Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lordhat wrote:
Yet another reason they teach you this is civil law. Say you DID shoot to incapacitate, and beat the subsequent criminal charges. This does NOT make you immune to civil lawsuits from the perpetrator, or his/her family. You know charges like "intentional maiming" and other such.


More OT: All of the above would presumably apply to using a sword on somebody, especially if that person is actually coming at you. Their momentum combined with your own force, would presumably make the cut deeper than intended.

Actually many states that use Castle Law Doctrine also incorporate immunity for those defending themselves, their homes, their work, etc. from any sort of civil cases. It really is a unique system, and something trial lawyers hate.

Yeah, even with laser sights, hitting a moving leg or swinging arm will be difficult and just shooting somebody in a non-vital area will not necessarily deter that person from attacking/shooting back.

I guess if you shoot them with a 10ga shotgun in the leg they would topple over seeing as they'd have no leg but then there is the whole bleeding all over my house issue.

Aim for the heart. A lot less blood to clean up than shooting them in the leg or even gut.

Fateweaver wrote:Yeah, even with laser sights, hitting a moving leg or swinging arm will be difficult and just shooting somebody in a non-vital area will not necessarily deter that person from attacking/shooting back.

I like how much people see Hollywood and believe it. Just because a gun has a laser sight, doesn't make it 100% accurate. Lasers have to be sighted in just like regular sights; They are accurate only at a specific range (where the trajectory of the bullet crosses the line of the laser). Too close and the bullet will be above the mark, too far and it will be below the mark. I see them as especially superfluous on a (non-hunting) handgun, considering the range at which handguns are designed for (5-10 yards). At these ranges your target can cross the distance before you can see the sight, put it where you want and pull the trigger. Defensive handgun training is a constant necessity. Ideally you want to be able to draw, point, and shoot and be accurate. This ONLY comes with repetition, and no fancy gadget or doodad will replace that.

LunaHound wrote:And again i ask you ( stop ignoring this part ) , what made you psychic to be able to know the intruder's motive?
Especially there are the type that murders everyone in their sleep even when they can get away after
stealing w/e cleanly?

People don’t have to be psychics because, for the most part, they are not complete idiots. Being as they are not complete idiots, they are capable of understanding the specifics of a situation and using that to determine to a large extent the level of threat to them and their families posed by a break-in.

If you are home alone, hear glass being broken, and can move quickly outside from an exit well away from the sound of broken glass, it is safe to say you can exit without being in fear of your life. You do not have to be psychic to know you can escape that situation without shooting anyone.

If you hear glass being broken and move to your child’s room and someone enters the room from the opposite direction, then turns and runs away, you don’t have to be psychic to know you don’t have to shoot them because they’re running away.

If you hear glass being broken and move to your child’s room and someone enters the room from the opposite direction, then lunges at you, you don’t have to be psychic to understand that’s a significant risk and you better shoot.

The argument that you can’t know anything because you’re not psychic so you better start shooting is disingenuous, invented to justify a fantasy of noble private citizens blowing away the villainous home invader. There will always be unknowns and complicating factors, and the benefit of the doubt should be extended to the homeowner. But it must be the benefit of the doubt… that is, the actual doubt over the circumstances of that case.

Ahtman wrote:

Lordhat wrote:This is the main reason that self defense classes teach pupils to aim center mass.

As well as police and military training.

Does this have anything to do with police wearing bullet proof vest but not a helmet?

Lordhat wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Yeah, even with laser sights, hitting a moving leg or swinging arm will be difficult and just shooting somebody in a non-vital area will not necessarily deter that person from attacking/shooting back.

I like how much people see Hollywood and believe it. Just because a gun has a laser sight, doesn't make it 100% accurate. Lasers have to be sighted in just like regular sights; They are accurate only at a specific range (where the trajectory of the bullet crosses the line of the laser). Too close and the bullet will be above the mark, too far and it will be below the mark. I see them as especially superfluous on a (non-hunting) handgun, considering the range at which handguns are designed for (5-10 yards). At these ranges your target can cross the distance before you can see the sight, put it where you want and pull the trigger. Defensive handgun training is a constant necessity. Ideally you want to be able to draw, point, and shoot and be accurate. This ONLY comes with repetition, and no fancy gadget or doodad will replace that.

Police in the field have about 1 round in 6 hit the target at a range of twenty feet, and they're shooting at the centre mass. If you're going to shoot, shoot at the centre mass.

The issues that need debate are the decisions you should make too avoid being in the same room as a home invader, and whether a person actually needs to be in fear of their life to shoot.

I can't believe I typed the second bit, I have a really hard time getting my head around the idea that people think you should be able to shoot someone just because they broke in, whether you're in fear of your life or not.

sebster wrote:

LunaHound wrote:And again i ask you ( stop ignoring this part ) , what made you psychic to be able to know the intruder's motive?
Especially there are the type that murders everyone in their sleep even when they can get away after
stealing w/e cleanly?

