The right to defend yourself in your home

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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?

Why even become involved is the point. Kill him if you must but why even enter into that situation if there is a non violent alternative? If you have the initiative as you say then you can choose the course. Why face a man and give him the chance to harm you? You don't face off with a fire in your home so why a burgler?

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.

You make a kind of distinction that I cannot for the life of me contemplate. You assert that the value of human life is negotiable based solely on action. Such ideas are in direct competition with the philosophical foundation of our democratic societies. Whatever the character of a man you cannot declare that life is more valuable in one case than another.

I challange first of all your assertion that self defense is admitting that ones own life is more valuable than that which you took. This is ridiculous logic. What self defense asserts is that your life is threatened and that as the guardian of your own existance you took action to prevent its extinction. This says nothing for the life which you might have ended in the process only that it was an obstacle to your continued survival. Such logic is slanted towards the argument that criminals deserve a lesser kind of humanity than the rest of us and that is a kind of philosophy that makes me wish many people that do care would join the rest in being apathetic.

Secondly comparing a burgler to a rapist is not a fair argument simply because I asserted that self defense is only necessary when you are forced into a situation where you face grave bodily harm. So that means that you should sacrifice your feeble possession in favour of the prudent course. Rape however is a different matter. For one it is bodily harm, and that is the goal of the attack. Secondly it is already forced upon you or the person whom you might come accross. The nuances of circumstance that exist in burglary are absent in the case of rape. This example you brought forth is moot. If I were to come accross a rapist raping a woman I would first get him off her and then either chase him off or incapacitate him, in that order. But from the outset I wouldn't say to myself "I'm going to kill this guy no matter what just to be safe".

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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

Very good. Another capital crime. All that will do is encourage burglers to murder the witnesses.

Where does all this disdain for self defense come from? Even so far as to suggest one abandon his/her domocile to avoid defending onesself against an unlawful entry. I don't understand it. Perhaps someone would explain it to me.

"et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium"

[Puster Bill]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Very good. Another capital crime. All that will do is encourage burglers to murder the witnesses.

Perhaps, for some very small percentage of burglars.

In the US, at least, most burglars take pains to avoid occupied houses. I think the percentage of burglaries involving an occupied dwelling in the US is about 12 or 13%. THere was even a survey of violent criminals done (in prison), where the majority agreed that a smart criminal would try to determine if a house is occupied before breaking in.

Why bother, though? People often carry very liquid assets like cash and jewelry on their person, so why avoid them?

It's pretty simple, really. In the US, there is a small, but significant risk of being shot and killed if you commit a burglary on an occupied home.

That risk is essentially zero in the UK. The UK also has a much higher percentage of burglaries where the dwelling is occupied.

This suggests that criminals in general, and burglars specifically, are rational actors: If they perceive that there might be a significant risk involved in an activity, in general they will avoid it. Most criminals are impulsive, so possible punishments that are months or years away really mean nothing to them: They are as remote in their minds as Pluto is to ours.

But the idea of being shot by an intended victim is quite different: It's very real, and close, to a criminal. That risk is not something a lawyer can get you out of, nor can good behavior. It is something that is an immediate risk. Criminals generally want to keep living, just like the rest of us. Therefore, they pay attention to the risk of being killed.

Now, if we were to publicize every single self-defense use of a firearm in the US, where the criminal gets killed, the same way we publicize school shootings and such, violent crime would immediately drop. Why? Because you are increasing the perception that confrontational crime is a risky business in the mind of the criminal. It doesn't matter that the actual risk to the criminal is the same, or even lower: It's about the perception of risk. I would expect that violent economic crimes like burglary and robbery would be replaced by less confrontational crimes, so the overall crime rate wouldn't drop, just the violent crime rate.

[donut]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Where does all this disdain for self defense come from? Even so far as to suggest one abandon his/her domicile to avoid defending oneself against an unlawful entry. I don't understand it. Perhaps someone would explain it to me.

"et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium"

From fat dumb,& happy pie in the sky liberals,& DAs that couldn't make it in private practice. After we fight another WW the pendulum of justice will swing the other way. Continue on guys, it's a bad subject for me.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Why even become involved is the point. Kill him if you must but why even enter into that situation if there is a non violent alternative? If you have the initiative as you say then you can choose the course. Why face a man and give him the chance to harm you? You don't face off with a fire in your home so why a burgler?

