I'm A Law Abiding Citizen. Why Is My Life So Worthless?

[Pedersen]

So, we've got two threads very closely related to this.


"It's not a slippery slope" my left foot (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=475)
Castle Doctrine (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=479)


Now, as the topic says, I'm a law abiding citizen. And yet, the laws are being written which take away my ability to defend myself and my family.

Guns are actively restricted. There are people working on restricting knives (though, so far, I've only heard of this in the UK).

I'm going to quote myself from the "slippery slope" thread:

A couple weeks ago I got myself a nice little scare (related, I promise). I stay up late, like 2am late. My wife goes to bed by 10pm. My sexist pig side speaking here: I feel I have an obligation to protect her to the best of my ability.

Anyway, 1am (roughly), I hear a very loud bang from downstairs. I have a couple of swords, so I grabbed one and started looking through the house. Turns out it was nothing (a child gate had fallen over). While doing this patrol, though, I was scared out of my mind.

I'm not a physical fighter. If someone had been in the house, and I had been completely unarmed, I would not have been able to protect my wife, and I know it. At least with that sword, I stood something of a chance. Going by the arguments I see here, I could easily see myself being deprived of one of the few means of self-defense I possess on the grounds that somebody else might use it to commit a crime.

Few people who live in suburban and urban settings are physical fighters. Weapons are an equalizer, which allow people who do not normally get into dangerous situations to escape such situations relatively unscathed (especially in comparison to how such situations can go). And yet, there are a great many people who seem to want to completely disarm the populace.

These people ignore the fact that criminals do not care about the law. They will arm themselves as they see fit. They will attack as they see fit. And, chances are that many of the ones who would attack are comfortable being in physical confrontations, in comparison with their victims who generally are not.

So, what is up with this group of people who want to completely disarm the world? Why do they see the lives of criminals and thugs as more valuable than mine? Can anybody please explain this to me?

And please don't tell me the police will protect me. In the absolute best of all possible circumstances, the police will still take a minimum of 30 seconds to reach me, and this is true with them already coming down my street on regular patrol. With the way criminals can arm themselves, I can be dead (or mortally wounded) in 5. The police cannot protect everybody. They can only respond after the fact.

More often than not, by the time they can even find out about the problem, the damage is done.

So, I ask (again) Why are the lives of criminals and thugs seen as more valuable than mine?

[the_std]

I'm not against people protecting themselves, but some of these laws take it too far and make the life of the so-called criminal worth less than the life of the law-abiding citizen (castle doctrine).

People, as a whole, tend to be bad at judging and analyzing difficult and possibly life-threatening situations at a glance and, if given the armaments to make these misjudgements fatal, will do so. Not necessarily willingly, or with evil intent, but because of the human ability to over-react.

Just because criminals do not care about the law doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws.

[Pedersen]

I'm not against people protecting themselves, but some of these laws take it too far and make the life of the so-called criminal worth less than the life of the law-abiding citizen (castle doctrine).

Wait.... "so-called criminal"? Looking back at the castle doctrine, you have someone in your home without your permission. At a minimum, this is trespassing. The fact that the criminal has yet to be convicted of this crime makes him/her no less a criminal.

Make no mistake, I am not speaking of alleged criminals. I am speaking of people who are actively committing a crime. These crimes are direct violations of myself and/or my family and/or my home. They can be non-violent (straight breaking and entering, burglary), or they can be violent (assault, rape, murder). Regardless of status, these people are the common definition of criminal (maybe not the legal definition, but definitely the definition that 90%+ of all people would agree with).

People, as a whole, tend to be bad at judging and analyzing difficult and possibly life-threatening situations at a glance and, if given the armaments to make these misjudgements fatal, will do so. Not necessarily willingly, or with evil intent, but because of the human ability to over-react.

I am unsure of how I would have reacted if I had found someone in my home in that story of mine.

I do know that, without those swords, I would have been terrified to examine my own home. I would have had to try to get the police out. As it turns out, this would have been a wasted police call (if they even came out at all).

Finally, your argument sounds very much like saying "Sorry, but your judgment is too risky, and therefore you can't be allowed to protect yourself. Only someone with much more experience can be allowed to try to protect you."

That doesn't allow for me to do anything except take a beating (if I'm lucky) or get killed (if I'm not). Why is this a desirable situation?

Just because criminals do not care about the law doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws.

That's quite a nice straw man you've got there. Too bad I wasn't trying to abolish all the laws. Seems I was just upset about specific laws that make it difficult (or even illegal) for me to defend myself with the methods I have at hand.

[the_std]

I've never said that you're not allowed to protect yourself. Hell, I know if I found someone in my house that they would wish they'd never bothered. I'm opposed to the automatic legal lethal force offered by the castle doctrine. I'm opposed to the fact that someone who trespasses can be killed, just like that. Yes, they might intend to rape and brutally slaughter your family. But what if they're just going around into the backyard to retrieve a lost frisbee? Sure, the owner of the house doesn't know that, but that doesn't give him the right to just kill them like that.

Edit to add: There are laws in place that allow you to defend yourself and your property/possessions/family. I fully support these. I would never want them to be taken away, because it's impossible to completely rely on the police to protect you. I don't want to put innocent citizens at the mercy of criminals. Please don't jump to that conclusion. You would have known that if you'd read my posts in the Castle Doctrine thread.

[Zyanya]

But what if they're just going around into the backyard to retrieve a lost frisbee? Sure, the owner of the house doesn't know that, but that doesn't give him the right to just kill them like that.

When cases like this start happening, this argument will be valid. Since they are about as common as the women who have 4 abortions a year and the men who routinely place curling irons into their bodily orifices, they can be safely disregarded when discussing the issue.

I don't want to put innocent citizens at the mercy of criminals.

Then you should be entirely 100% in support of castle doctrine and encouraging all citizens of the US to own a gun and be trained in it's use.

[Pedersen]

I will freely admit that I have not read the entire thread about the castle doctrine. I simply linked to it because it is a relevant, but distinct, discussion.

Hell, I know if I found someone in my house that they would wish they'd never bothered. I'm opposed to the automatic legal lethal force offered by the castle doctrine. I'm opposed to the fact that someone who trespasses can be killed, just like that.

I am not opposed to it, for one reason. In this day and age, prosecutors no longer seek to enforce justice, but to enforce the law. As such, if you are in a position where you did have to kill someone who was invading or attacking you in your home, you do not have to worry about the legal aftermath. Without that, though, a prosecutor could make your life hell.

Yes, I'm paranoid of the way my government acts. That's a whole different thread, though.

Edit to add: There are laws in place that allow you to defend yourself and your property/possessions/family. I fully support these. I would never want them to be taken away, because it's impossible to completely rely on the police to protect you.

Unfortunately, there are other laws in place that effectively remove that same ability. In some places, you are unable to use a gun. In others, various bladed weapons will make life difficult for you. And in still others, steel bars or pipes will get you in trouble. Why? Because these are weapons, and we mustn't have an armed populace.

That's the part that staggers me. If a criminal is in my home, I'm already in unpleasant territory. If that same criminal is ready and willing to assault me, my situation is even worse since I (and a good many other people around the world) are physically incapable of winning a street fight without some sort of weapon.

The laws I am hearing seem to be geared to remove all weapons from the populace at some point. This will leave criminals with weapons, the government with weapons, and everybody else completely defenseless.

Considering that we already know that criminals are willing to disregard the law, and that of those, some percentage will at least be carrying a knife (or worse), the people who are fashioning these laws are putting me at an extreme disadvantage when the criminal comes after me. He will be armed. I will have a cell phone and be trying to dial 911.

I am made more vulnerable by these laws, not less. Which makes me think that the people who are pushing for these laws must feel that the lives of the criminals are more important than the lives of the law abiding citizens. Which brings me back to my original question: Why is my life so worthless, and the criminal's life so valuable?

[the_std]

I guess my opinions don't apply here, because I live somewhere where I feel safe the grand majority of the time, and have never heard anyone here decry the need for these kinds of laws.

[BlackIronCrown]

So,
These people ignore the fact that criminals do not care about the law. They will arm themselves as they see fit. They will attack as they see fit.

