I guess it all depends upon which death is most legitimate, that of the home owner, or that of the burglar.

Here is an example:
(CBS/AP) Two men described by authorities as career criminals were arraigned Tuesday in the home invasion and arson that took the lives of three members of a Cheshire family.

A bail commissioner said Hayes and Komisarjevky each have records that include more than 20 prior burglaries. Both had been out of prison on parole.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3092098.shtml

Right, on this one I have to be a bit skeptical Tchocky - I find the idea that burglary would neccesarily be non-violent a little naive. The burglars themselves probably don't expect you to allow anything to be taken just like that, even if you'd seem cooperative. Chances are, if you're present, there will be a strong desire on their part to get rid of you - at least incapacitate.

I personally knew two people who were attacked in or near their dwellings when I lived in Russia - one was stabbed, the other was hit on the head with a large metal object. Both spent lengthy stays in hospitals, and given the nature of the attacks, those responsible probably weren't much concerned for their victims' survival. (In both cases, by the way, the goods stolen were hardly of any real value).

On the other hand, I should note that this article is a good example of what I'm talking about when I say that one doesn't really need to own a gun to confront an invader and, if things get bad, have him on a one-way trip to the morgue - but I won't pull this little argument further ;)

Burglars eventually become murderers if they think they can get away with it. And there's no guarantee that a burglar may have intentions excluding or including anything more than mere burglary. Therefore I go with Murphys' Law in this case and will kill the burglar first before the burglar has a chance to kill me.

If the former were true, wouldn't the violent crime and property crime levels have some correlation with each other? At the moment it seems like they don't - in 2005 the level of property crimes in the United States was ten times higher than the level of violent crime. If we had a statistic of property/violent crimes vs. property/non-violent crimes that would be better, but the BoJS page is dreadful. However from this I think it's safe to infer that an enormous majority of property crimes do not turn violent, else the property/violent crime levels would be closer.

So while the horribly brutal home invasions that make the six o'clock news are good TV, thankfully they remain unusual. And in the unfortunate state of affairs where some must resort to stealing to keep their families afloat and some just don't know better through mental illness or what have you, I can never condone the intentional use of deadly force against a human being simply for entering your home. If that human being displays an interest in harming a man or his loved ones, then obviously no law should detain him in their defence. Short of that, it's just stuff. You can help out the economy by buying more.

We have the same law policy here, but last yr a break through in the justice system, or maybe the judge just knew it was the right thing to do. Guy enters a gun shop with a machette threatening to kill everyone, the gun shop owner pulls out a revolver and shoots him, police charge him for using a firearm in a public place some bullshat charge. He was defending himself and who knows what the machette guy would of done. Anyway the gunshop owner got let off, case dismissed by the judge. Thats a first time thats happened.

How long does one take to make the decision? Things happen very quickly within a home and the difference between life and death can be fractions of seconds. I will always make the assumtion that any person within my home without my invitation is there to do me and my family harm, and will act appropriately.

It is unfortunate that your philosophy can make you a victim and a statistic which furthers my opinion. Good luck to you and yours.

If you wish to blur all the lines in those crutial moments of decision then we'd might as well do away with 1st degree, 2nd dregree, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc, and just say anything taht means death is murder.

The fact is that if you genuinely believe that a man is about to kill you then you can defend yourself. IN your own home if a man is there to steal usually if you interrupt him he runs. The assertion that all burglers are murders in the making is one without base.

Whats more the defense of ones life is considered justification for killing of another man. However if I kill a man simply for entering my home and taking my things, prior to him showing signs of intent to harm me, then I am killing him for theft and not out of self defense. So philosophically I can say that no material possesions can be considered more valuable than a human life, even that of a criminal. To seek to murder a man outside of a direct threat is not self defense. If you can run then you should. For instance if you see a man in your living room taking things but he has a shotgun and you can either run to your room to get your gun or run out the back door and get the cops then you should get the cops. If you can't however avoid harm's way or feel able to interfere with him without threat to your life then you have that right. But to choose voluntarily the path that leads to death when you can avoid it is just poor decision making.

I'm so gonna get flamed for that.

Excellent analysis P_Funk. :yep:

If you neutralize him straight off, you keep the initiative. If you don't, you give him a chance to seize the initiative. It is your life. Want to take the chance?

When you say that, you have agreed to two things:
1) The value of a human life is not infinite.
2) Some humans (like yourself) are more valuable than others (like criminals who infringe on your right to life).

If I choose to challenge this assumption, how would you defend it? When you kill in "self-defense", you actually assert that your life is of greater value than the Criminal.

If your life is of lesser or equal value, you can't make a valid decision to use deadly force against the Criminal. Presumably, the only reason to justify that your life is of greater value is that the criminal depressed the value of his life by being a criminal.