In reality, even if your original plan upon hearing the burglar is to run out of the house to call the cops and avoid confrontation, if you have a gun or knive nearby you'd probably pick it up first just in case you get backed into a corner. Now, you come into (accidental?) contact with the burglar and as I've assumed you have the initiative, you have the drop on him. If you seize it and shoot him, you retain the initiative even if you miss due to the well-known suppressive effects of bullets. Every second you do anything other than shooting him gives him the chance to detect you and take counteraction. Since action is always faster than reaction, the more so in the dark, once he makes his move you are in real danger of losing the initiative and being at the mercy of the burglar.

I challange first of all your assertion that self defense is admitting that ones own life is more valuable than that which you took. This is ridiculous logic. What self defense asserts is that your life is threatened and that as the guardian of your own existance you took action to prevent its extinction.

That's correct, but take it a little further. If we assume the criminal's life is equal in value to yours, you will actually be unjustified in deciding to guard your own existence. Consider this mathematically:
Assume Human Life = 100
Do not self-defend: 100*P, 0<P<1, so 100*P<100
P being probability that criminal will kill you. It can never be 1 in your estimate because you cannot read the criminal's mind.
Self-Defend: 100*P1+100*P2, P1=1, 0<P2<1, so 100*P1+100*P2>100
P1=1 because you've already decided to use deadly force for self-defence. P2 represents the probability that the criminal gets off a counterfire and kills you.
As you can see, if you assume a criminal's life as equal to yours, the harm potential in choosing self-defence will always be higher in principle, thus lethal self-defence is immoral. (For the moment, I've ignored the possibility that you can shoot the other guy and fail to kill him, because the possibility exists for both sides.)
Even if he's actively beating you up or raping you, it still won't be justified, because:
Assume Human Life = 100, so 0<Bodily Harm<100, and Bodily Harm + Killing = 100 because Human Life is only worth 100
Do not self defend= 50+50*P (P being the probability that the criminal will kill you in the end)
Self-defend=50+100+50*P2 (P2 being the probability that the criminal will escalate to a deadly method because you chose to self-defend with lethal force, or even non-lethal force)
I've used only deadly methods, but this can be extended to less deadly methods of self defence. At every level, self-defence will involve the chance of getting both sides hurt, while non-self defence will only lead to yourself being hurt at worst. Thus, the end result may be that any kind of self-defence is immoral.
The only way I see self-defence could be valid is to somehow decrease the value of the criminal's life.
For example, you may calculate:
Do not self defend: 100*0.9=90
Self Defend: 10*1+100*0.1=20
So Self Defend wins.
There is some assumption in the Probabilities, of course, but at least it'd be valid.

If I were to come accross a rapist raping a woman I would first get him off her and then either chase him off or incapacitate him, in that order. But from the outset I wouldn't say to myself "I'm going to kill this guy no matter what just to be safe".

What if you've already assessed, based on the rapist's size and weight for example, that you cannot "chase him off" or "incapacitate him" with any degree of confidence except with deadly force (your concealed firearm)? Stop evading the scenario.

[NefariousKoel]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I'm scanning my room, trying to find something that's worth killing over.

.....not really.

There's self-defence, and then there's wooden-box talk.

I've been saving this for such a pansy-like response:



Yay limp-wrist! Remind me to not have you covering my back. It's okay, the rest of us will protect you.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

That's correct, but take it a little further. If we assume the criminal's life is equal in value to yours, you will actually be unjustified in deciding to guard your own existence.

What is with you guys and your need to qualify the value of a human life? The fact is simply that all human life is equally valuable in the broad definition but to each of us certain lives matter more, those being our own and those we love and care for. The natural instinct to defend a life from extinction plays on these personal values of life but even in self defense where we are willing to end another life to save a preferred one we are doing it in a situation where there isn't an alternative. This doesn't debase the life that was ended in the process on value scale, but it does challenge the character of the man or his decisions. I don't believe in capital punishment so I cannot acknowledge that the actions of a man forfeits his life. As such the spark of existance that breathes in every person is seperate from the character which we might impeach by encarcerating or kiling that person. We can't unjustifiably end another life without just cause, and that cause is only the defense of innocent life.