It is this part that I must take you to task on.
The majority of criminals who are not already hell-bent on murder will NOT arm themselves with a firearm.
Thieves entering your house in the dead of night? Forget it. Only rarely will they be armed - they know that if they have a gun on them, the sentence will be MUCH higher when they are caught.
Most criminals are NOT interested in facing a murder rap. Murder is the galvanizer, the crime that gets manhunts started. No one cares if someone busted in your house and stole your TV, but shoot dead a family of 4? Watch forensics be all over the place.

The thing is, your assumption about criminals assumes that the majority of crimes are commited by bloodthirsty psychos raging for a MURDERDEATHKILL. This is not the case; those are merely the ones publicized by the media. The majority of all crime is not committed with weapons and involves little or no risk of harm to the victim.

[Pedersen]

Actually, your opinions do apply here. Elsewise, you'd be banned. Therefore, your opinions apply and are welcomed.

BTW, where I live, I feel safe 99% of the time. And I know I am.

My obligations, though, no longer allow me to focus on whether or not I, alone, am safe and will be so. I have a wife to care for.

Now, if something happens, I need to make sure I come out of it better than just okay, so that I can try to protect her. That 1% of the time seems a lot bigger when there's somebody else to watch out for.

[Boozy]

I guess my opinions don't apply here, because I live somewhere where I feel safe the grand majority of the time, and have never heard anyone here decry the need for these kinds of laws.

Canadians don't usually "get it" because we aren't worked into a lather of fear every time we turn on the TV.

We don't necessarily have lower crime rates (especially in certain cities), we just have a less skewed understanding of crime statistics.

[Difdi]

I'm not against people protecting themselves, but some of these laws take it too far and make the life of the so-called criminal worth less than the life of the law-abiding citizen (castle doctrine).


I've noticed this attitude before. It seems to be almost unanimous among people in the UK, but to US sensibilities, it's nonsensical to the point of sounding like suicidal insanity. The sort of insanity that you tie people into straitjackets over, to prevent them from harming themselves.

To the average person in the US, the criminal (no so-called about it) is worth less, on a life per life basis, than a law-abiding citizen, when a choice must be made between them. Why? Because the criminal made a conscious choice to violate the law and threaten harm, or carry out actual harm, against someone who never harmed the criminal. If the criminal is harmed, or even killed in the course of the altercation, then that's too bad for the criminal. But it was the criminal's choice to do so, the victim didn't have the ability to opt-out.

Just because criminals do not care about the law doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws.


There's a bit of military wisdom that is particularly apt here. "Never give an order you know will not be obeyed." By the same token, do not pass a law that punishes the law-abiding, that criminals will ignore. If criminals respected laws, they wouldn't be criminals. Passing a law that bans "crimes" will be just as effective in stopping violent crime as one that bans "weapons". The criminals will equally respect both laws.

[the_std]

We don't necessarily have lower crime rates (especially in certain cities), we just have a less skewed understanding of crime statistics.

That's the thing. I live in one of the cities with the highest violent crime and murder rates per capita in this country. In fact, it has tied for first in the past five years. I know the fear of someone trying to mug me, and I know what it's like to have my house broken into. My boyfriend weighs sixty pounds less than I do and has reduced mobility in his arms as a result of a series of seizures, so I know the feeling of responsibility and the need to take care of my significant other. He would be useless against any attack, so it falls to me. And yet I don't think I will ever understand the "guns a-blazin' and I'm gonna get you" mentality that seems to be so prominent, even subconsciously, in the states.

... And I think I'm glad that I don't.

[Slytovhand]

Hey Pedersen... I just did a long-ish post in Slippery Slope that sums up a bit of how I'll respond to this, but...

I was going to do a similar post to this (and still might... it's slightly different angle to come from), but I do this at work, and ran out of time...

Difdi... having laws, while being ignored by the criminal, does mean that when they're caught, they are worse off than if the law isn't there.

Back to you Ped...

The sort of criminals who carry guns... and want to use them.. on you ...will be very few and far between... probable that you'll never encounter them in a few lifetimes (unless, of course, you are trying to piss off a few gangs in the area :p)

Those who carry guns don't want to use them, and would avoid trying to shoot someone as much as possible. Thus, when you are in your home, and there is someone in there who shouldn't be, there are options which are non-lethal to prevent that danger that are statistically extremely effective. Even if you're getting mugged, if the mugger wanted to use that gun on you, you'd already be dead... so don't give them a good reason to use it.


But back to the question... it implies that the 'worth' of a life is dependant on how one relates to society and the other members in it. Maybe it does... maybe it doesn't. I think, life is intrinsically valuable regardless of how you interact with everyone else. That's why suicide (well... attempted, at any rate) is illegal. It's also why, even though you go vigilante and take out the local drug lords (or their hired hands that do all the dirty work.. including the murderers), you'll still end up on death row (if you have one in that state). In most areas, murder is murder, regardless of who you kill.

As for the intent of this thread... I think the debates have come up because various people want 'shoot to kill' to be the very first option that one chooses - because life means something (as does things like 'redemption', 'forgiveness', 'rehabilitation')... and they are opposed by those who think that attempting to kill someone should be a last resort. When such discussions come about (such as in Gun Control, and Castle Doctrine debates) the pro-gun lobby hasn't even suggested once that there are other viable alternatives before shooting.

I'm going to start that other thread now... see you there :D

Slyt

[Greenday]

Hell, if a trespasser isn't armed and then all of a sudden he has a gun trained on his head, I highly doubt they will continue with what they are doing. Just the sight of a weapon if they are unarmed can be enough to get rid of them. Honestly, I don't care about this all lives are equal. My life > my assaulter's life 100% of the time. I don't have to aim to kill, and it may be highly unlikely that I'll ever need to, but there's no guarantee I'll never be in that situation and I shouldn't be put in the position of not being able to defend myself.

[the_std]

I feel that the two topics in question (knife laws and the castle doctrine) are different ways to defend yourself, but your right to strike back isn't being annihilated. There are a lot of other options.

[protege]

Honestly, I don't care about this all lives are equal. My life > my assaulter's life 100% of the time.

Exactly. My father always told me, that if someone's hurting me, I *do* have the right to take their ass out. By "taking their ass out," I mean neutralizing the threat, NOT killing them.

[Pedersen]

I'm going to address something that people seem to be squeamish to admit. Specifically, how to tell when a fight is over.

A fight, of any sort, is over when the aggressor ends it, and not one second before. Note: The identity of the aggressor can change rapidly over the course of the fight.

I'll use an example from my own past to illustrate. I had a friend who became an ex-friend back in high school. One day, I said or did something which pissed him off. On the way home, he jumped me. He was the aggressor. I got the upper hand. I was now the aggressor. I had the option of continuing, or attempting to flee. Since I wasn't thinking well, I continued. A friend of his joined in and helped him, putting the two of them back into the aggressor position. An adult person who lived nearby saw this, and came out to break it up. The two of them stopped. The fight was over.

Had I had more experience, I probably would have run when I got the upper hand. I think I could have outrun him, too.

A second part of the issue that people seem squeamish about: Actual violence is rare, but it does happen. When it does, the victim of the violence needs to have choices before and while that violence is occurring, not afterwards. The aftermath of that violence can leave the victim with anything from mild bruises to broken bones to internal organ injuries to death, and anywhere else along the list of physical maladies. It can be extremely ugly to be a victim.

Another bit of my past: I was a regular victim of schoolyard bullies. Part of what I learned from this is that victims of violence are rarely given fair treatment by the authorities. I had any number of teachers actually punish me and admonish me for being the victim.

One story that I remember all too well is the time I had four guys gang up on me. During lunch, we were lining up to get into the cafeteria. I had someone gut punch me, leaving me doubled over, in pain, and muttering to myself. Seems someone decided to tell the person who hit me I called him some rather vulgar names (note: I did no such thing). So, after school, he gathered up three friends and came after me.

The Vice Principal of the school admonished me for calling the other guy those names. The other guy? His punishment was non-existent.

That's just one story. I've got many others like it. I learned not to trust authority figures thanks to that. I learned not to rely on them to protect me (because they couldn't get there in time), and I learned not to rely on them to punish the victimizer. Unfortunately, I was too physically weak and uncoordinated to fight back.

Before anybody decides to say "Well, that's school, the police are so much better", they're not. I can find any number of stories involving the police which show that the same patterns continue into adulthood, some of which come from my own past as well.

Finally, the last issue I want to address: Some of the comments here have made me think that people believe I do not understand what I am asking for. I understand it completely, much more so than you might think.

