Home Defense (force vs. force and litigation)

Not wait for the bullet, but wait until you see the gun (or any weapon).
If that's the case where you live I see a point being proactive, but in most cases you can't say that they all follow the same principles.

And there are other solutions than exchanging gunfires. You can render him helpless without doing anything extreme.

Well, sometimes things like tasers don't work, I've heard of many cases where the attacker was tased and then continued the assualt with very little recoil time. Pepper Spray would only cause extreme pain, and what if the robber had a gun on hand? He just might pull it out and start shooting wildly, you never know.

I'd pull a gun on anyone who forcefully entered my home with the intent on theft and/or harming anyone in the way.

[/spoil]

Good point, but thats where self defence jumps in. When your life is threatened, all punishments are abolished. So if the criminal thinks: "Meh, he'll go to jail before i do!" or something, and raises a knife making a stabbing movement... Well, at that point you are allowed to kill in protection of life.
*Sigh* I wish there was a better system since this, indeed, is very much on the edge.



You're missing the point, if the criminal has a gun and you don't, then ofc there's no way you can resist. If you DO have a gun, chances are high your holding it since you heard something.

To put my opinion of a gunshowoff like this: You chance upon a thug breaking into your house, he's holding a gun, you're holding a gun. IF he raises the gun, or grabs for it you can assume your life is in danger and should attempt to protect it by all means.

In general when you check if there's a breakin you'll be holding the gun up close and personal anyway so aiming aint a problem.

And finally:


Yes, sorry. I tend to heat up abit during typing, especially if i believe someone to have made a grave mistake or something.

spoiler problems as well >.>

A man has attempted to deprive me of my life or has threatened the life of my loved ones. I would prefer not to but, if I must I will kill him. Damn the laws and damn anybody who attempts to stop me.




I think long and hard before I come to any conclusion. So the "think before you speak" comment was boarder line insulting to me but, I'll overlook it as you are new.

As for the "every guy who makes a mistake". The man had the option of breaking the law and robbing me or following the law and not robbing me. You defend the man's criminal actions due to some misplaced guilt over their situation. Your stance tells me that a man isn't responsible for his actions no matter what the situation. He has debt so that makes it morally right for him to break into my home and take the things that I have worked years to obtain? Your logic is backwards if you believe that.

I am not advocating blowing off everyone's heads. All I am saying is, if he is trying to steal my possessions, I will pull a gun on him and make him stop. If he refuses I will fire either a warning shot or I will shoot him in the leg to make him stop (depending on the weapon of course). If he becomes a legit threat to either me or my loved ones. I will put him down and he will not get up. I will not tolerate any threat to the well being of my family, loved ones or myself.

As for anybody who believes "let the police handle it". The police here are incompetent, they're cops because they want the power to push you around. They have the power to arrest you for exercising your own constitutional rights. They beat or stomp a suspect, and what happens? Maybe some desk duty or some paid leave. Only the really bad ones are ever punished for their actions. Even then it's usually a slap on the wrist. Anybody who disagrees, I suggest you look up the "Donut Social" by the band "Leftöver Crack" on September 5, 2008.

Insulting to you, statement to me. Opinions. If you felt insulted then i will simply say that that was not at all my intention.
1 Last thing. I'd prefer you do not treat me better or worse in regards to posts total. Though i might be one of the newer ones, i know what i say. And if i think what i said is wrong, i apologize. Though i tend to be pretty stubborn on that...

Back to the issue though.

1st part: Of course a man has the choice, but sometimes they are forced by underlying reasons. No offence but if you think as much as you state you really should be able to uncover what i'm aiming at, i'll elaborate on the bottom.

2nd part: Agreed, nothing more, nothing less. I never disagreed on lethal force in life danger.

3rd part: The police here are absolute crap as well, the police here does jack.
I can't think of any personal examples but i know plenty from friends.
Apparently a friend of mine ones called them about a mass car theft under way, within 1 minute there was a police car but instead of going to the parking lot, he went to my friend's house. Understandably they got away.
Also, i read once that one of the cops here had gone corrupt and that his doing was uncovered. Instead of jailing him, they gave him a honorable discharge or something for 16 years of work.