Now this of course doesn't take into account the irrational urges of the emotional person to seek revenge and to punish someone for their evil deeds but there is a reason this is an irrational response. It is motivated by emotion, an emotion which clouds the rational philosophical human being that is above such uncontrolled svagery. This is why the jury of our peers is 12 strangers, and why they are often sequestered.

Consider this mathematically:
Assume Human Life = 100
Do not self-defend: 100*P, 0<P<1, so 100*P<100
P being probability that criminal will kill you. It can never be 1 in your estimate because you cannot read the criminal's mind.
Self-Defend: 100*P1+100*P2, P1=1, 0<P2<1, so 100*P1+100*P2>100
P1=1 because you've already decided to use deadly force for self-defence. P2 represents the probability that the criminal gets off a counterfire and kills you.
As you can see, if you assume a criminal's life as equal to yours, the harm potential in choosing self-defence will always be higher in principle, thus lethal self-defence is immoral. (For the moment, I've ignored the possibility that you can shoot the other guy and fail to kill him, because the possibility exists for both sides.)
Even if he's actively beating you up or raping you, it still won't be justified, because:
Assume Human Life = 100, so 0<Bodily Harm<100, and Bodily Harm + Killing = 100 because Human Life is only worth 100
Do not self defend= 50+50*P (P being the probability that the criminal will kill you in the end)
Self-defend=50+100+50*P2 (P2 being the probability that the criminal will escalate to a deadly method because you chose to self-defend with lethal force, or even non-lethal force)
I've used only deadly methods, but this can be extended to less deadly methods of self defence. At every level, self-defence will involve the chance of getting both sides hurt, while non-self defence will only lead to yourself being hurt at worst. Thus, the end result may be that any kind of self-defence is immoral.
The only way I see self-defence could be valid is to somehow decrease the value of the criminal's life.
For example, you may calculate:
Do not self defend: 100*0.9=90
Self Defend: 10*1+100*0.1=20
So Self Defend wins.
There is some assumption in the Probabilities, of course, but at least it'd be valid.

Math, yuck. And if you can't find a mathematical solution to justifying self defense then maybe math isn't quite the correct vessel for emparting the intangible emotional value of life that we carry with us.

What if you've already assessed, based on the rapist's size and weight for example, that you cannot "chase him off" or "incapacitate him" with any degree of confidence except with deadly force (your concealed firearm)? Stop evading the scenario.

What if what if what if... you evade the unspecific reality of circumstance and keep demanding that I acknowledge every specific scenario that involves me popping someone. I'm not saying don't kill the guy if you can't help it but I'm challenging the concept that the use of deadly force is demanded on all occasions. Police routinely arrest suspects for crimes such as these without even firing a gun. And yet again I challenge why we're even talking about rape here. Its a totally different scenario anyway, one in which the act of bodily harm is already occurring which significantly alters your demanded discretion.

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by NefariousKoel

I've been saving this for such a pansy-like response:



Yay limp-wrist! Remind me to not have you covering my back. It's okay, the rest of us will protect you.

How about countering the persons arguments rather than attacking members with lines such as "pansy" and "Yay limp-wrist!" like grown up men.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by NefariousKoel

I've been saving this for such a pansy-like response:

[pic]

Yay limp-wrist! Remind me to not have you covering my back. It's okay, the rest of us will protect you.

Oh come now!

You resorting to idiotic pictures, personal insults and questioning his masculinity?
Thats not how to act in a forum or anywhere else.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Letum

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

[Heibges]

Isn't that a bit like biting off your nose to spite your face there, Onkel?

[Onkel Neal]

Like Jack Burton always says, "It's all in the reflexes."

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by NefariousKoel

I've been saving this for such a pansy-like response:



Yay limp-wrist! Remind me to not have you covering my back. It's okay, the rest of us will protect you.

Thanks, honey. Nice to know I'm safe.

[micky1up]

i have no doubt this man is innocent but i think there is a very fine line between defence and attack, if a man enters my home bent on theft then hes only taking material items that can be replaced and its probably not worth the danger of attacking him. If he enters with the intent of harm then he gets what he deserves , im no coward ive spent 20 years in november serving the uk in the submarine service but my and my families lives depend on making the correct decisson although i agree the decission is a hard one to make.