I am asking for the ability to protect myself. I am asking for the ability to use appropriate levels of force to do so. I am asking for the ability to use whatever weapons may be at hand in such a situation. I am asking for the law to look at what happens, and realize that I was defending myself, and not to punish me for doing so.

And yes, I understand full well the consequences of my actions. An unfortunate part of reality is that, sometimes, people die in such altercations. I do not take it lightly. But I will not allow someone to assault me. I will fight back until that person is down, and does not get back up. They can choose to stay down, or they can have me attack until they are unable to get back up. This can be due to injury or death.

I know this, and I accept this. I do not choose it lightly. But I will not be a victim ever again. And may $DEITY have mercy on the soul of anyone who comes after me, because the only mercy I will show is that I will try not to kill, but will feel no remorse if it has to happen to protect me or my loved ones.

[Greenday]

I know this, and I accept this. I do not choose it lightly. But I will not be a victim ever again. And may $DEITY have mercy on the soul of anyone who comes after me, because the only mercy I will show is that I will try not to kill, but will feel no remorse if it has to happen to protect me or my loved ones.

Amen. I'm done taking people's crap. I'm done with nobody doing a damn thing about it. I'm tired of the rules, punishing me for protecting myself. If you are going to hurt me or someone I care about, I'm going to do something, rules be damned. If the law can't adequately protect me, then I'm doing it myself.

[Zyanya]

I feel that the two topics in question (knife laws and the castle doctrine) are different ways to defend yourself, but your right to strike back isn't being annihilated. There are a lot of other options.

A man broke into my grandfather's house, while my grandfather was home.

My grandfather caught the man by the arm and shoved him back out the door.

The man stumbled when he went out the door and fell down the porch stairs, fracturing his wrist.

He sued my grandfather for 'pain and suffering'.

He won $45,000 and served 3 months probation.



Now, tell me, with a straight face, that our right to strike back isn't being annihilated.

I know what lesson that criminal learned. I also know what lesson my grandfather learned. Anyone else tries to break into his house, good luck finding their body. Since he is going to be punished anyway, he might as well take the chance on not being caught.

I think the debates have come up because various people want 'shoot to kill' to be the very first option that one chooses

And where are these people? I've even attended NRA meetings and joined gun clubs without meeting them.

I'm a strident supporter of castle doctrine. My first choice would be to get my family safely away and call the police. However, I acknowledge that isn't always going to be possible, and thus want to keep the option of defending myself with lethal force if necessary.

I respect and admire the police force of the town I now call home. They are great people and I'd love to have any of them over for dinner any night of the week. I believe they would do everything in their power to protect me. Doesn't change that it would take them a minimum of 15 minutes to get from the police station to my house, and that is assuming that A) the road isn't muddy, and B) the weather is clear so my phone is working.

I do not ever want to use my guns or my knives to take a human life. I'm still upset about the time I had to use my gun to end a snake's life (it had been run over, but was still alive). But if my choice is use my gun or let someone hurt, maim, or kill my son?

Bang bang, send me to jail if it makes you somehow feel more moral.

[Pedersen]

Hey Pedersen... I just did a long-ish post in Slippery Slope that sums up a bit of how I'll respond to this, but...

And I'm still pondering my response. Many times, it seems that others post my thoughts first, and usually better. For a while, I didn't even have a response to this, and then I noticed something that really really bothered me.

The sort of criminals who carry guns... and want to use them.. on you ...will be very few and far between... probable that you'll never encounter them in a few lifetimes (unless, of course, you are trying to piss off a few gangs in the area :p)

Let me see if I understand your position in this statement correctly: Are you stating that you are willing to play the lottery with mine (and everybody else's) life and well being on the grounds that we probably won't be victims?

Because, quite frankly, I don't know that anything short of willful ignorance would piss me off more.

I have zero objection to somebody playing the lottery with their own life. Hell, go play Russian roulette with a fully automatic gun that has a reputation for jamming, if you wish. But the second you start playing it with somebody else's life, I take exception.

As a wise man once said, we're all somebody else to everybody else. If you're willing to play that lottery with somebody else's life, then you're playing it with mine. To steal some various phrases: Not cricket, not kosher, not cool, not fair.

But back to the question... it implies that the 'worth' of a life is dependant on how one relates to society and the other members in it. Maybe it does... maybe it doesn't. I think, life is intrinsically valuable regardless of how you interact with everyone else.

Well, let's put it this way: You are given a choice. 10 people have been rounded up and placed into two separate rooms. In room a, we have the 5 closest people in all of the world to you. In room b, we have gathered up 5 people whom you have never heard of, from a region of the world that has no known value to you, nor to anybody else within 250 miles of you. These other 5 people are all on their deathbeds due to various illnesses, all of them incurable. There is no chance that they will be alive in one week's time.

In 1 minute, poisonous gas will be released into both rooms. This gas will kill everybody in them. There is a switch in front of you. You can flip that switch, and save everybody in one of the rooms, but not both.

Which room do you save? Or do you let them all die?

The point of this is, I'm sure, obvious: Lives have relative worth. Someone who is attacking me or my family has a life worth extremely little to me, and I will do everything required to protect myself and my family.

Now, with the logic being displayed elsewhere (not necessarily by you, Slytovhand, I will admit), I should be disarmed as thoroughly as possible. I should be made as helpless as possible. Meanwhile, the attacker, already not caring to obey the law, has armed himself in whatever manner he sees fit.

My life is worth so little to the people who would disarm me that they would prefer allowing an attacker (who they don't know) to live and (possibly) attack elsewhere again, as opposed to me (also a person they don't know), a person who doesn't do this.

My question is this: Why am I so worthless, when I'm not the one initiating these attacks?

As for the intent of this thread... I think the debates have come up because various people want 'shoot to kill' to be the very first option that one chooses

The only people I've ever heard make those sorts of statements are the exact sort of people I am worried about defending myself from. They will be armed. I will be helpless against them, because I will have been disarmed by a populace that wants all edges rounded, and a government that will try to make that happen, and my own desire to remain within the law.

Doesn't make sense to me at all.

[the_std]

Zyanya, the things you and Pedersen are saying don't really make sense to me. The examples you use don't feel like they could happen in real life, even though you say they have. That kind of thing just doesn't happen here. Sucks for your grandpa and all the people this happens to, but the way I reply is based on my culture, not yours. Hope that shows why I'm answering the way I am.

[Pedersen]

Zyanya, the things you and Pedersen are saying don't really make sense to me. The examples you use don't feel like they could happen in real life, even though you say they have. That kind of thing just doesn't happen here. Sucks for your grandpa and all the people this happens to, but the way I reply is based on my culture, not yours. Hope that shows why I'm answering the way I am.

Judging by posts I've seen, I'm guessing you're from somewhere in Canada. Considering the size of the country, that's not saying much. Still, I thought I'd help you out a bit.


Mentions young girls being kidnapped from Montreal for use in slave trade (http://www.joysmith.ca/index.asp?ID=75&cat_ID=1)
14 yeard old girl kills mother, father, brother, gets sentenced to 10 years (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d0b_1194562036)
Father kills his family, then self (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=556691)
Gunman kills two, gets to stay at Club Fed, with golf course/etc (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/01/18/3401230-sun.html)
Angolan psychopath goes on murder/robbery rampage (http://hogtownfront.blogspot.com/2006/05/angolan-psychopath-has-been-in-canada.html)


I think I covered each time zone, but am quite sure you will let me know if I missed one. Oh, and it only took me about a minute on Google to find those. If there's some specific horrific crime that you'd like to know about occurring in Canada, let me know. As with all places with a large enough population, it's probably happened somewhere.

The point is this: As much as it sucks, these things happen. As rare as they are (and they are rare), these things happen. If you wish to hide away and pretend they don't, that's fine.

But for those of us who acknowledge their presence, why would you deny us the opportunity and the means to defend ourselves if the need arises? Why would you prefer to save the criminal's life over my own?

And that is the choice you are making, whether you like it or not. A criminal can arm himself any way he chooses. And the worst that happens to him is that he gets to spend the rest of his life in jail. Meanwhile, I've got any of a variety of injuries, including being dead.

To me, that doesn't make any sense.

[aniwahya]

See the problem with acts of violence, is that by the time one happens you no longer have time to prepare.