Elaboration: Possible reasons; drugs, debts, alcohol, threatened, dares and so on.
Now of course you also have the lazy reason in the sense of straight out robbing, but these are just some of the example which can easely influence a man to do such things.

And i'd also like to explain one more point: What is the governments task? Freedom, aye, on the second place yes. They primary thing a government must give you is life. The right to live and stay alive.
Which is why i take a murder so heavy. It goes against everything our modern day society stands for.

That should just about wrap it up.

I think it is just the large difference between difference countries and attitudes and value of life that comes into play in these cases and last but not least I also mean your own life.
Talking about "shooting an intruder" is all nice and fine, but in the end it means that you can end up on the short end of the stick aswell, a gamble for my life that I personally wouldn't like to take, as the chance, that there is more than one person is also given.
Now if you are really scared of the loss of being robbed why not have a "house and property" insurance that covers thievery aswell?
After all you can hardly stand infront of heaven's / hell's or whatever your (not existing) religions take on the afterlife is and say "Oi, here are the few bucks I saved by not making an insurance due to thinking I could shoot that intruder faster than he would shoot me, now give me my life back!" - rather pay a few bucks and make sure you keep your life and get most of your property back.
Heck if your that afraid of intruders into your house, get yourself a good trained guard dog and the matter is settled.

Edit: However that does not mean that I don't respect the laws for firearms in US / the need to keep a weapon when your living in a dangerous area. However it is a known fact that a weapon leads to both, overconfidence and hasty judgments.

Very much agreed. I hadn't thought about an insurance yet but the main line of thinking up untill now (do not ask me why) was that it was either you or the thug.

I wasn't using your post count as so way to dismiss you. You are a newer user and haven't had the please/displeasure of interacting with me a lot. Most of the older users here know that I take a long time to come to a decision and will actually change positions a lot as new information comes to light. I have my principals but, my views change as much as the tides (bit of an exaggeration but, it sounded cool).

Back to the issue though.



Here is where you and I have philosophical differences. I see a many always has options until life or death are the last two. If somebody kidnapped his family and made him do it. I would feel sympathetic to the man but, I would still defend my family and/or property. Drugs, debt, alcohol,etc are all excuses for illegal behavior and only seek to excuse the man for such behavior instead of making the person responsible for their actions.



In my eyes a (Federal) governments job is:
1: Courts (To create laws)
2: Cops (To enforce those laws and protect citizens)
3: Military (To protect the citizens from external threats

I believe every person has rights but, those rights can't be used to violate the rights of another. Except in defense of those rights to begin with. In other words, if you use your rights to try to violate my rights, I am justified to defend them which may or may not require lethal force.

Man that sucks!.

Ill never injur the burglar but kill him if possible.

You think different than me.

Tell me, what IS a government? A government is a representation of a select group of people, these people choose amongst themselves the most capable to rule in their stead over the country.

I believe the government has several primary goals, such as ensuring the life of every citizen inside that government, ensuring freedom for all and giving equal rights. These are primary and are in things like the constitution (i think?) rather than the actual lawbook.
What i mean is that those laws and rules are a failsafe, should a wrong government take over they will still have to hold to those rules.

The cops and militairy are a branch of the government in the law upholding section.

Note: I probably can't awnser today to any replies, i really have a bad headache >.>

P.s.


Try quoting someone, i have no idea what you mean with sucks.

And if you deliberatly move to kill someone without the neccesity to you will go to jail for meant murder.