People don’t have to be psychics because, for the most part, they are not complete idiots. Being as they are not complete idiots, they are capable of understanding the specifics of a situation and using that to determine to a large extent the level of threat to them and their families posed by a break-in.

If you are home alone, hear glass being broken, and can move quickly outside from an exit well away from the sound of broken glass, it is safe to say you can exit without being in fear of your life. You do not have to be psychic to know you can escape that situation without shooting anyone. Considering you arnt a psychic , you would have to take risk of not knowing if there is a look out out side.
Thats to say if you are a ninja and can sneak by undetected. ( 2 Risk already )

If you hear glass being broken and move to your child’s room and someone enters the room from the opposite direction, then turns and runs away, you don’t have to be psychic to know you don’t have to shoot them because they’re running away. ( And what if they dont run away? )

If you hear glass being broken and move to your child’s room and someone enters the room from the opposite direction, then lunges at you, you don’t have to be psychic to understand that’s a significant risk and you better shoot.
You assume that they have to lunge at you or be in close proximity to cause harm ? come on this isnt the ice age , even they have throwing spear back then ( risk #3 )

The argument that you can’t know anything because you’re not psychic so you better start shooting is disingenuous, invented to justify a fantasy of noble private citizens blowing away the villainous home invader. There will always be unknowns and complicating factors, and the benefit of the doubt should be extended to the homeowner. But it must be the benefit of the doubt… that is, the actual doubt over the circumstances of that case.

Ya there is always unknown factors . But whats your point? Why should the home owner only get as much right as someone that willingly break in a house ?
Like i keep saying , you guys keep assuming the only type of intruder are the type that will run away after they get what they want. WHICH IS NOT the case BY FAR.
So nope mister , what you said just doesnt cut it.

Lordhat wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Yeah, even with laser sights, hitting a moving leg or swinging arm will be difficult and just shooting somebody in a non-vital area will not necessarily deter that person from attacking/shooting back.

I like how much people see Hollywood and believe it. Just because a gun has a laser sight, doesn't make it 100% accurate. Lasers have to be sighted in just like regular sights; They are accurate only at a specific range (where the trajectory of the bullet crosses the line of the laser). Too close and the bullet will be above the mark, too far and it will be below the mark. I see them as especially superfluous on a (non-hunting) handgun, considering the range at which handguns are designed for (5-10 yards). At these ranges your target can cross the distance before you can see the sight, put it where you want and pull the trigger. Defensive handgun training is a constant necessity. Ideally you want to be able to draw, point, and shoot and be accurate. This ONLY comes with repetition, and no fancy gadget or doodad will replace that.

I realize this but a well sighted in laser is a lot more accurate than relying on the fixed sights on most handguns. If I hear someone break into my home I normally have 30 seconds or so to establish my target depending where in my house they happen to be. At 15 feet if I'm aiming center chest odds are unless that person goes Neo on me, even if the sight is a little off, the round will find it's mark on and hit that person.

Most often it it is not a quick draw, old west type of shootout at high noon where the defender has to actually pull the gun from the holster. Mine is not holstered in my house, it's kept by my bed in my nightstand. If I had to use it I'd pull it from drawer, flick off the safety and advance toward the disturbance with it in the ready-fire position. Sometimes, seeing the red dot on their heart will make a person think twice about messing with you. I've never had to pull a gun on anyone yet but I do know the limitations of laser sights and Hollywood does not actually smoke and mirrors lasers on guns.

The sight won't make you shoot like Annie Oakley if you can't aim without one but it will make your shot more accurate.

LunaHound wrote:
Ya there is always unknown factors . But whats your point? Why should the home owner only get as much right as someone that willingly break in a house ?
Like i keep saying , you guys keep assuming the only type of intruder are the type that will run away after they get what they want. WHICH IS NOT the case BY FAR.
So nope mister , what you said just doesnt cut it.

You're missing the point of situational awareness. If they don't run away, then you have additional cause to use lethal force. If they have a weapon, then you have additional cause to use lethal force.

If they're in your backyard, garage, or running away from your house after being confronted, then you do not have cause to use lethal force.

This isn't a complicated concept. All that's being said is that people do not have the absolute right to use lethal force under any circumstances in which someone has unlawfully entered their homes.

It must be noted that Jeffersonian ideals, mostly those of personal responsibility and integrity, are very influential in Castle Law Doctrine. In fact these laws are almost completely reliant on them as a means of justification.

sebster wrote:

Lordhat wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Yeah, even with laser sights, hitting a moving leg or swinging arm will be difficult and just shooting somebody in a non-vital area will not necessarily deter that person from attacking/shooting back.

I like how much people see Hollywood and believe it. Just because a gun has a laser sight, doesn't make it 100% accurate. Lasers have to be sighted in just like regular sights; They are accurate only at a specific range (where the trajectory of the bullet crosses the line of the laser). Too close and the bullet will be above the mark, too far and it will be below the mark. I see them as especially superfluous on a (non-hunting) handgun, considering the range at which handguns are designed for (5-10 yards). At these ranges your target can cross the distance before you can see the sight, put it where you want and pull the trigger. Defensive handgun training is a constant necessity. Ideally you want to be able to draw, point, and shoot and be accurate. This ONLY comes with repetition, and no fancy gadget or doodad will replace that.