Also that's really great that you have never experienced those things. I wish I could say that. Hell I wish I had never had to make the choice to violently harm friends and family who turned violent. When I was 11 years old and being terrorized by my 250lbs 6'2" stepfather (who was incidentally a multiple black belt) I had a great many people who looked the other way because violence is unpleasant, and it wasn't their problem. Between him and the uncle who almost broke my arm, and attacked my mom over thanksgiving dinner (the same uncle who violently assaulted a large male cop over a DUI) I learned something I now consider invaluable. If you do not care about your life enough to actively defend yourself, then chances are no one else will. Why should someone else risk their life to do something you yourself will not do, and not only that, but completely invalidate the risk they take as well?

I cannot stress enough that this stuff happens all the time. It is not a culture thing, it is a people thing. Know what the difference between warlords and cultures eradicated by genocide? Training and weapons. Think that could never happen to Canada? Take away all of civilian weapon rights (knives, guns, everything deemed unsafe) and how would you stop a well equipped, well trained private army from eradicating your organized government and placing their own choice of dictator in charge?

[powerboy]

Amen. I'm done taking people's crap. I'm done with nobody doing a damn thing about it. I'm tired of the rules, punishing me for protecting myself. If you are going to hurt me or someone I care about, I'm going to do something, rules be damned. If the law can't adequately protect me, then I'm doing it myself.


Exactly. If someone is attacking me or someone I care for. I will protect myself. I have a shinai at home. I will use it, if I have too. Yes I would swing for the legs.

If someone is in my house that is unwelcome. Then yeah, I have all the right in the world to protect my self and the ones that I care about. Like I mentioned, I have a shinai at home and I will use it. Would I go to jail? Probably. Would I get sued? Probably. But what the fuck is he doing where he does not belong?

*Disclaimer*
I will only use the shinai in self defense.

[Slytovhand]

I'll post again when I've got a bit more time on my hands...(like at work in a few hours :p), but I thought I'd quickly chuck in a couple of thoughts on the recent posts...

Powerboy... right with you on that one (though I have 'tai chi' sword - but others in the car).

Pedersen... yep, you're right, things like that do happen, and I'm not against defending yourself at all, and in whatever way happens to be necessary at the time (I appreciate your story last page... life sometimes sucks, hey??).

The only thing I'm really arguing for is that guns not be used as a first line of defence, nor that knives become a regular item on a person for 'self-defence'.

I'll have to sort back through all the posts, by my 'I haven't seen the gun lobby throw up a pre-gun defence first' is in the Gun Control thread. Hell.. I even suggested it... intruder is in the house, so you call out, turn on the lights, fire a warning shot, etc....nope - can't do any of that - collateral damage could hit someone else (from the warning shot), yelling out tells them where you are, lights just show you that you're an easy target... etc...


The issue for most of us against some of what is being argued, I think, would basically come down to 2 sets of statistics...

A) Number of people killed or even severely injured due to accidents/mis-adventure/mis-use/ abuse of a gun or knife... but still 'legal' (as per that link of the guy who shot the 15yo...)

Versus - B) number of people innocently killed or maimed by same weapons (innocent being defined as not involving themselves in a gang war or the like... as well as the more obvious examples) by criminals.


If B can be reduced without an increase in A.... then there's a good case to make. Most think it won't, but rather A would drastically increase if guns and knives were free for all.




The 'responsibility' line is all well and good... when you can make everyone responsible.



As for the twin gas chamber scenario... while all that is well and good, the law doesn't get that option, and it's the law we are referring to (aren't we????)


Btw... for the record... yes, I would be quite willing to kill someone if they were doing greivous bodily harm to myself or those I loved... and I would do it however I could in the circumstances... as required. I still don't want to be carrying a knife or gun to do so 'just in case'...


Slyt

[Slytovhand]

Back again... at work now...

Pedersen... as to your school-yard bullies, I'm thinking

You meet those 3 outside.

They want to beat you up.

You pull a knife to warn them off.

Then they all pull a knife... 3 vs 1.

Your beating then turns into murder...


But, as per a story a mate of mine told me last night.

1 person (granted, tall and muscley) is surrounded by 15 youths (14-18yo etc). He calls to his mates (a bit too far away, and have to run to him) for help. He pulls out his retractable baton and opens it ... and all 15 kids bolt... (yeah...I know... it's probably illegal for most people, but if we're going to change the laws....)


Slyt

[the_std]

I never said I've not experienced violence in my life. I have, a great many times. I have had my nose broken and my fingers dislocated. I've had to protect my mother, my father and my best friend from violent people on more than one occasion. I've put people in the hospital before. I understand the need for force, and the need to protect oneself. We've all had shitty things happen to us, and I'm not an exception.

Pedersen, I was also bullied and assaulted in both grade and high school. I had teachers and authority figures look the other way. I've been ambushed and attacked. I know what it's like.

What I'm saying I don't understand is the "I need to be able to kill them" mentality. I never consider lethal force to be my first defense. If it comes to that, if the attacker pulls out a knife, then yes, I will do my best to prevent them from using that knife, even if it means doing something that could possibly kill them. Same with a gun.

My true objection with the castle doctrine, as I've said many times before, is that it allows legal lethal force to be used in situations where lethal force isn't necessary, or to be the first option presented. If it means that you take out that guy who broke into your car with a revolver pointed at your head and not be arrested for it, great. Good for you. You deserve that protection. Maybe, in the States, you need that kind of protection. Yeah, shitty stuff happens here too. All those cases you mentioned, Pedersen? We're not perfect. But even with those shitty things that have happened, no one is calling for something like the castle doctrine, because that's just not how we do things here. Nor do I think it's how we need to do things here.

[Zyanya]

Zyanya, the things you and Pedersen are saying don't really make sense to me.

Gee, sorry.

The examples you use don't feel like they could happen in real life, even though you say they have. That kind of thing just doesn't happen here. Sucks for your grandpa and all the people this happens to, but the way I reply is based on my culture, not yours. Hope that shows why I'm answering the way I am.

Yes. I understand why you are answering the way you are. It is called willful ignorance.

What I'm saying I don't understand is the "I need to be able to kill them" mentality. I never consider lethal force to be my first defense. If it comes to that, if the attacker pulls out a knife, then yes, I will do my best to prevent them from using that knife, even if it means doing something that could possibly kill them. Same with a gun.

So there is no one in your life you love enough to be willing to kill or die to prevent them from coming to harm?

It isn't my life I am concerned about. I can run, scream, kick, punch, headbutt. I have taken self-defense classes.

Try throwing a decent right hook when you are holding a baby.

I have given a hostage to fortune. I don't give a rats ass how many penalties you want to place on the act of killing someone breaking into my house. If I believe it is the best option, I am still going to do it, and you can throw me in jail if that salves your conscience.

But stop pretending these laws serve any purpose other than making you feel better.

Your 'objection', is irrelevant, as it has NOTHING to do with the actuality of Castle Doctrine, as has already been repeatedly pointed out.

Castle Doctrine does NOT give me the right to shoot a kid for going into my backyard for a frisbee. Castle Doctrine does NOT give me the right to shoot a Jehovah's Witness for ringing my doorbell. Castle Doctrine does NOT give me the right to shoot a surveyor for accidentally stepping over my property line. Castle Doctrine does NOT give me the right to shoot a five year old that followed my son into the house.

All Castle Doctrine does is give me the right to defend myself should I feel reasonably threatened. Specifically, it gives a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend their home (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack.

Period. That is it.

Now, what about that do you actually find objectionable?

A question for you:

It is obvious I am home, lights on, car in drive, visibility through the windows. A large man is breaking into my house via the window of the bedroom of my 1 year old son. The cops are 30 minutes away. I am still having difficulty after a surgery, no way I can overpower this man. I do not know what he is armed with. He is between me and my son, there is a reasonable chance he could grab me and my son if I tried to rush in and grab my baby. It is snowing outside and the temperature is below freezing, both my son and I are in pajamas. We could likely freeze to death outside before help came even if we did manage to escape the house.

So I use a weapon, and the man dies. Since there is no castle doctrine in my area, my action was illegal.

How many years do you feel I should spend in jail for this act?

Do not sidestep the question. Do not say 'well, that scenario could never happen'. It has before, and will again. Someone has already had to make that choice.

So answer fully, what punishment do you feel I deserve for my actions?


Now answer this -

would punishing me for that action serve any purpose other than making you feel better?