First of all, sorry that this ended up like a bit of an essay and I hope you will forgive me for the quoting pain and cutting the post in two parts :)


True, I think if a person is afflicted by alcohol drugs etc. his situation has changed considerably, as he / she would be able to take that money and use it for something different.
In my opinion there are several possibilities:
1) Someone is at the end of the straw (i.e. desperate) and enters your house to look for goods that are easy to sell / cash etc. The person is unarmed. In this case, even if he is an intruder, it is NOT self defense to shoot him as neither did he show indications at aiming for a life, nor does he have any immediate means to unless you provoke him into doing so. Possible solutions?
A) Lock him in (you should be able to lock people into rooms in your own house), call the police and make sure he doesn't leave the room.
B) Try to reason with him to leave your stuff and call the police to have him arrested.
C) As he most likely neither knows your house nor the layout exactly, get a freaking guard dog if your scared of someone breaking in. A good trained guard dog is not only a way to keep people out if it barks, if an intruder enters you can be damn sure that unless they are armed or trained well, that they will end up cornered by the dog

----
Possibility 2:
Someone is entering your house for robbery and is armed. Same as the person above he is aiming for cash, has a weapon, however does not want to take your life unless threatened.
Leaving guard dogs etc aside, let's have a look at it. If he is armed than following the law your best option is in my opinion to threaten him with a weapon to drop his and only make a move against him, should he show indications of using his own armament.

----
Possibility 3:
Same scenario as #1, except that now you have someone knowing how your house is built and aiming for parts of your possessions etc, however the person is still unarmed. Even in this case, shooting him just because he enters the house still get's you a sentence for murder as the value of property is still inferior to the value of life, so basically you got the same options as in scenario #1.

-----
Possibility 4:
One or several people, with weapons at hand and ready are in your house and do NOT care for your life (hard to guess if they do or not). By having their weapons ready I mean it being in his / their hands. Now in this situation you might exercise your right for self defense however going up alone against a band of robbers that don't care about your life is not only dangerous but also stupid.

So all in all you might say that during ROBBERY firing your handgun is a bad option, not to forget as I posted before that via insurance and other methods it is always possible to get your assets back. However if someone breaks into your house and is trying to assault you (kill you etc.) a weapon is useful.



To summon it up what you are mentioning here is simply the tri-unity of the authority / government body. You got the judicature (courts etc), the legislative (the government making the laws) and the executive (police). Those are split for simple reasons if you look into the history of mankind due to the fact that if you control 2 of the 3 powers, you are most likely able to assume a position that would equal you being a dictator / king etc.
Your governments task is it to set the laws that are allowing for the citizens to live together in the most peaceful, prosper, secure society as possible while maintaining the state etc.
Your police etc are responsible for seeing to, that the laws and rules of society are being followed as good as possible.
Your courts etc are supposed to watch out for the governments laws following the rules of the constitution and are not invading your rights as a person. On top of that they are also responsible for punishing those who are going against the laws made by the government and against the constitution which than again is being executed by the police. That pretty much concludes the circle the way it SHOULD be.

Now the problem lies here. The more you know you can trust those forces to be in balance in your country and the more you know you can rely on them, the less need you will have to keep a weapon in your house. However as far as I understood from other discussions, the police / executive body in the US is anything but reliable, so I can understand that some / many of you might see the need to keep a weapon to defend yourself.

Thanks for the taking the time to write all that down, you said it all my friend.

Life is cheap, and I'm a rich man. Keep an unregistered gun hidden in your house, drop it on him and call the police. Something cheap, a hipoint9 or something.

He came at you with a gun, you fired first.

... I won't even comment on that due to the obvious flaws.

Hope they find your fingerprints man.

if some one comes in my house ill KILL him in a very brutal way,if the cops ask me ill just say he attacked me.

While I agree with some of the things said here, I think they are too unrealistic.

Yes, if a man has no other options than to break into a house and take what he needs to survive, I do not think he should die.
However, if a man breaks into a house to make some extra easy cash and/or rape, injure, kill, beat up(so on) someone, I do not place much value in their existence. While death would not be top on the list, if it's them or me what do you think I would choose? Or anyone would choose for that matter.