Police in the field have about 1 round in 6 hit the target at a range of twenty feet, and they're shooting at the centre mass. If you're going to shoot, shoot at the centre mass.

The issues that need debate are the decisions you should make too avoid being in the same room as a home invader, and whether a person actually needs to be in fear of their life to shoot.

I can't believe I typed the second bit, I have a really hard time getting my head around the idea that people think you should be able to shoot someone just because they broke in, whether you're in fear of your life or not.

The law in Mn supports using lethal force to prevent a crime from being committed in your dwelling.

I can't get my head around the fact some people think citizens don't need handguns or that someone breaking into your house is doing it because they don't intend to commit a crime. Wft are they breaking into my house for? A place to sleep? Watch free cable tv?

Someone breaking into my house is intending to commit a crime beyond breaking and entering (as that in and of itself is a crime) and so I have a really hard time comprehending why I, the guy who owns the house and pays taxes, should run from some lowlife hell bent on robbing me when I can defend myself and have the RIGHT to defend myself.

I should buy a .44mag. feth wounding the bastard, I'll either take his head clean off or dismember him. Haha.

dogma wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
Ya there is always unknown factors . But whats your point? Why should the home owner only get as much right as someone that willingly break in a house ?
Like i keep saying , you guys keep assuming the only type of intruder are the type that will run away after they get what they want. WHICH IS NOT the case BY FAR.
So nope mister , what you said just doesnt cut it.

You're missing the point of situational awareness. If they don't run away, then you have additional cause to use lethal force. If they have a weapon, then you have additional cause to use lethal force.

If they're in your backyard, garage, or running away from your house after being confronted, then you do not have cause to use lethal force.

This isn't a complicated concept. All that's being said is that people do not have the absolute right to use lethal force under any circumstances in which someone has unlawfully entered their homes.

And i never said people do. So i'll clear it up again for people that seem to purposely ignore what i say ( not you dogma )

In a situation where you do NOT know whats going on ( example you are asleep and wake up to smashed window / kicked door etc etc )
How do you safely determine the danger?
- do you know how long they have been in your house? can you be certain the broken glass is only the start of the intrution ?
- do you know how many intruders are involved?
- can you tell their motive ? dont forget the type that murders even after getting their loot
- can you confirm whether the police will arrive before the intruder reaches you and your family member's rooms?
- can you confirm their weaponry? do you assume they only carry knives and will only lunge at you as first sign of aggression?
- what if they carry a gun? can you see? do you honestly believe they'll turn the light on? or are you going to turn the light on to check their weapon?
- or do you have some night vision goggle / xray display gates ? ( lol )

I can list more , but the list above are extremely dangerous and impossible to tell ahead of the time .
How do you deal with that safely , you are welcome to reply .

But if you cant , then know this . I dont want to see anyone getting hurt because they feel going easy on an intruder is deemed "humane"
which is not the case at all here.

*edit , i dont know where you guys are getting the idea of "luna think every type of break in deserves to be killed " from
but do try not put words in my mouth as much .

Cane wrote:

dogma wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
Ya there is always unknown factors . But whats your point? Why should the home owner only get as much right as someone that willingly break in a house ?
Like i keep saying , you guys keep assuming the only type of intruder are the type that will run away after they get what they want. WHICH IS NOT the case BY FAR.
So nope mister , what you said just doesnt cut it.

You're missing the point of situational awareness. If they don't run away, then you have additional cause to use lethal force. If they have a weapon, then you have additional cause to use lethal force.

If they're in your backyard, garage, or running away from your house after being confronted, then you do not have cause to use lethal force.

This isn't a complicated concept. All that's being said is that people do not have the absolute right to use lethal force under any circumstances in which someone has unlawfully entered their homes.

Agreed. A black and white approach doesn't really work in this case or in many legal circumstances.

Yes , and show me where i said break in = automatically ok to kill the intruder.

dogma wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
Ya there is always unknown factors . But whats your point? Why should the home owner only get as much right as someone that willingly break in a house ?
Like i keep saying , you guys keep assuming the only type of intruder are the type that will run away after they get what they want. WHICH IS NOT the case BY FAR.
So nope mister , what you said just doesnt cut it.

You're missing the point of situational awareness. If they don't run away, then you have additional cause to use lethal force. If they have a weapon, then you have additional cause to use lethal force.

If they're in your backyard, garage, or running away from your house after being confronted, then you do not have cause to use lethal force.

This isn't a complicated concept. All that's being said is that people do not have the absolute right to use lethal force under any circumstances in which someone has unlawfully entered their homes.

Agreed. A black and white approach doesn't really work in this case or in many legal circumstances.

Tells that to my states self defense laws and statutes. I'm too lazy to look them up but I believe it was page 2 or 3 I posted links.