[the_std]

I'm sorry. I understood the law to mean something else. Not willful ignorance, but a misunderstanding.

You win. Doesn't mean I agree with the law, but I understand what you're saying.

[Slytovhand]

wow... getting pretty hot in this room..... I thought this was an intellectual debate....


Pretty much all western law countries allow for a person to defend their home and children from attackers.

What is illegal, is opening up the door, and blasting away at the person with a shotgun...with no warning.

The question comes down to how much force is used, and in what manner.

Given the few bits of legislation I just read (direct links to the various states' sections for castle doctrines), you'd be in deep doo-doo if that person just happened to be the ex who lost their keys, and wanted to see their son. If the lights are off, and you can't identify the person, and just shoot... that's an issue... and it's the issue we are talking about.

The punishment isn't about 'making someone feel better', it's about telling the rest of society 'your first instinct is NOT to kill someone - if it comes to that, sure, do it. But not as a first response'... and that's what we are trying to say.

That, and only that.

Perhaps we ought to discuss the various merits and flaws, not of 'Castle Doctrine' itself (although, some of the specifics - such as trespass and unlawful entry could be interesting), but the specific element of 'Stand Your Ground' vs 'Duty to Retreat'??

Slyt

(to answer your question... if the situation you described occured, and you just opened up with no warning and no identification - you'd spend time. Just remember, even police have to give warning before they shoot, and they have to identify themselves first - entering a raging gunbattle not withstanding...although I'd think even then they'd have to warn first)

[aniwahya]

There is simply not much you can do against an aggressor who is taller, heavier and who is equally or better trained than you without a weapon. If someone who has the physical stature of a pro wrestler or pro linebacker decides they want to hurt you, not only is your window of opportunity for seizing the other hand is not as big as a lot of inexperienced people think it is.

The other thing is, I think that the intent to disable is being mistaken for the intent to kill. Take an attacker who has an already high pain tolerance add drugs, alcohol and/or adrenaline and it takes an awesome amount of force to disable them. Especially if they are a large person (more meat to soak up damage).

- Knocking them unconscious is risky. For one, the most likely means of rendering someone unconscious where they are the aggressor is by means of blunt force trauma to the head. There is no guarantee when you hit someone, or cause them to be hit, in the head that you won't kill them. The next best method is likely to be cut off their oxygen. With someone who is able to easily over power you, your best bet is to cut off the oxygen to their brain, this is much riskier for you and you may not have the opportunity (or training) to do this. Trying to manually choke an attacker out, especially without a garrote, is more involved than it looks, and you run the risk of either cutting off their air, too long or not long enough.
The other big problem with trying to render someone unconscious is you have no idea how long they will be out. They will rarely give you a second change to "try again".

- Using a ranged weapon is the safest way to defend yourself, but if they are already too close for that to be an open, you may have just on moment to strike. If you only have one chance to get a blow in, and you choose a non-vital target, the aggressor is unlikely to even notice you have been hit until after you are dead. I was in a fight where someone picked up a knife. After I subdued them (improvised lion's kill, improvised because my other hand was keeping them from driving a 10" knife into my head) someone started screaming, which prompted me to notice that the kitchen was covered in fresh blood. Someone else actually noticed that one of my fingers was half sawed off before I did. You don't have to accept my word on how people can withstand injuries/damage/pain that you would think would stop them. Go watch some UFC tournaments, consider it research.

I don't want to kill anyone. However in the course of defending myself I kill an aggressor who has attacked me, or has invaded my home I will feel zero remorse in taking their life.

Also I hope some of you can appreciate the irony in that I am a law abiding citizen now, but if you take away my legal right to arm and defend myself, I will arm and defend myself illegally. I suspect I am not the only one to feel that way, and much like prohibition, instead of reducing the number of armed criminals you will only strengthen their number by forcing otherwise law-abiding citizens to become criminals, depending on criminals who supply illegal weapons to defend themselves.

*Note I have had a great many violent altercations and have not yet needed to kill someone, despite my having the means to do so. Just because I want to be able to legally defend myself doesn't make me a crazed killer.*

[Rapscallion]

A question for you:

It is obvious I am home, lights on, car in drive, visibility through the windows. A large man is breaking into my house via the window of the bedroom of my 1 year old son. The cops are 30 minutes away. I am still having difficulty after a surgery, no way I can overpower this man. I do not know what he is armed with. He is between me and my son, there is a reasonable chance he could grab me and my son if I tried to rush in and grab my baby. It is snowing outside and the temperature is below freezing, both my son and I are in pajamas. We could likely freeze to death outside before help came even if we did manage to escape the house.

So I use a weapon, and the man dies. Since there is no castle doctrine in my area, my action was illegal.

How many years do you feel I should spend in jail for this act?


Let's turn it around.

I am woken up in the middle of the night by a noise. I live alone. According to castle doctrine, I have a gun. I grab it and go downstairs, avoiding the creaky floorboard. My stairs end at the door, which I notice is open. I accidentally left it open/unlocked before going to bed. A shadowy figure is in my dark front room, rifling through my belongings. He comes at me.

Is he going for me? Is he going for the door to try and escape? I don't know, so I open fire. A chav lies dead, bleeding on my new carpet.

According to castle doctrine, that's fine. Is the legal punishment for theft now accepted as being execution by someone not necessarily trained for the job?

I don't actually hold any real opinions on this, but I see all these scenarios being thrown around. The law cannot operate on scenarios - it has to work on generalities and principles. The courts have to use those to decide on scenarios presented through the medium of evidence and witnesses.

Rapscallion

[Zyanya]

I am woken up in the middle of the night by a noise. I live alone. According to castle doctrine, I have a gun. I grab it and go downstairs, avoiding the creaky floorboard. My stairs end at the door, which I notice is open. I accidentally left it open/unlocked before going to bed. A shadowy figure is in my dark front room, rifling through my belongings. He comes at me.

Is he going for me? Is he going for the door to try and escape? I don't know, so I open fire. A chav lies dead, bleeding on my new carpet.


And? Sorry about the carpet, but gee, he knew the risks and willingly engaged in the act. He put you in a positions where you had a reasonable belief that your life was threatened. He made the choice, he took the consequences. So mote it be.

According to castle doctrine, that's fine. Is the legal punishment for theft now accepted as being execution by someone not necessarily trained for the job?

He wasn't executed for theft. He was killed because he WILLINGLY put someone else in a position where they had to fear for the safety of themselves and their families. Whether his act was malicious or just stupid, it was his choice. He was adequately warned by the existence of Castle Doctrine law.

Frankly, it's no different than when the kid ignored the 'warning, train tracks' sign when painting graffiti and got killed by a train. Oh well, Darwin wins, and the real tragedy is that the conductor has to feel guilty because he is not a murderer, just someone forced into a bad situation.


The punishment isn't about 'making someone feel better', it's about telling the rest of society 'your first instinct is NOT to kill someone - if it comes to that, sure, do it. But not as a first response'... and that's what we are trying to say.

Point acknowledged, repeatedly. Castle Doctrine DOES NOT change the fact that one's first instinct should not be to kill. Only if you have a reason to believe you are defending yourself and/or those living in your home from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. does castle doctrine come into play.

We've acknowledged your point. Kindly return the favor and actually look at what castle doctrine means.

I do not believe in 'duty to retreat'. All my experience has taught me that if yo try to back away, that just signals that you are weak and they keep coming. I was bullied right up to the day I stepped up and punched the bitch in the face.

1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted. Pacifists would see my duty as to attempt to flee and if that fails to lie there quietly and try not to piss him off enough that he kills me. However, I have a moral obligation to myself to fight back with all of my being and that outweighs any ill-conceived 'duty to retreat' 'protect the criminal' BS that gives you the artificial feeling of security.

you'd be in deep doo-doo if that person just happened to be the ex who lost their keys, and wanted to see their son.

Which begs the question, why was the ex breaking in instead of ringing the doorbell?

I don't want to kill anyone. However in the course of defending myself I kill an aggressor who has attacked me, or has invaded my home I will feel zero remorse in taking their life.

Also I hope some of you can appreciate the irony in that I am a law abiding citizen now, but if you take away my legal right to arm and defend myself, I will arm and defend myself illegally.

Ditto. So what purpose does making me a criminal serve other than making you feel better?

Removing castle doctrine only makes the criminals safer.