But if that value is depressable, justify the idea that the Criminal cannot have depressed his value to below that of a "material possession."

Suppose you see Criminal preparing to rape a Victim (that you don't know). For the sake of argument, assume that you know for sure that Rapist'd just leave Victim alone after the raping instead of killing Victim, and Rapist has no STDs to transmit. Also assume that you don't think you can safely get Rapist off Victim without deadly force. The police are about 1 hour away. Will you choose deadly force or not?

If you chose that you would use deadly force, you've degraded the value of the criminal well past the ordinary "Human Life" range. After all, I've already established that there is no threat to human life unless you intervene. The damage to Victim will primarily be Psychological. In other words, you've just depressed the Criminal's life value below that of presumably severe but unpredictable Psychological Damage. And that to someone you don't even know. Yet somehow "not intervening" does not seem to be the answer, no?

But if Psychological Damage is enough justification to kill a rapist, then I may be justified in killing a burglar just for taking my stuff. Obviously not if he takes my box of tissue paper - I won't even feel like going to the trouble of calling the police after him. But if he makes off with my family heirloom or my wedding ring, that might cause me great psychological damage. So, justify why I can't shoot him.

Unless the burglar sent a resume or letter saying he's non-violent he's in very serious trouble, otherwise he's just in serious trouble. You don't know what his intent is.

For me the issue is as simple as that the police are not going to be there to protect my family nor are they legally obligated to do so. Police are there to deal with crime after it’s been committed and try to apprehend those that are responsible. It’s of little use to those that have been murdered in a home invasion if the police ever apprehend those that are responsible.

If you are woken up out of deep sleep by someone entering your home at 3am, how do you know their intentions? You have no idea that they are there to simply steal your belongings. You also have no idea what the invader is capable of or what they are willing to do.

Last month my in-laws had their vacation home broken into the night before they went over to use it. They took everything of value and trashed the house. All the furniture was destroyed, all dishes broken, all appliance destroyed, every single wall in the house was damaged (kicked it), and all doors and frames in the house were shattered. Even the police were floored at the level of rage in the vandalism.

They have not apprehended those that are responsible, and have admitted they probably never will unless they get caught doing it again somewhere else. The police do suspect that the criminals in this case were more than likely high on meth at the time.

You want to know what scared the crap out of my wife? The police told her parents that it was a good thing they had decided to not go over a night early as they would have been victims of at least assault or in the worst case both of them could have be killed.

Here is a hypothetical:

Lets say you have 20 burglars robbing 20 houses (one each).
10 are violent and 10 only want to steal your subsim almanac

Method 1: Kill all burglars

We will assume the house owner has a 50% chance of killing violent burglars and a 100% chance of killing non-violent burglars. (violent burglars have a 50% chance of killing the house owner).

5 dead people that deserved it to some extent
15 dead people that died unnecessarily
Total unnecessary killings: 15
Total deaths: 20

Method 2: Kill burglars that are violent

We will assume the house owner has a 50% chance of killing violent burglars (violent burglars have a 50% chance of killing the house owner).

5 dead people that deserved it to some extent
5 dead people that died unnecessarily
Total unnecessary killings: 5
Total deaths: 10

Method 3: Run Away!

We will assume the house owner has a 50% chance of running away (violent burglars have a 50% chance of killing the house owner).

5 dead people that died unnecessarily
Total unnecessary killings: 5
Total deaths: 5

Obviously this is just a hypothetical!

ANd only hypothetical since this is not how things work.

100% of all burglars are violent in reality. Simply breaking and entering has made them already accept the fact that violence is a possibility and highly likely.

A hypothetical reality - Upon seeing the house owner, a sizing up comes into play - can they subdue the house owner, if so 50% of house owners get tied up, possibly beaten to death or shot. The other 50%, the burglar will likely run due to the possible fact of personal injury, or the possibility that the cops are on the way. This is again hypothetical, but a bit closer to what actually would happen.

100% of the time, the buglar should also have assesed the possibility of death as the consequence to breaking and entering in the first place, so don't think for a minute that we should spare them that possibility. Everything they are doing at that point is premeditated.

Last bit - 0% of buglars are not deserving of being put down.

-S

Letum, most of these swine come tooled up.

The problem we got here in the UK is our laws are just plain wet and they know it.

I remember a classic one from some years ago, a burglar was chased off and climbed the home owners wall which resulted in the burglar cutting his hands badly because the owner had a layer of sharp stones on top of his wall. Both were fined and the home owner came of worst.

In New Mexico,you will be made a convected felon,& spend a year in jail for pointing a loaded firearm at an intruder at your door,and telling him to go home. Even though he has previously assaulted you.
Bill Richardson wants to be president? hoping he spends his wad trying. A Mexican for president,:rotfl: Good campain button idea.
Hillary next worst IMHO.