I think that's a ten yard penalty and a loss of down, right?
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.
Burglar Stabbed To Death: Is This Self-Defence?
- Thread starter EnglishCrusader
- Start date
I think that's a ten yard penalty and a loss of down, right?
GhostWriter16
Deity
@RedRalph- Saying "We should give the homeowners the benefit of the doubt, which makes them safer as they don't have to worry about the particulars" is different from saying "Shooting on sight is the only appropriate response.
Well, without permission it IS tresspassing, but I'm pretty sure its not a FELONY so no. I think there's a legitimate difference here. Short of a few debatable things, such as drugs (We aren't starting a drug debate here folks) or an extreme situation such as rebellion, we can all pretty much agree that committing a felony is WRONG. People don't commit felonies out of carelessness, rather out of deliberate intent. A misdemeanor.... Probably isn't that big of a deal, I mean, it CAN be but it is definitely not worth shooting someone over
Think of it this way, if I'm speeding, and I drive faster than the cop who's trying to catch me, and he can't catch me, he'll let me go. I don't know what the exact procedure is for this, but I know it isn't "Shoot on sight."
On the other hand, if I shot someone and ran, the cop may very well pull out a gun and shoot me. Its a matter of extremes. I'd say if they broke into my house to try to rob me, I think I have a right to defend my property with deadly force, period. The morality is more nuanced, but the legality shouldn't be, otherwise you are telling a victim that he MUST remain a victim instead of protecting himself. Overrelying on big brother to be certain...
Well, without permission it IS tresspassing, but I'm pretty sure its not a FELONY so no. I think there's a legitimate difference here. Short of a few debatable things, such as drugs (We aren't starting a drug debate here folks) or an extreme situation such as rebellion, we can all pretty much agree that committing a felony is WRONG. People don't commit felonies out of carelessness, rather out of deliberate intent. A misdemeanor.... Probably isn't that big of a deal, I mean, it CAN be but it is definitely not worth shooting someone over
Think of it this way, if I'm speeding, and I drive faster than the cop who's trying to catch me, and he can't catch me, he'll let me go. I don't know what the exact procedure is for this, but I know it isn't "Shoot on sight."
On the other hand, if I shot someone and ran, the cop may very well pull out a gun and shoot me. Its a matter of extremes. I'd say if they broke into my house to try to rob me, I think I have a right to defend my property with deadly force, period. The morality is more nuanced, but the legality shouldn't be, otherwise you are telling a victim that he MUST remain a victim instead of protecting himself. Overrelying on big brother to be certain...
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
After reading the last couple of pages of this thread, it is fair to say that I am now far more scared of conservative Americans than I am of burglars.
If you were driving that fast, you'd probably crash into something, or more cops would show up.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Its called an illustration....
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
After reading the last couple of pages of this thread, it is fair to say that I am now far more scared of conservative Americans than I am of burglars.
Especially since they are usually the ones with the guns.
civver_764
Deity
First of all, you can't "lose rights". They're rights and only work if universally applied.
Second of all, if your first reaction is to harm the person without ever being directly threatened yourself, you're doing it wrong. The obvious thing to do would be to examine the situation, threaten or warn them if they don't flee, and only if they attack you can you attack back. You have a right to protect your home, but within reasonable measures.
Finally, I can't really comment on this specific case since we don't really know what happened inside the house. If the guy got pissed off and started stabbing the dude without any real provocation(and no, the simple act of him breaking into his home is not provocation, I don't think anyone seriously believes that. Don't kid yourselves.), then he should get in trouble. If there was a violent encounter and the guy happened to be stabbed before running off and his buddies left him to die. Well then, sad day for the burglar.
Second of all, if your first reaction is to harm the person without ever being directly threatened yourself, you're doing it wrong. The obvious thing to do would be to examine the situation, threaten or warn them if they don't flee, and only if they attack you can you attack back. You have a right to protect your home, but within reasonable measures.