In a nutshell for those too lazy Mn law says use of lethal force is allowed to prevent a felony crime from occurring in your home. Burglary in the state of Mn is a Felony, Burglary is the act of breaking into someones dwelling with intent to commit theft. Thus, entering my home to commit theft (and wtf are they in my house if it's not for the purpose of stealing or trying to harm me or my brother) does grant me, by the state of Mn, the right to lethal force to defend my dwelling.

If they break into my shop that ISN'T attached to my house or just stand in my front yard looking sheepishly at me I cannot use lethal force as that is not considered my dwelling and I would therefore be liable and most likely jailed for excessive force UNLESS that person pulled a gun or some similiar weapon on me but just being in my shop or garage or tool shed does not give me right to kill them.

Fateweaver wrote:

I realize this but a well sighted in laser is a lot more accurate than relying on the fixed sights on most handguns.

Proper point-shoot training means you're not using the sights fixed or not. Repetition will train you to point the barrel where you intend to shoot every time very accurately. When done seriously with self defense in mind, stress is added to the training mechanism to stimulate adrenaline flow, and accustomizing one to it's effects. Note that this is INTENSIVE training, far beyond what the normal policeman or soldier will undergo. Swat and Spec Ops train like this, for a reason. They need to be accurate every time. Unfortunately I do not have the financial ability to train like this and neither will the average Joe, as it requires 1,000's of rounds to first hone the skills, and then a minimum of 300 rounds a week to keep them.

If I hear someone break into my home I normally have 30 seconds or so to establish my target depending where in my house they happen to be. At 15 feet if I'm aiming center chest odds are unless that person goes Neo on me, even if the sight is a little off, the round will find it's mark on and hit that person.

This is likely. My post was more directed at the people who think that laser's = instant OMGBOOMHEADSHOTPWNED.

The sight won't make you shoot like Annie Oakley if you can't aim without one but it will make your shot more accurate.

Agreed, but only if you have time to place it accurately AND process that you have done so (Hard to do if the intruder rushes you as soon as he's aware of your presence. Not likely, but still a possibility). I still advocate learning to shoot instinctively without one, at which point it would just be a liability, having practiced so much without it.

LunaHound wrote:Considering you arnt a psychic , you would have to take risk of not knowing if there is a look out out side.
Thats to say if you are a ninja and can sneak by undetected. ( 2 Risk already )

So, upon hearing broken glass, you're assuming it is reasonably likely that there is a lookout posted outside near your exit point who will attack you or alert others, or that if they hear you escaping they'll hunt you down... therefore you need to approach the sound of the disturbance weapon at the ready. I don't know you, but I don't believe you're a paranoid psychotic, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you aren't honest in arguing the above from a genuine position.

If you hear glass being broken and move to your child’s room and someone enters the room from the opposite direction, then turns and runs away, you don’t have to be psychic to know you don’t have to shoot them because they’re running away. ( And what if they dont run away? )

They were running away, it was explicit in the hypothetical that they were running away. The point is that is a person is running away from you as fast possible, even though he is in your house and you aren't psychic, you can tell you don't need to shoot him.

If you hear glass being broken and move to your child’s room and someone enters the room from the opposite direction, then lunges at you, you don’t have to be psychic to understand that’s a significant risk and you better shoot.
You assume that they have to lunge at you or be in close proximity to cause harm ? come on this isnt the ice age , even they have throwing spear back then ( risk #3 )

No, I don't assume that, where did you learn to read? I said they were lunging, and that was sufficient grounds to justify self defence. This doesn't exclude a wide variety of other circumstances that would also justify self defence.

Ya there is always unknown factors . But whats your point? Why should the home owner only get as much right as someone that willingly break in a house ?
Like i keep saying , you guys keep assuming the only type of intruder are the type that will run away after they get what they want. WHICH IS NOT the case BY FAR.
So nope mister , what you said just doesnt cut it.

What was my point? The point was that there are lot of circumstances where the threat level can be reasonably determined. Like Dogma said it is not a complicated thing to understand.

The homeowner should get the same rights as the home invader because, strangely enough, everyone gets the same rights.

Your last line about us assuming the only type of intruder is the kind who will run away is just rubbish. Just awful. No-one has said that home invaders will always run away, no-one has hinted at it, implied it or relied on it in their arguments.

In fact, people have said just the opposite, saying it is alright to defend yourself when you are in fear of your life, which would indicate an understanding that many home invaders will not run.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:The law in Mn supports using lethal force to prevent a crime from being committed in your dwelling.

And several other states as well. Of course, 'that's the law' isn't much of a defence against the charge 'that's a crap law'.

I can't get my head around the fact some people think citizens don't need handguns or that someone breaking into your house is doing it because they don't intend to commit a crime. Wft are they breaking into my house for? A place to sleep? Watch free cable tv?

I'm not arguing that they might not be there to break a law? That would be silly, given they've already broken one just by entering.

People are arguing that just because someone is breaking a law, it doesn't mean you get to shoot them.

Someone breaking into my house is intending to commit a crime beyond breaking and entering (as that in and of itself is a crime) and so I have a really hard time comprehending why I, the guy who owns the house and pays taxes, should run from some lowlife hell bent on robbing me when I can defend myself and have the RIGHT to defend myself.