[aniwahya]

Actually if it was an EX you should be more afraid they are breaking in to hurt you, not less.

I sleep with large knives and a sword, and have done so for the last 9 years. Guess how many accidental stabbings happened in my household (living with 2 peeps, and third having keys, various other people staying for short to long periods of time) in those 9 years? Not one single time.
Never accidentally shot a family member nor nailed them with a throwing knife either, and even with PTSD and fast reflexes.
Come to think of it I have never hurt, nor killed a family pet and those buggers TRY to scare me when I'm sleeping.

I truly have not seen one case where someone was killed because the homeowner thought they were an invader, then they turned out to be a loved one, that I didn't think was premeditated murder.

[Pedersen]

The examples you use don't feel like they could happen in real life, even though you say they have. That kind of thing just doesn't happen here.
What I'm saying I don't understand is the "I need to be able to kill them" mentality. I never consider lethal force to be my first defense. If it comes to that, if the attacker pulls out a knife, then yes, I will do my best to prevent them from using that knife, even if it means doing something that could possibly kill them. Same with a gun.

Sorry, the_std, but that is not what you stated, as I've quoted above. You stated "that kind of thing just doesn't happen here." It does. And I've shown it. If you wish to change your statements, that's fine, but I'm going to call you on them when I see them.

The only thing I'm really arguing for is that guns not be used as a first line of defence, nor that knives become a regular item on a person for 'self-defence'.

Actually, I'm not arguing that any line of defense should be the first line of defense. I happen to believe in the idea of "get the hell away from the attacker". My primary issue, and one that I have yet to see a valid answer to, is this: Why is a criminal's life worth more?

The criminal chooses to break the law. In the situations where I have to defend myself and/or my family, I need every advantage I can get my hands on. Especially since, as a criminal, the attacker could have any number of weapons. Meanwhile, with the laws that are being asked for by an increasingly frightened population, I am being disarmed. People are playing the lottery with my life.

So, my original (unanswered) question still stands: Why is my life worth so little that we will protect the criminal from me having the possibility of defending myself?

To add to that: Why is the criminal's life worth so much that if I am forced to defend myself (and either injure or kill him in the process) that we will reward the criminal or his family?

These things do not make sense to me, and I am trying very very hard to understand them.

The 'responsibility' line is all well and good... when you can make everyone responsible.

We can never do that, unfortunately. But this winds up opening another can of worms that's very closely related: Why is it the case that, when a small segment of society is a problem, we will punish the whole of society for that problem? Another example from my own past: In high school, I had a teacher that wasn't worth her weight in dung. This teacher, to make matters worse, was a study hall teacher for me. Myself (and several other students) were on a rotating schedule that had us out of that particular room, and pursuing some other studies, one day/week. One week, the class that was there was loud, disrespectful, etc. I returned the next day. Now, one day each year the art students put on a show. The day I returned was the day of the show. This was also my only opportunity to see their exhibits, and some of them were quite good. I wanted to go. However, since the other students had been problematic the day before, the entire class was to be punished by not being allowed to go.

Fortunately, I chose to ignore the edict and walk out of the class. However, this illustrates my question: Something which I have not done, which I had no part of, occurred, and I was to be punished for it. Again, makes no sense to me.

As for the twin gas chamber scenario... while all that is well and good, the law doesn't get that option, and it's the law we are referring to (aren't we????)

Actually, that example was specifically to illustrate a point: That some lives are more valuable than others. The statement had been made that all lives were intrinsically valuable. I was proving that even though all have value, that value is not the same.

But, as per a story a mate of mine told me last night.

1 person (granted, tall and muscley) is surrounded by 15 youths (14-18yo etc). He calls to his mates (a bit too far away, and have to run to him) for help. He pulls out his retractable baton and opens it ... and all 15 kids bolt... (yeah...I know... it's probably illegal for most people, but if we're going to change the laws....)

Or, all 15 of them open their own retractable batons, and what was going to be a fairly bad beating now becomes a short term coma with permanent partial paralysis, along with damage to eyesight and hearing.

Part of using a weapon is knowing when to use it.

Oh, and btw, I'm not trying to change the law. Not for me, anyway. I'm trying to prevent the law being changed in a way that could leave me in serious trouble in such an incident.

The punishment isn't about 'making someone feel better', it's about telling the rest of society 'your first instinct is NOT to kill someone - if it comes to that, sure, do it. But not as a first response'... and that's what we are trying to say.

That, and only that.

I happen to agree with that.

I do not demand to be able to kill on sight. I do not demand to be able to lash out without provocation. I do demand the ability to defend myself. And the laws that are being demanded seem determined to remove that right.

And I do not understand that in the least.

Oh, another little fun story to share with all of you (note, any of my stories where I say an event happened "in school" or "in high school" is an actual occurrence. There's probably even documentation of it somewhere if I really wanted to dig it up): In school, I chose the "run away" route when being attacked after school. The attacker got my bookbag, though, which had most of my textbooks in it. I got reprimanded by both my parents and the school since those books would have to be replaced if they were not recovered. I got lucky, and found my backpack in school, so no loss. A year or so later, I had an attacker steal my pack again. I was not going to get in trouble again, so I gave chase. I caught up to him, and started hitting the hand that was holding my backpack. As it turns out, I was holding a pencil in that hand (and had completely forgotten I was doing so, as I was unloading stuff into my locker when this occurred). I stabbed him with it, and the end broke off in his arm.

Again, I got in trouble. This time for not having a teacher recover my backpack for me and for stabbing my attacker with a pencil.

With some sort of actual precedent or law set in stone, I could have gotten more consistent responses about what to do and what not to do. Instead, I got another lesson in self-reliance.

[protege]

I do not demand to be able to kill on sight. I do not demand to be able to lash out without provocation. I do demand the ability to defend myself. And the laws that are being demanded seem determined to remove that right.

I don't lash out without provocation either. However, I *will* fight back if I'm cornered, and I will use any and every method to not only defend myself (including those I care about) but neutralize the threat.

That's why I went after the bastard who was trying to break into my grandmother's house...even though she wasn't home. What if I was at school, and she *was* home? Given her seriously weakened condition, she'd have been an easy target :( I went after the bastard to send a message--that we were *not* going to be victims.

I should mention that anyone who breaks into a rural house is a moron. Sorry, but *many* people on farms or isolated areas *are* armed, and they *will* shoot first and answer questions later.... so to break into a place like that is just suicidal.

[Rapscallion]

And? Sorry about the carpet, but gee, he knew the risks and willingly engaged in the act. He put you in a positions where you had a reasonable belief that your life was threatened. He made the choice, he took the consequences. So mote it be.


I have to admit that in a case where a chav is involved, I'd be more gutted about the carpet than anything else.


He wasn't executed for theft. He was killed because he WILLINGLY put someone else in a position where they had to fear for the safety of themselves and their families. Whether his act was malicious or just stupid, it was his choice. He was adequately warned by the existence of Castle Doctrine law.


Interesting change of emphasis from executed to killed. Execution is legal, killing isn't always. It would be legally sanctioned under castle doctrine, and therefore execution.

The fact is that it's theft in the scenario presented. I cannot accept that theft should be punished by death. The UK's stance is that you can take reasonable actions to defend yourself, which is generally decided on by a court of law should such a circumstance come before them.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

But just because it starts with theft, doesn't mean that as a result of being confronted, the theif may turn violent in order to get away with it, and as a result of that, it'd be a lot more understandable to use more extreme of a force.

[Zyanya]

I cannot accept that theft should be punished by death.

As I already stated, he was not 'executed' for theft.

He was 'executed' because he WILLINGLY put someone else in a position where they had to fear for the safety of themselves and their families. The theft was merely his motive for undertaking the action that got him 'executed'.

It is also theft in these cases -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_invasion

How exactly are you supposed to know that the guy is going for the door and isn't someone like Perry Edward Smith?

You don't, and it since it was his choice to put you in that situation, no tears should be shed for him by society at large.

You shouldn't have to take the chance that he isn't going to harm you. It is wrong for someone to gamble with your life and say you should take that chance instead of hurting someone that willingly and knowingly is already demonstrating a disregard for both the law and your wellbeing and is acting in a manner threatening to you.

[ebonyknight]

Canadians don't usually "get it" because we aren't worked into a lather of fear every time we turn on the TV.

We don't necessarily have lower crime rates (especially in certain cities), we just have a less skewed understanding of crime statistics.

