in a world where I don't have to worry about being affected by burglary, home-invasion, or any other sort of criminal act. But I don't live in that world, so all that matters is being prepared to deal with any criminal activity that does affect me; in a way that reduces the risk to myself, my family, and my neighbors in the most reasonable and effective way available to me.

Yes, it's hypothetical question.

I think the answer betrays some of the feeling that the answerer has about the situation.

Hypothetical questions are all we have at the moment, why do you balk at that one?

 

[RandFan]

The issue you seem to be ignoring is that it's not anyone's duty or responsibility to retreat.

No. That's not true. I've acknowledged it multiple times as others who disagree with me will attest.

I see no reason to cower in a closet just to avoid the possibility that a criminal invading my home may be hurt as the consequences of his own actions.

And that would be a straw man.

 

[Cylinder]

Given a choice I would take #4. It's the only guaranteed option. Yes, I acknowledge all of the arguments about the right to protect your property. I'm not insensitive to that. This is simply an abstraction about the value of life compared to property. I accept that you don't see it drawn in such sharp contrast. I do agree that it is to some point a matter of perspective.

Absolutely. I realize that setting these priorities are a personal decision. You didn't do it, but I just want to illustrate the stereotypes presented by many who think armed citizens are standing around waiting on someone to kill.

My home defense firearm to me is like my fire estinguisher - I hope I never need to use it.

 

[RandFan]

Absolutely. I realize that setting these priorities are a personal decision. You didn't do it, but I just want to illustrate the stereotypes presented by many who think armed citizens are standing around waiting on someone to kill.

My home defense firearm to me is like my fire estinguisher - I hope I never need to use it.

Thank you. I accept that.

 

[luchog]

See, my belief is that a burglar simply wants to get in, get the stuff and get out. They're not interested in confrontation or violence. I believe that, left to their own devices, they will take my stuff and get out (Anecdotal, I know, but that's the stated aim of those burglars whose opinion I have heard).

I agree that is the most likely scenario for ordinary burglaries. I do not agree that is necessarily the case for home-invasions. Home-invasion burglaries require an attitude that is more likely to initiate violence if encountered by a resident (whether confrontational or not).

But again, that's not necessarily an issue. If such a person is only interested in grab-and-go and not prepared to use violence, confronting them is not going to escalate into a forceful confrontation; and there is little risk to either party in doing so. They will either surrender or flee. Only those who are already prepared to use violence will be so if confronted; and they will use violence whether the confrontation is deliberate or accidental on the part of the resident.

Waiting at the top of the stairs seems far more reasonable to me. If they don't come up the stairs, then there is no confrontation, which I like.

I would tend to agree, if it's clear that the invasion aspect was unintentional. However, there's no way to know for sure if that's the case. Many serial rapists, for example, begin with home-invasion burglary before escalating to rape. With the growth of methamphetamine use, many burglaries are committed for the purpose of supporting a meth habit, and are committed under the influence. Such a person is extremely likely to be delusional, possibly full-blown psychotic, irrational, and violent. Without psychic powers, there is no way to know for sure.

 

[Xulld]

Given a choice I would take #4. It's the only guaranteed option.

Except it is not guaranteed.

I already explained that situations have occurred where a person breaks into a house thinking it is theirs becuase they are in distress.

Hiding in your closet when your neighbor breaks into your house while in a diabetic shock means he could die.

Many situations where just not knowing what is going on can cause harm. Going out to check out what is happening IMHO is the moral thing to do, especially if you know, and have trained based on the force continuum.

It is easy to assume, it is easy to guess, it is easy to boil down each and every situation to some guy trying to steal from you, but the reality is that it is never clear what is going on until you check it out.

The act of checking it out does pose risk, but that risk is mitigated via training and situational awareness, and on more than one occasion has saved a person's life.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This is simply an abstraction about the value of life compared to property.

I would argue that some lives are less valuable than property.

 

[luchog]

[*]You don't confront the thief and everyone lives.
[/LIST]
Given a choice I would take #4. It's the only guaranteed option.

Except that's not a guaranteed option; and therefore is a false dichotomy. A substantial number of home-invasion burglaries escalate to assault, rape, and murder. Serial killers and serial rapists typically include burglary as part of their escalation path; many home-invasion burglars are under the influence of some sort of drug, commonly crack or meth, or are junkies undergoing withdrawl; and some are gangsters who are simply violent because they are part of a culture of violence. Without psychic powers, it's impossible to know for sure what the thief's mindset is, so it is only good sense to be prepared for any and all eventualities.