Finally, I can't really comment on this specific case since we don't really know what happened inside the house. If the guy got pissed off and started stabbing the dude without any real provocation(and no, the simple act of him breaking into his home is not provocation, I don't think anyone seriously believes that. Don't kid yourselves.), then he should get in trouble. If there was a violent encounter and the guy happened to be stabbed before running off and his buddies left him to die. Well then, sad day for the burglar.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Indeed. I think that it is at points like this that the so-called "libertarianism" of many paleoconservatives breaks down, and it becomes clear that their conception of "rights" is not substantially related to any classical liberal or libertarian conception of natural rights, but is a set of implicit social treaties based upon mutual respect for property entitlements.
Not at all. Walking down the street is not first busting into my home. Apples and oranges (or, since they are both fruit and related, apples and wombats).
They are apples and oranges. But, neither give you that 100% guarantee you're looking for. That's why I think searching for such a guarantee isn't the best metric to weigh up a decision on opening fire. If you can't get that guarantee in either situation, then it's not a very useful criterion.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
If there's 4 guys breaking into my house with the intent to steal my stuff, I should be use whatever means available to stop them. If that means shooting them, then so be it. Your rights stop whenever you forcibly break into my house. You should not get the protection of the law while you are in the act of committing a serious crime.
civver_764
Deity
Their rights don't stop. If you think that then you don't actually believe in rights.Fallen Angel Lord said:
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Honestly our two resident anarchists, while I think some of the reactions here are crazy, things do look a little different when you are the strongest person in the house and are thus obliged to protect the weaker. I don't agree with using overwhelming force on anyone who so much as touches your window but at the same time it's foolish to pretend high moral are going to override 2m years of instinct in these situations.
he's defending his property, giving a warning is good though.
Glad to be a Texan in this debate.
I can use lethal force to, protect my self, others, and my property (If not using lethal force would have let them get away with said property).
A couple of years ago I guy shot and killed someone, as he fled his property with hub caps. After a day of questioning by cops he was let go no charges were ever filed.
I can use lethal force to, protect my self, others, and my property (If not using lethal force would have let them get away with said property).
A couple of years ago I guy shot and killed someone, as he fled his property with hub caps. After a day of questioning by cops he was let go no charges were ever filed.
Which is way outside of my zone of ethical behavior. It's one thing to defend property with lethal force if that property is essential to your life - stealing someone's (only) horse in the old west is the immediate example that comes to mind. But nowadays in the age of pervasive homeowners/renters insurance I can't think of an example of any property (absent natural disaster and/or civil disorder) that rises to that level of importance - if someone steals it, you file an insurance claim, and you go buy another one. And family heirlooms are certainly more valuable in their irreplaceability, but still generally not life-or-death priorities.
What if the item was a family heirloom and was absolutely irreplaceable?
civver_764
Deity
RedRalph said:
What situation are we talking about? If you see a burglar in your house and you shoot them before they even see you that's unquestionably wrong. Trying to justify that sort of behavior by claiming they have "lost their rights" is both absurd and despicable. You may have property rights, but they don't trump everything else, especially not someone's life. This is all a poorly disguised attempt to paint "undesirable people" as inhuman. I personally don't want to have anything to do with that sort of thinking.
Yeah, a hubcap hardly qualifies as irreplacable, or even necessary for the car to function.
The shooter should have been prosecuted
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#9.42
First, it is unclear from the facts that one of the crimes listed in B was committed.
Second, to me, it is unreasonable to believe that the property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means (as the person fleeing was either on foot, meaning that he could be tracked down or he was going to get in a vehicle that could be disabled). Even if the person fleeing escaped, you have seen the suspect and can provide law enforcement with a description and it is reaswonable to believe that trained Texans working in law enforcement (Texas #1) can recover the property. Plus, the value of the property can be recovered from your insurance.
Third, it is unreasonable to think that it would take deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect in a case like this.
Actually I think the issue is more that there's a fair chance that siad burgular is willing to harm you, and waiting to find out carries an excessive risk of being hurt yourself, the numbers say that a law against shooting unrecognisable burgulars would be forcing the victims of crime to put themselves at risk - that doesn't sound like good sense to me.