You have the right to defend yourself and your family. It's having the right to use lethal force to defend your X-Box that's a lot more dubious.

I should buy a .44mag. feth wounding the bastard, I'll either take his head clean off or dismember him. Haha.

Teehee. Killing people is hilarious.

sebster wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Considering you arnt a psychic , you would have to take risk of not knowing if there is a look out out side.
Thats to say if you are a ninja and can sneak by undetected. ( 2 Risk already )

So, upon hearing broken glass, you're assuming it is reasonably likely that there is a lookout posted outside near your exit point who will attack you or alert others, or that if they hear you escaping they'll hunt you down... therefore you need to approach the sound of the disturbance weapon at the ready. I don't know you, but I don't believe you're a paranoid psychotic, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you aren't honest in arguing the above from a genuine position. Again , dont put words in my mouth . What im saying is , unlike you suggested im not going to attempt to move a whole family to sneak out of the "exit"
unless i know there there isnt someone as look out or i wont bump into them on the way out . I would phone the police and pray they'll arrive first . But INCASE they dont , the gun will be ready.

If you hear glass being broken and move to your child’s room and someone enters the room from the opposite direction, then turns and runs away, you don’t have to be psychic to know you don’t have to shoot them because they’re running away. ( And what if they dont run away? )

Now you see , here is why i said no one is psychic and should NOT treat this as if you are. How do you confirm when they "run" they'll run out of the house?
how do you know they arnt running to another room due to the sudden surprise ( and thinking what if you have a gun for them )
In other words You Dont Know , I Dont Know . Again , you want to risk it?

They were running away, it was explicit in the hypothetical that they were running away. The point is that is a person is running away from you as fast possible, even though he is in your house and you aren't psychic, you can tell you don't need to shoot him.
See above .

If you hear glass being broken and move to your child’s room and someone enters the room from the opposite direction, then lunges at you, you don’t have to be psychic to understand that’s a significant risk and you better shoot.
You assume that they have to lunge at you or be in close proximity to cause harm ? come on this isnt the ice age , even they have throwing spear back then ( risk #3 )

No, I don't assume that, where did you learn to read? I said they were lunging, and that was sufficient grounds to justify self defence. This doesn't exclude a wide variety of other circumstances that would also justify self defence.
Yep , and exactly how accurate and fast on the trigger are you willing to put your family in danger to acess the situation to deem it "justify situation" ? are you Neo? can you do bullet time? Cuz... i dunno anyone can

Ya there is always unknown factors . But whats your point? Why should the home owner only get as much right as someone that willingly break in a house ?
Like i keep saying , you guys keep assuming the only type of intruder are the type that will run away after they get what they want. WHICH IS NOT the case BY FAR.
So nope mister , what you said just doesnt cut it.

What was my point? The point was that there are lot of circumstances where the threat level can be reasonably determined. Like Dogma said it is not a complicated thing to understand.
And my point is , a bullet flies too fast . You think there is time and chance to determine the situation , i think its risky . And i wont risk my live for the sake of someone purposely intruding.
The homeowner should get the same rights as the home invader because, strangely enough, everyone gets the same rights.
Bingo , thus im not going to wait around to be shot first to be humane .
Your last line about us assuming the only type of intruder is the kind who will run away is just rubbish. Just awful. No-one has said that home invaders will always run away, no-one has hinted at it, implied it or relied on it in their arguments.

In fact, people have said just the opposite, saying it is alright to defend yourself when you are in fear of your life, which would indicate an understanding that many home invaders will not run.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:The law in Mn supports using lethal force to prevent a crime from being committed in your dwelling.

And several other states as well. Of course, 'that's the law' isn't much of a defence against the charge 'that's a crap law'.

I can't get my head around the fact some people think citizens don't need handguns or that someone breaking into your house is doing it because they don't intend to commit a crime. Wft are they breaking into my house for? A place to sleep? Watch free cable tv?

I'm not arguing that they might not be there to break a law? That would be silly, given they've already broken one just by entering.

People are arguing that just because someone is breaking a law, it doesn't mean you get to shoot them.

Someone breaking into my house is intending to commit a crime beyond breaking and entering (as that in and of itself is a crime) and so I have a really hard time comprehending why I, the guy who owns the house and pays taxes, should run from some lowlife hell bent on robbing me when I can defend myself and have the RIGHT to defend myself.

You have the right to defend yourself and your family. It's having the right to use lethal force to defend your X-Box that's a lot more dubious.

I should buy a .44mag. feth wounding the bastard, I'll either take his head clean off or dismember him. Haha.

Teehee. Killing people is hilarious.

See the sentence i highlighted? dont do that again. Unlike you guys i dont find issues on forum to be worth lieing for.
Granted there is a possibility that my sentence might cause confusion , but there is also possibility that you are misunderstanding what i type as well on your end.
So even though i understand you are in a "heated" debate atm , try to control yourself mister.

