Burglar murdered..

[S0ULphIRE]

Here we run into an interesting problem. Just because someone has no rights doesn't mean it's suddenly ok to torture them.
If a dog bit a child, or even killed a child, would the pound decide to kill it by chopping it up bit by bit?

There's things that, as rational and moral human beings, we don't do. Intentionally causing great harm and suffering to someone to 'get them back' for what they've done is one of those things. I did the whole "I'll hit him coz he hit me" thing when I was a kid, then I grew up. Apparently some of us haven't managed that yet.

Whether or not the person deserves every last worst thing in the universe to happen to them is irrelevant, because we never should stoop to the level required to do those things to that person.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

But should someone die for trying to steal something from your house?

Basicaloly, are purchased items worth a life?

How do you know they are just there for a tv and aren't looking to murder anyone they find. You obviously can't ask them, they might just pull a gun and kill you as a response and then proceed to attack your now defenseless family.

The only thing worth a life in my house is another life. That life being mine or my families.

I vale my life and the lives of my family, why should I give the life of someone intending to harm them the same value. If you hide with your family the intruder may not harm any of you, if you shoot the intruder will not be capable of harming any of you.

I could care less if my thought is evil, to rape a child, and a mother, you should die, slowly. Or are you saying I should sit there and watch someone I love be raped, and possibly killed?

I don't understand how someone could seriously support sitting by and letting that happen, personally I'd much rather see the bad guy end up dead that have an inocent person harmed in any way.

Whether or not the person deserves every last worst thing in the universe to happen to them is irrelevant, because we never should stoop to the level required to do those things to that person.

That's a whole 'nother situation but I think it's not that easy of a question. If there is a bomb on a bus with 40 innocent people on it and you can save their lives by torturing the bomb maker for information do you do it? Do the 40 innocent lives make up for harming the one guilty one?

 

[S0ULphIRE]

I vale my life and the lives of my family, why should I give the life of someone intending to harm them the same value. If you hide with your family the intruder may not harm any of you, if you shoot the intruder will not be capable of harming any of you.

If you hide with your family, then intruder will not harm any of you unless he enters the room. If he does that, then once again your family and yourself are at risk, thus you are justified in defending yourself. If you go sneaking round the house trying to find the guy to shoot him, then not only are you leaving your family without your protection but you're also killing a man potentially over a TV.

I don't understand how someone could seriously support sitting by and letting that happen, personally I'd much rather see the bad guy end up dead that have an inocent person harmed in any way.

Who's supporting just sitting by and letting harm come to another person? Quote it, coz maybe I missed that part.

That's a whole 'nother situation but I think it's not that easy of a question. If there is a bomb on a bus with 40 innocent people on it and you can save their lives by torturing the bomb maker for information do you do it? Do the 40 innocent lives make up for harming the one guilty one?

Of course they do. I said 'no torturing' because in c0rr0sive's example, it was done out of pur vindictiveness and spite (i.e revenge for the sake of revenge). In this situation, the loss of one life meaning the continued safety of 40 others would justify it, *especially* considering that the bomb maker meant harm to others. And as I stated before:

If another's life is being endangered then by all means try to stop the attacker through any means necessary.

 

[patonb]

Sure if the person has a weapon, or does something that shows intent to cause harm, but the way some are going on, they'd shoot and torture someone for just being in their house.

Sure show your seriousness and be prepared to use it, but just shooting someone just cause they are there is lunacy.

 

[fairfieldfalconsfan]

If you hide with your family, then intruder will not harm any of you unless he enters the room. If he does that, then once again your family and yourself are at risk, thus you are justified in defending yourself. If you go sneaking round the house trying to find the guy to shoot him, then not only are you leaving your family without your protection but you're also killing a man potentially over a TV.

This is basically the way I feel. I don't care if the intruder steals everything in the house but if he comes through the door of the room where we are hiding and he has a gun and i believe he had intent to harm/kill us then wounding him is justifiable to me. If wounding him doesn't stop him then I may have to go farther but I think we all hope that we never have to go through any of this and make that decison.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

If you hide with your family, then intruder will not harm any of you unless he enters the room. If he does that, then once again your family and yourself are at risk, thus you are justified in defending yourself. If you go sneaking round the house trying to find the guy to shoot him, then not only are you leaving your family without your protection but you're also killing a man potentially over a TV.

Unless you have a panic room he doesn't have to enter the room to harm or kill them, any rifle round will easily pass through drywall. Also it does not take that much time to clear the average house, you start with the area your family is in and work away from it so they should not be open to attack. plus it is my house after all, I have very right to move about it and look for the intruder. I shouldn't have to cower in the corner hoping he just goes away. You have to realize castle law isn't some secret here, everyone knows that a robber is likely to wind up shot dead if the homeowner finds them yet they broke into an occupied house anyways. Taking that into account you must assume they are after more than just a tv and react accordingly. bottom line if they don't want to end up in a body bag they should stay the **** out of other people's houses.

 

[overlord20]

Sure if the person has a weapon, or does something that shows intent to cause harm, but the way some are going on, they'd shoot and torture someone for just being in their house.

Sure show your seriousness and be prepared to use it, but just shooting someone just cause they are there is lunacy.

I would rather be safe then sorry. Maybe they didn't come into your house intending harm, but when they realized someone was home things escalate and they usually burglars aren't the smartest people in the world and might shoot or whatever. You just never know if he is holding a weapon or is willing to kill you or your family. Just because it doesn't look like he has a weapon doesn't mean he doesn't have one.

Also the house was occupied and they had to have known that. That being said, they were willing to cause harm or they were stupid enough to expect the guy to let them casually carry off all of his stuff.

 

[Trotter]

Back to the original topic, please. No need to have this spin into dangerous territory.

We all know that we Americans see things very differently in situations like this. For one, guns are legal here and many people own them so that automatically changes the rules from the get-go. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the fundamental rights of the US, but not of most of the rest of the world. Handguns are illegal in the UK and down under.

If I owned a gun and someone broke into my house they would not be walking back out. I would have no way of knowing if they were armed and I would not be politely asking them their intentions. I have gone knocking on my sister-in-law's door at midnight and met her husband with a .38 in his hand, but I did not take offense to it as he was well within his rights to arm himself. I made sure to holler as I knocked to let them know it was me because I know he keeps a gun in their bedroom.

Different laws, different outlooks.

 

[overlord20]

View attachment 4882

 

[S0ULphIRE]

Unless you have a panic room he doesn't have to enter the room to harm or kill them, any rifle round will easily pass through drywall. Also it does not take that much time to clear the average house, you start with the area your family is in and work away from it so they should not be open to attack. plus it is my house after all, I have very right to move about it and look for the intruder. I shouldn't have to cower in the corner hoping he just goes away. You have to realize castle law isn't some secret here, everyone knows that a robber is likely to wind up shot dead if the homeowner finds them yet they broke into an occupied house anyways. Taking that into account you must assume they are after more than just a tv and react accordingly. bottom line if they don't want to end up in a body bag they should stay the **** out of other people's houses.

Lol now the intruder is packing rifles, and is shooting through doors before entering? Your and c0rr0sive's attitudes are what I don't like about the USA and the gun laws over there. Too many...people...who'd be *happy* to seek out and kill someone entering their house without permission. Makes me sick, I'm done with this thread.