However my biggest issue with things: How would you know?
You wake up in the middle of the night and hear someone inside your house... is reasoning with them your first instinct? NO!
Sure, call the cops. But what are you going to do until the get here? Only a matter of time till he/she notice they are not alone. You don't know their situation, nor weather or not they mean harm.

That type of a situation should be treated as 'it's you or them'. Who should endure the most hardship, the unlucky homeowner or the thief? That is what it all comes down to.
Yes, I would not recommend charging out and shooting them right off the bat, but I would also not recommend dismissing that possibility just because they might have personal issues.

It's called defense for a reason.

Number 68 on my list of not getting my point.

I MEANT that you must keep in mind that that which you SEE is not always that which IS, extenuating circumstances CAN and probably WILL be there in most cases.

Which basically means that most of them will be very reluctant to threaten your life, so instant of opening that closet door your hiding behind, jumping out and nailing him to the wall with bullets, instead you should make a civilian arrest on him under gun point. At least untill he shows to be dangerous to your health.
You or him? He dies, no dispute. Any other case though, shooting the guy is by far illegal without cause. At least where i live it is.

PLEASE people, read between the lines, i NEVER say exactly what i mean because that takes twice as much lines and i am a very lazy person.
Read the text critizingly, try to uncover my intentions and opinions before you assume you know what i mean.

Congratulations, we have a winner...
You end up as murderer, even if he intruded, get sentenced to life in jail and can than tell your fellow inmates how impressive you killed that intruder that stole 25 bucks lying on the cupboard out of desperation *golfclap*


Now than I think it is a lost cause explaining it already but I'll try once again. First of all guessing the intent of a person is extremely hard. If said intruder doesn't have a weapon and you make a mistake and shoot him because he made a sudden movement the least sentence you'd get in most European countries (and I believe in the US aswell if your judges / lawyers have traces of a brain) is man-slaying (a crime that is penalized slightly less than murder).

Secondly: If you can get a gun for self defense you aren't going to tell me that you can't get by a rope, ducttape, handcuffs or anything that will keep the person in place until the police arrives.

If someone is entering your house and is aiming for your life the odds of you surviving is dropping RAPIDLY aswell. Why?
A) The burglar doesn't want your life. Killing you doesn't do him any good except prolong his sentence in jail should he get caught
B) Murder is way more thoroughly investigated than a robbery. The chances of getting caught after murdering someone is way higher than the chances of being caught after a robbery.

If someone is aiming for your life however there are 2 things that you need to keep in mind:
A) While the burglar is most likely distracted looking for things while trying to watch out for the basic noises while going through stuff.
B) A murderer / assassin / killer etc will pay attention to just the noises, shadows etc that persons are causing. There are way better methods of killing you than sneaking in (at night) and pulling a trigger / stabbing you. Even should he / she resort to that option you are at a sever disadvantage due to the fact that not having to search through items etc but just having to look for you is not only a lot more silently done, the chances of you being able to hit a person with a gun that is prepared and armed aswell and prepared to fire is basically a 50/50 chance for you.

Blackraider78 and Eranikum. I understood both your points the first time, and I understand them the 2nd time.

If you recall, I stated-


MY point being, be prepared for anything. If you can calm them down at gunpoint and duck tape them up, brilliant, why wouldn't you?
However do not expect them to sit there and allow you to do so, nor expect them to run at the first sound you make. That only gives you a disadvantage.

I simply do not agree with doing everything in your power to protect THEIR well being over your own. It was their mistake, not yours. No, they should not die for petty theft. However, if aggressive a gunshot to the foot might be in order to protect yourself and prevent them from making the same mistake again to someone else.


THAT is my point. I think it is close to Fiery Penguin's.

Sorry but you STILL do not get the point. Your well being is always much more important, and is the first issue you should look at. However if at ALL possible, you are to take him in civilian arrest WITHOUT injuring him, if he threatens your life you are allowed to respond appropriatly.

I am not saying you should walk in there pacifist style and get shot through the head, rather go in there, guns out and pointing and disarm the threat.

Your life or his? Shoot the bastard

I hope you now understand my point o.-