Red and green really do not work well when you are trying to make a clear statement...

Try orange...

LunaHound wrote:Yes , and show me where i said break in = automatically ok to kill the intruder.

What other conclusion could be drawn from what you've been arguing in this thread?

You said there is no luxury to go easy on the intruder, because you aren't psychic. You later repeated the point about lacking psychic abilities, ignoring the countless other abilities humans have at their disposal for figuring a situation out, and started talking about psycho killers breaking in to houses to kill people in their sleep.

frgsinwntr asked if you thought anyone that killed someone in their house is innocent. If you believe the right to shoot was limited, then the answer was a very simple 'no'. But you didn't give that answer.

frgsinwntr later said that while you should use lethal force to protect your family, but not just because someone broke in. Relapse wished good luck in trying to ascertain motive in a robbery, meaning that you should open fire first and foremost, giving no thought to the conditions indicating whether or not someone is a threat. You quoted Relapse for truth.

When I gave an example of a victim being able so leave the premises without ever seeing the intruder, you supposed additional attackers lurking outside waiting to hunt the victim down.

So you believe a significant number of home invaders are there to kill you, not just take your stuff, but will look for you in the house in order to kill you. You believe that as we aren't psychic, there is absolutely no possible way of knowing if the intruder is a psycho killer or regular burglar. You think that even if you can quickly exit the house, there's a significant risk that the possible psycho killer has sentries lurking outside.

sebster wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Yes , and show me where i said break in = automatically ok to kill the intruder.

What other conclusion could be drawn from what you've been arguing in this thread?

You said there is no luxury to go easy on the intruder, because you aren't psychic. You later repeated the point about lacking psychic abilities, ignoring the countless other abilities humans have at their disposal for figuring a situation out, and started talking about psycho killers breaking in to houses to kill people in their sleep.

frgsinwntr asked if you thought anyone that killed someone in their house is innocent. If you believe the right to shoot was limited, then the answer was a very simple 'no'. But you didn't give that answer.

frgsinwntr later said that while you should use lethal force to protect your family, but not just because someone broke in. Relapse wished good luck in trying to ascertain motive in a robbery, meaning that you should open fire first and foremost, giving no thought to the conditions indicating whether or not someone is a threat. You quoted Relapse for truth.

When I gave an example of a victim being able so leave the premises without ever seeing the intruder, you supposed additional attackers lurking outside waiting to hunt the victim down.

So you believe a significant number of home invaders are there to kill you, not just take your stuff, but will look for you in the house in order to kill you. You believe that as we aren't psychic, there is absolutely no possible way of knowing if the intruder is a psycho killer or regular burglar. You think that even if you can quickly exit the house, there's a significant risk that the possible psycho killer has sentries lurking outside.

In a situation where you do NOT know whats going on ( example you are asleep and wake up to smashed window / kicked door etc etc )
How do you safely determine the danger?
- do you know how long they have been in your house? can you be certain the broken glass is only the start of the intrution ?
- do you know how many intruders are involved?
- can you tell their motive ? dont forget the type that murders even after getting their loot
- can you confirm whether the police will arrive before the intruder reaches you and your family member's rooms?
- can you confirm their weaponry? do you assume they only carry knives and will only lunge at you as first sign of aggression?
- what if they carry a gun? can you see? do you honestly believe they'll turn the light on? or are you going to turn the light on to check their weapon?
- or do you have some night vision goggle / xray display gates ? ( lol )

*Cough because after countless times i post in this thread " if a situation occurs that is going to be risky , i rather not risk / trade a family's
safety just to make sure the intruder is humanely incapacitated . *cough *cough.

No seb , ya know i really dunno what else that must mean after its been repeated over and over and over and over again.
*shrug

LunaHound wrote:Again , dont put words in my mouth . What im saying is , unlike you suggested im not going to attempt to move a whole family to sneak out of the "exit"
unless i know there there isnt someone as look out or i wont bump into them on the way out . I would phone the police and pray they'll arrive first . But INCASE they dont , the gun will be ready.

Did you read the anecdote? I pointed out that you were alone in the house, and that the breaking glass was at the opposite side from your direct exit. The example was created specifically for the example of ‘you can leave the house safely and not risk any engagement with the attacker’.

Most people would recognise that as what it was, and say ‘I would leave the house, because I value my life more than some property.’ But you didn’t, you invented some stuff about attackers lurking outside, and when I pointed out how silly that was you ignored the explicit conditions of the hypothetical to invent a situation more to your own liking.

Now you see , here is why i said no one is psychic and should NOT treat this as if you are. How do you confirm when they "run" they'll run out of the house?
how do you know they arnt running to another room due to the sudden surprise ( and thinking what if you have a gun for them )
In other words You Dont Know , I Dont Know . Again , you want to risk it?

Sigh. You’re right that just because someone is running away it doesn’t mean they’re automatically completely harmless, but there are certainly many, many conditions where a person in flight is clearly no longer a threat. In those situations, you shouldn’t shoot.