QFT!!!!

As I understand it, Canadians are not inundated with sensational news stories about the "triple homicide that occurred last night in our area" or the "perils of di-hydrogen monoxide permeating the environment". Kudos to anyone who gets the significance of the latter.

From what I understand, their news reports tend to focus on relating the events of the day (good, boring and bad), while we only get the bad. I even understand that most don't find the need to lock their doors, while we have steel bars and steel gates welded to our door frames.

Unfortunately, the media has effectively created an atmosphere of paranoia that makes the hijacking of our country, so easy.

[ebonyknight]

wow... getting pretty hot in this room..... I thought this was an intellectual debate....


Pretty much all western law countries allow for a person to defend their home and children from attackers.

What is illegal, is opening up the door, and blasting away at the person with a shotgun...with no warning.

The question comes down to how much force is used, and in what manner.

Given the few bits of legislation I just read (direct links to the various states' sections for castle doctrines), you'd be in deep doo-doo if that person just happened to be the ex who lost their keys, and wanted to see their son. If the lights are off, and you can't identify the person, and just shoot... that's an issue... and it's the issue we are talking about.

I think that's the problem. That's what YOU'RE talking about. Not the others. The problem is that in this country, the laws are there, but the lawyers and criminals are distorting "justice". I can't believe how many asinine lawsuits I have seen where a criminal was injured in the commission of a crime and sued the homeowner and FRIKIN WINS!!!!

The problem is that people don't feel that there is justice anymore and where there is no justice there is no peace. People in this country (unlike the UK, which has turned into 1984) have never been the type to sit down and take it. This country was founded on dissatisfaction with the ruling government and doing something about it.

Other countries don't have that experience. We choose to not be victims, it's in our mentality and history. If the gubment, won't do it, we'll do it ourselves.

There are plenty of cases (Washington DC being the largest gun control lab in this country) of people not being able to defend themselves and getting killed.

I saw a story about 3 weeks ago about a woman who was had been held at knife point by her ex. She called 911 a number of times over 2 hours, wondering where the police were. The last call was recorded and after she hung up, the 911 operator said "I really just don’t give a shit what happens to you.”. Fortunately, she was okay. Think anything will change?

You like to talk about the tragic accidents. We don't want to be the victim and talk about the tragic propensities for criminals to do wrong. Accidents happen, they are a part of life. Crime and murder doesn't have to be.

[Rapscallion]

As I already stated, he was not 'executed' for theft.

He was 'executed' because he WILLINGLY put someone else in a position where they had to fear for the safety of themselves and their families. The theft was merely his motive for undertaking the action that got him 'executed'.

It is also theft in these cases -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_invasion

How exactly are you supposed to know that the guy is going for the door and isn't someone like Perry Edward Smith?

You don't, and it since it was his choice to put you in that situation, no tears should be shed for him by society at large.

You shouldn't have to take the chance that he isn't going to harm you. It is wrong for someone to gamble with your life and say you should take that chance instead of hurting someone that willingly and knowingly is already demonstrating a disregard for both the law and your wellbeing and is acting in a manner threatening to you.

Another scenario, in that case, since they are being used in so many cases to justify death for the offence of theft.

Chav walks into your house, you surprise him, he didn't think anyone was home, you are armed, he's walking backwards out, saying he'll go, but you shoot.

"Honest, officer, he was coming for me."

Legal murder.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

How often do you really think that will happen where someone will shoot someone who gave up, said they'd leave, and were actually leaving? I'd bet most, if not nearly all will let him go.

[protege]

I wouldn't let the guy go either. However, I wouldn't shoot him either. What I'd do, is detain him until the cops come...and then press charges on breaking and entering.

[Zyanya]

Another scenario, in that case, since they are being used in so many cases to justify death for the offence of theft.

Chav walks into your house, you surprise him, he didn't think anyone was home, you are armed, he's walking backwards out, saying he'll go, but you shoot.

"Honest, officer, he was coming for me."

Legal murder.

Rapscallion

Doesn't fit the criteria necessary for castle doctrine to apply.

As has been (repeatedly) pointed out, only if you have a reason to believe you are defending yourself and/or those living in your home from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. does castle doctrine come into play.

By the standards of castle doctrine, the case you cited would have been plain old ordinary murder, no legal about it.

[Rapscallion]

Doesn't fit the criteria necessary for castle doctrine to apply.


Wounds to the front, and only one witness to tell what happened. Your side of this argument assumes that the person defending their property isn't going to take the chance to use castle doctrine to take a little revenge (and gain a carpet cleaning bill).

Damn, I'd be tempted. Despite what I've said in this thread, I'm not against the death penalty, but I am against it's application like this. The very fact that people feel such offence from injustices done to them means that it's a case of high feelings taking hold. That's the very reason we have a legal system of impartial (supposedly) people to try the claims of those offended against.


By the standards of castle doctrine, the case you cited would have been plain old ordinary murder, no legal about it.

Only if the houseowner had been daft enough to say to the police, "I had him in my sights when he was trying to get away, and I shot him anyway." It's a murder case if it goes to a court of law, but if he just tells the cops investigating that the guy was coming for him then there's very unlikely to be anything happening legally.

You're quite happy for a law to be in place for the right circumstances, but the reality is that there are more than a few people in the land who would be happy to use it to further their own beleifs about how the law should be enacted.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

Only if the houseowner had been daft enough to say to the police, "I had him in my sights when he was trying to get away, and I shot him anyway." It's a murder case if it goes to a court of law, but if he just tells the cops investigating that the guy was coming for him then there's very unlikely to be anything happening legally.

You're quite happy for a law to be in place for the right circumstances, but the reality is that there are more than a few people in the land who would be happy to use it to further their own beleifs about how the law should be enacted.

Rapscallion

I've thought that too myself. But I'm still convinced that nearly everyone, if not everyone will use it for the correct purposes. If people are planning on murdering someone, they'll do it wherever they want. Plus, you can't run from evidence in your own home...

[Rapscallion]

I've thought that too myself. But I'm still convinced that nearly everyone, if not everyone will use it for the correct purposes.

Sorry, but I'm not as optimistic as that. The castle doctrine came about because many people thought it was a good idea to shoot people in self-defence. I'm sure a decent percentage would take advantage due to a love of vigilanteism.

Rapscallion

[BlaqueKatt]

I even understand that most don't find the need to lock their doors, while we have steel bars and steel gates welded to our door frames. Unfortunately, the media has effectively created an atmosphere of paranoia that makes the hijacking of our country, so easy.


these (http://www.cityofmadison.com/Business/demographics.cfm) are the demographics for my city-college town of around 200,000

this (http://www.spotcrime.com/wi/madison) is the "crime map" for this year

crime stats 2003 (http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Madison&state=WI)

crime stats 2006 (http://madisonwi.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm)

the only thing that has dropped in three years(2006 stats are not available) is motor vehicle thefts and we went from 7 murders to 4(we have already had more than that this year already)


I've lived here for 12 years, in that 12 years:
I have witnessed 3 shootings(as in visually saw the gunman)
heard shots fired at least 14 times
been involved in a violent robbery(AM was beaten almost to death with a crowbar-216 stitches, 4 skull fractures, 6 broken ribs and a fractured vertebrae where I saw the perpetrator but his GF lied for him and he was acquitted)
held a burgler* in the basement of the apt complex until the police arrived(he served 2 months)
witnessed a brutal attack on my mother and her boyfriend-she was hit by four teenagers with 2x4s that were breaking into her car(she went to jail because one of the teenagers lied and said she called them a racial epithet and kicked her-my mother is now deaf in one ear and blind in one eye from the attack)
had one of my friends brutally murdered-along with 5 of his friends(murderer hung himself awaiting trial)
Had my wallet stolen(pickpocketed)
have had three different criminals forcibly attempt to enter my house
my husband was mugged(perps 4th victim of the night-3rd one was violently assaulted) by two men-they got $10 and his cell phone-he got a black eye(and he knows Aikido)-they have never been caught


Trust me the media has nothing to do with it


*said burgler was found to be carrying a knife, zip ties(riot cuffs), and condoms-police asked why-he admitted if any female had come into the basement he would've "had some fun"

[Zyanya]

Wounds to the front, and only one witness to tell what happened. Your side of this argument assumes that the person defending their property isn't going to take the chance to use castle doctrine to take a little revenge (and gain a carpet cleaning bill).

