I am not a self defense expert. I have provided my opinion as to how I feel about someone killing a person who is running away from a home they have burglarized. I will go further and state I don't believe you should kill that same burgular if they surrender. You should defend your home in a manner in which you are comfortable.
I am not a self defense expert. I have provided my opinion as to how I feel about someone killing a person who is running away from a home they have burglarized. I will go further and state I don't believe you should kill that same burgular if they surrender. You should defend your home in a manner in which you are comfortable.
AK-74me
"Typical White Person"
Using a tazer on the street to get some drunk to comply is one thing, using it on a person that is prepped and in probably a dark home will create more problems than it will solve. The only good way to defend yourself once someone is already in your home is with a gun. Create has much deterance as you can and have a real gun in your home that you have speedy access to in case they are not detered.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I quoted you. You said it was okay for the homeowner to defend themself if they caught a robber/burglar, if they were acting in some aggressive manner toward the victim, but not if they were running away.
You defined the ONLY time someone can defend themself from the robber/burglar as if the criminal was crossing the line from robbing/burglaring to somehow intimidating the victim. You clearly stated that simple burglary is not a reason to defend oneself with a weapon, as burglary is not a violent crime.
So, the obvious conclusion one can draw from this is that if someone is in your home robbing/burglaring you and you catch them, you have no right to use a weapon to defend your home/property/family/etc until they become aggressive towards you - at which point they've crossed from being a burglar to a robber and then it's okay to use force on them.
I simply disagree with you. The mere act of entering my home without my permission with the intent of doing something illegal is aggressive enough in my opinion to justify the full use of any force I deem necessary to stop you.
So let's play it out:
Burglers flee, homeowner allows them to go.
A couple days later, they burgle someone else's house.
At what point do we decide to stop crime instead of just hoping it happens to someone else instead of us?
Vigilantism is when you actively seek out criminals to execute. If someone breaks in your house, they have obviously sought you out, not the other way around. And now I definitely don't believe you're really a cop.
So you believe that a person who committs a burglary should die. Ok, as I have stated to other people that is your opinion. I don't.
So what other crimes do you believe people should die for? I have a few, but burglary isn't one of them.
I have no problem saying that I think anyone who commits a willful crime against another human being should be executed.
Life is full of decisions. You can decide to be a productive member of society, or you can decide to be a predator. Those who decide to be predators should be put to death, and I'm totally okay with that.
What is a willful crime against another human being? Telephon misues. Harassment. Simple assault. Strong arm robbery, such as purse snatching. Are these the willful crimes against other human beings where you feel the death penalty is appropriate?
This_person
Well-Known Member
You clearly spend a good deal of your time around lawyers. You are very good at taking a minor point and blowing it into a major part of a discussion for the purposes of confusing the original point. I applaud your deceptive efforts
As they've already proven they are criminally deceptive, I feel I can use the force necessary to stop them from continuing to put myself, my family, my property in jeopardy. I don't feel I can drag a known criminal into my home to attack them, but if they decided to come on my property, break and enter into my home, I feel that they are very, very, very dangerous indeed, and the simple act of lying on the ground could merely be an attempt to placate me into feeling safe - so that they may take more violent and aggressive actions once my guard is momentarily dropped.
Or, in other words, yes, I do. Because, when it's all said and done, I expect to be the only one explaining to you, the officer who arrives some time later to the scene, exactly what happened.
Xaquin44
New Member
....
not really. Sure it can be used with great effect, but so can other things (taser, mace, etc.)
Just curious, for the person who laid down on the ground, put their hands out to their side, and you then defended your home by killing them, what exactly would the explanation be?
Understand this, defending a home and killing two people are separate issues. I defend my home with a gun. It would be silly, or idiotic to defend your home with a taser, mace, etc.
Xaquin44
New Member
he fell down the stairs!
Why not?
Decisions decisions.
A zero tolerance stance toward crime will go a lot further than gun control to eradicate violence in our society. As it stands, recidivism is enormous because there is no penalty for preying on your fellow citizens. If you are a cop, as you have indicated, you know this.
That guy who craps his pants when he gets arrested? ZAP! See ya, buddy.
Then that is your stance. I disagree. At least you have the fortitude to say exactly how you feel instead of trying to turn it into something different and add variables to the mix.
I think people make mistakes. There are great people out there who have made mistakes. I am glad in all your years that you, nor anyone you love have ever slapped someone or stole some candy. I would hate to see you lose them for those minor crimes.
See, now we're comparing apples and oranges. First there was a burglar breaking into someone's home, now you're talking about some kid stealing candy from the drugstore.
Do I think a minor who commits a minor crime should be executed? Um, duh - obviously not. But that is a far cry from some thug breaking into a house in the middle of the night with the purpose of stealing or injuring the homeowner.
This is one of the problems with crime in this country: people like you who want to paint a willful criminal who robs, rapes or murders as just a kid stealing candy.
You are a typical brainwashed cop. Only cops should have guns, right? That is especially true here in the communist state of Maryland.
Most cops I have seen shoot can't hit the broad side of a barn. The cops use our indoor range. When we come in after their training session, we have chips out of the cinder block walls, holes in the ceiling tiles, and ricochet marks on the floor. No wonder you don't think guns are good.
Not only that, the SCOTUS has ruled that cops do not have to come to the aid of anyone if it will put their own life in danger. Yeah. So what are you guys getting paid for? Protect and serve has become harass, take advantage of being a cop to speed, not use turn signals and otherwise break the law.
What ever happened to a person's home is their castle? Sorry, but the pansy attitude of liberals has turned the U.S. into a bunch of wimps.
Citizens have no other choice but to protect themselves. The cops can't do it. All cops can do is come in and draw lines around the bodies and put up yellow tape.
This_person
Well-Known Member
"I found this criminal in my home. I feared for my life when I saw him brandish one of my own knives as he was coming towards me rapidly. I shot, and (sadly) the poor soul is dead."
There is another issue. Why should slapping someone be against the law? Sorry, that is just more wimp-ism. Sometimes a kid needs to be slapped or spanked and parents should be allowed to be parents. The social wimps have made parents afraid to be parents and then when the kids get out of control those same social wimps blame the parents for not controlling them. Lunatics are making the laws. You, as a cop, have no choice but to enforce the laws. Of course, as I posted before, far too many cops do not obey the laws, especially the traffic laws.