You’re obviously struggling with the idea that hypotheticals demonstrate general points, so I’ll just ask the one, big question. Can you conceive of a situation where a homeowner would not be justified in killing the invader?

Bingo , thus im not going to wait around to be shot first to be humane.

No, and if you think there is a risk to your life you should shoot, everyone has said that. But you keep ignoring the simple idea that there are situations in which a home invader is clearly not a threat.

See the sentence i highlighted? dont do that again. Unlike you guys i dont find issues on forum to be worth lieing for.

“Unlike you guys”? So you’re saying some of us are lying? Don’t play that passive aggressive game, if you have an accusation to make, make it.

Granted there is a possibility that my sentence might cause confusion , but there is also possibility that you are misunderstanding what i type as well on your end.
So even though i understand you are in a "heated" debate atm , try to control yourself mister.

You aren’t being honest. Outside of the deeply paranoid and people who are actually being hunted by armed gangs, no-one who hears breaking glass in their house, assumes there are lookouts lurking in the bushes outside. It’s ridiculous. But you typed it out and put it in as a reason that you couldn’t safely exit the house.

But I’ll just ask this big question again; can you conceive of a situation where a home intruder might not be in genuine fear of his life? If that is possible, if the homeowner shot the intruder despite not fearing for his life, do you consider him a murderer?

Don't you guys leave your doors unlocked?

Silly beer drinking Canadians...

Wait... for good measure... Silly beer drinking U.S. Americans...

Sebster wrote:You’re obviously struggling with the idea that hypotheticals demonstrate general points, so I’ll just ask the one, big question. Can you conceive of a situation where a homeowner would not be justified in killing the invader?

sebster wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Again , dont put words in my mouth . What im saying is , unlike you suggested im not going to attempt to move a whole family to sneak out of the "exit"
unless i know there there isnt someone as look out or i wont bump into them on the way out . I would phone the police and pray they'll arrive first . But INCASE they dont , the gun will be ready.

Did you read the anecdote? I pointed out that you were alone in the house, and that the breaking glass was at the opposite side from your direct exit. The example was created specifically for the example of ‘you can leave the house safely and not risk any engagement with the attacker’.
And im again telling you , in the real world you wouldnt KNOW that thus the example is pointless


Most people would recognise that as what it was, and say ‘I would leave the house, because I value my life more than some property.’ But you didn’t, you invented some stuff about attackers lurking outside, and when I pointed out how silly that was you ignored the explicit conditions of the hypothetical to invent a situation more to your own liking.
Umm , if its safe to leave the house during a break in , im sure people would . But realistically ? no.

Now you see , here is why i said no one is psychic and should NOT treat this as if you are. How do you confirm when they "run" they'll run out of the house?
how do you know they arnt running to another room due to the sudden surprise ( and thinking what if you have a gun for them )
In other words You Dont Know , I Dont Know . Again , you want to risk it?

Sigh. You’re right that just because someone is running away it doesn’t mean they’re automatically completely harmless, but there are certainly many, many conditions where a person in flight is clearly no longer a threat. In those situations, you shouldn’t shoot.
And did i say they should? stop putting words in my mouth

You’re obviously struggling with the idea that hypotheticals demonstrate general points, so I’ll just ask the one, big question. Can you conceive of a situation where a homeowner would not be justified in killing the invader?
Yes , if the home owner shouts "i call the police , give up or give it up or i'll shoot " and the intruder actually drop onto the floor with arms and legs spread out and surrenders . It can end peacefully

[color=green]Bingo , thus im not going to wait around to be shot first to be humane.[/color]

No, and if you think there is a risk to your life you should shoot, everyone has said that. But you keep ignoring the simple idea that there are situations in which a home invader is clearly not a threat.

See the sentence i highlighted? dont do that again. Unlike you guys i dont find issues on forum to be worth lieing for.

“Unlike you guys”? So you’re saying some of us are lying? Don’t play that passive aggressive game, if you have an accusation to make, make it.
Why would i need to play passive aggressive game? Are you out of your mind? You said im not honest , i simply replied with the truth that
a forum is certainly not something worth lieing for. Cogito, ergo sum ( where the **** did you pull that from that im implying anything more? )

Granted there is a possibility that my sentence might cause confusion , but there is also possibility that you are misunderstanding what i type as well on your end.
So even though i understand you are in a "heated" debate atm , try to control yourself mister.

You aren’t being honest. Outside of the deeply paranoid and people who are actually being hunted by armed gangs, no-one who hears breaking glass in their house, assumes there are lookouts lurking in the bushes outside. It’s ridiculous. But you typed it out and put it in as a reason that you couldn’t safely exit the house.
WTH? what does this have to do with honesty ? What make your situation anymore credible than mine that a break in always solo and never results in murder?

But I’ll just ask this big question again; can you conceive of a situation where a home intruder might not be in genuine fear of his life? If that is possible, if the homeowner shot the intruder despite not fearing for his life, do you consider him a murderer?
Yep i answered above already , and to the 2nd part of the question. If the intruder "had" a weapon , and he threw it away and layed down head first with arms and legs out
AND the owner still decide to shoot him ( assuming its 100% confirmed there is no accomplice ) then its murder.

Here , incase you think im the type that do passive aggressive or w/e BS , here is something truthful i want to say , and not sugar coating it
and i know you wont like it.

Honestly , with me expressing my view on why its risky to deal with intruder *your way warranting this type of
garbage debate is why nothing can get done now days. You are so engorged in the sake of debating that you already forgot why we are arguing.

Let me just tell you this , in sentences there are always a few ways to interpret the meaning .
Try re-reading what i type from the very beginning without prejudice and you might not miss interpret my sentences.

Okie dokie...



And the loud and the really louder, and the really loudest too... and some chips please... no, I would prefer guacamole to salsa thank you.

...Would you like a taco?

You have the right to defend yourself and your family. It's having the right to use lethal force to defend your X-Box that's a lot more dubious.

Again, I don't give a damn about the fact they are trying to steal, I care about the fact they may decide not to leave witnesses or maybe they broke in in the first place to kill me and my bro.

I am not going to ask the guy politely why he broke into my house just so that I can judge whether or not to use lethal force. Burglary is a FELONY in my state, I have the State of Mn's permission to use lethal force to prevent that Felony from occurring.

If the scumbag had not broken into my house in the first place he might have lived to see his next birthday.

Again, why must I keep myself in check for the benefit of some low life pile gak? Should I grab a chair or maybe a flashlight to beat him with instead of my gun so he has a chance to retaliate and hurt me or kill me?

I have a hand gun in my house for protection. Some people keep German shepherds or Rottweilers for protection.

Now, would you rather see someone turn a German Shepherd loose on an intruder or shoot them? Because according to you, to do anything other than shooting the guy/woman is more humane. Trust me, it isn't pretty what a Shepherd/Rott/Pitbull can do to a person. Unless the guy is armed I guarantee the guy will wish he had been shot instead.

I love these arguments. It seems as if once a month some lefty that knows gak about gun rights and self defense laws/rights tries to make me and my friends look evil and bad because we want to protect one of the rights the Constitution grants us. Maybe not all Left-wingers think that way but every one of them that have confronted me about it HAVE been left wingers so I admit to being biased like that. If I offended someone I am not going to apologize. Sorry.

Fateweaver im sorry to impose this on you but...
can i just have you talk in my place -_-

i mean i think we meant the same thing , and im really tired of replying .

I could care less about this situation, people will shoot to kill regardless of the law, and that is only common sense talking.

Bringing up the point of a dog, it is pretty much the same thing, but in that situation your putting an animal in danger .

What does intrigue me though, is how voraciously both sides of this debate are pushing for their views... Does it really matter? There are so many situations that the obvious answer is to nuke them from orbit, but in most situations there is a better answer.

Whether you choose to decapitate the intruder is up to you, the main point being, why in the feth would you feel so absolutely fantastic about it?

Wrexasaur wrote:
Whether you choose to decapitate the intruder is up to you, the main point being, why in the feth would you feel so absolutely fantastic about it?

Sigh i dunno , i wouldnt feel fantastic about harming someone else if its not necessary .
Im just confused to why seb keep claiming i would shoot a intruder dead for the sake of just intruding .

I kept telling him if a situation occured that is unconfirmed and unsafe for the house owner ( which is 90% of the time in reality ) ,
i rather think the house owner should have the right to play it safe and not risk the unknown factors ( that i have typed twice already )

Honestly im not sure why its so confusing.

I wouldn't feel fantastic about it as a .45ACP round is a little over $1 per round. I pay $25 for 20 at Gander Mtn.

I wasted $1 and around 15-20 minutes cleaning my gun because some douche is trying to steal my 40k dudes. If I had a copy of the 3.5 Chaos codex laying around I'd throw that at them, tell them to read it and then call the funny wagon when their brain goes to mush from reading such drivel. LOL. Or maybe I'd do them a favor and shoot them to put them out of their misery.

Either way I lose because I wasted money and time and effort on someone who doesn't deserve to exist on the same planet I do.

That was for Fateweaver actually, and I have no problem with his views, just the fact that he seems to take intense pleasure from the whole idea.

You however Luna, seem to be pushing uphill for the sake of going downhill backwards... just saying. Read your statement a few more times, and try to point out the fallacy in it.

Wait... here it is...

Im just confused to why seb keep claiming i would shoot a intruder dead for the sake of just intruding .

Okay... you think killing is bad... I understand that...

i rather think the house owner should have the right to play it safe and not risk the unknown factors

But killing is okay in this situation? Ignore the fact that I have typed here, and seriously review your logic on this one. You have said that you would not shoot, but you would shoot... understand?

Fateweaver wrote:Either way I lose because I wasted money and time and effort on someone who doesn't deserve to exist on the same planet I do.

Right... okay then. You can do what you do, and you will I am sure, just make sure that Santa does not "give" you a bad wrap on Christmas .

DIE BUGS DIE!!! Bugs that look an awful lot like you... but I digress.