A safe assumption, considering it doesn't occur except in extremely isolated incidents. As I said earlier, this 'retort' is in the same category as the women who have 4 abortions a year.

The average human being is not a cold-blooded murderer.

[DesignFox]

ya know, if the legal system were less inclined to award criminals money in a lawsuit against the victim, I'd bet people would feel less inclined to want the intruder dead.

Dead men tell no tales and dead men can't sue you for injury.

As long as you didn't shoot them in the back, you'd have a fair case for feeling threatened. Which would put the onus on the dad guy's family to prove he was harmless to you, in which case, what the fuck was he doing where he didn't belong in the first place?

And I agree with Greenday- I still don't think that many people would shoot to kill. If someone is running away, you'll be calling the cops. And if the intruder doesn't have a weapon, he'll probably be running away.

[ebonyknight]

I've lived here for 12 years, in that 12 years:
I have witnessed 3 shootings(as in visually saw the gunman)
heard shots fired at least 14 times
been involved in a violent robbery(AM was beaten almost to death with a crowbar-216 stitches, 4 skull fractures, 6 broken ribs and a fractured vertebrae where I saw the perpetrator but his GF lied for him and he was acquitted)
held a burgler* in the basement of the apt complex until the police arrived(he served 2 months)
witnessed a brutal attack on my mother and her boyfriend-she was hit by four teenagers with 2x4s that were breaking into her car(she went to jail because one of the teenagers lied and said she called them a racial epithet and kicked her-my mother is now deaf in one ear and blind in one eye from the attack)
had one of my friends brutally murdered-along with 5 of his friends(murderer hung himself awaiting trial)
Had my wallet stolen(pickpocketed)
have had three different criminals forcibly attempt to enter my house
my husband was mugged(perps 4th victim of the night-3rd one was violently assaulted) by two men-they got $10 and his cell phone-he got a black eye(and he knows Aikido)-they have never been caught


Trust me the media has nothing to do with it



I think you have misunderstood me. I am not saying that there is no crime and that the media is somehow lying.

I am saying that crime occurs here and abroad. Canada has a good amount of crime as well. But the media scares us here with the news that there is a rapist around every corner, while the Canadian media, doesn't.

[Rapscallion]

A safe assumption, considering it doesn't occur except in extremely isolated incidents.

How do you know?

Rapscallion

[Zyanya]

How do you know?

Rapscallion

I pay attention.

[Rapscallion]

To what? If someone's used this method to kill someone who wasn't threatening them, they're not exactly going to be boasting about it.

Rapscallion

[Zyanya]

To what? If someone's used this method to kill someone who wasn't threatening them, they're not exactly going to be boasting about it.


How few people have been shot dead in the act of entering the front door of someone's home.

[Rapscallion]

I have to admit that I haven't met one :D

Truth to tell, I have no idea. How often has Castle Doctrine been used resulting in the death of an intruder?

Rapscallion

[Zyanya]

I have to admit that I haven't met one :D

Truth to tell, I have no idea. How often has Castle Doctrine been used resulting in the death of an intruder?

Rapscallion

It's rare. That's why I find the arguments against it so patently absurd.

[Rapscallion]

Murder itself, as a percentage of overall crimes committed, is fairly rare. On those grounds, do you find the laws against it absurd?

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Ummm... yo.. Pedersen... I've finally gotten around to doing this one (there's too many connected threads, with too many similar - but slightly different - arguments to do it all cohesively..:p)

Anyway... Does this seem vaguely familiar..We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Obviously, it's not law per se, but it does have a lot to do with the laws that have been created.

"Why is my life so worthless?" - in the context of comparing it with a wouldbe or convicted criminals.

Well - because that criminal has the same right - life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which, in this particular debate, means making you unhappy).

There are laws in place to deter (and punish) if people want to affect someone else's rights of any of the above.

So... your life isn't 'so worthless' in this context, it just isn't valued any more than any other person's - criminal or not.

Given that... if a criminal affects your rights and will be punished for it by the laws of the land, ought not you also be affected in the same way? If it is murder that a person is punished for (the taking of life), ought not you also be punished for the same taking of life?


EK....I think that's the problem. That's what YOU'RE talking about. Not the others. The problem is that in this country, the laws are there, but the lawyers and criminals are distorting "justice". I can't believe how many asinine lawsuits I have seen where a criminal was injured in the commission of a crime and sued the homeowner and FRIKIN WINS!!!!

Nope... that's not the initial argument at all... it was Pedersen saying that he ought to have the right to have weapons to defend himself (cos it came from 2 other threads about that topic), so he went the more moral and philosophical approach here. We're talking about the right to life, and whether the laws for the defendant should encompass lethal force or not - only.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with criminals winning litigation against their attempted victims... different thread (is there one??).

(not that I don't agree with your point.... justice is getting more and more blind... and stupid!)

Slyt

[Jules Of All Trades]

As usual I'm late to the party. I don't comment on threads much at all, but this one I feel the need to add my thoughts to, so take them as you will.

There have been two times in my life in which I felt the need to have a weapon of some sort in order to defend myself. In the first situation I had no such weapon, if I had I know the outcome would have been different, although no one would have died, I'm certain of that fact. I was too young and weak to have taken it to that level, but I would have put up one hell of a fight.

**Warning, not for the faint of heart**

The other was a situation in which I was held against my will by two men for a period of 14 hours. Considering that I'm a woman, not much more needs to be said there, I'm sure you get the idea. There were 'weapons' all around me, but I didn't have the means to get to them or use them, or I most certainly would have. When I finally freed myself, my instinct was to run, not fight. And I did...I ran like I'd never run before. However, I was outrun and was soon faced with the fight again, but this time I had my weapon. I was behind the wheel of a 2 ton weapon, and without reservation I gunned it and mowed one of them down. It was fight or flight, and flight didn't work so I was left to fight for my life. Some people are shocked by the fact that I would intentionally run over someone with a car, and just after it happened I was too. However, it goes back to the fundamental argument, whose life is more valuable? Mine or his? Mine, always mine. I knew it was either him or me, and I wasn't going out like that, so I made my choice to put him down for good.

He didn't die, and I'm glad for that. He's living a far worse life now in prison, although he'll have permanent injuries from my actions. I, too, suffer permanent damage from what they did, and almost went to prison myself. The law is a tricky thing when it comes to self-defense, there's a very fine line between 'heat of the moment' actions and pre-meditated. I was very fortunate that the law was on my side for this one, it was a close call for a long time.

Do I feel bad for what I did? No. I never have and I never will. I could have easily taken another person's life but I will never regret the choice I made, because otherwise I know I wouldn't be here today.

I do believe that we have the right to defend ourselves using whatever means necessary. My stance on that will never change, based on personal experience and the experiences of those around me.

Sorry to cast a darker tone on the thread, but this topic strikes a nerve in me in a big way. And for those who think these types of things are far fetched or don't happen in 'normal' life, take it from me that they do. I will never again in my life be unprotected from violence, and would do it all over again if I had to. My life is far too valuable, and those who seek out to bring harm to me will regret it.

*Hmm...way to scare the shit out of everyone in your first major post Jules...* ;) I'm not this intense usually, but again, this runs deep in me.

/ventrant

[Slytovhand]

Hey Jules/JoaT...

Nice first post :p

Actually - that's pretty much the sort of thoughts going through people's heads for this whole debate (and a couple of others... which is a bit annoying jumping through 4 threads ... but they have their differences).

I've also known someone put in a similar situation as yourself, although she was left to die on the side of the road... unfortunately, the assailant was never found :( I'm not sure of where she would stand on this (probably with you, but where she'd be on, say Castle Doctrine or Gun Control - I can't say... I think she was anti-gun...even in the country).

One question I have for you - you haven't indicated whether you think people should have the right to carry lethal weapons or not, for self-defence (although, that really is the other threads...).

And one other... how do you think you would feel if you had've been decided it was pre-meditated?

Glad you're here to talk about it :D

Slyt

[Jules Of All Trades]

Hey there Slyt, call me Jules...and thanks. ;)

I'm sorry to hear about your friend, people who do things like what was done to her deserve to pay for their actions, in whatever regards are deemed suitable for the situation. Had I not escaped, tried to run, and then run over one of my assailants I don't know what the end result would have been other than my own death, that I'm sure of. There's no way they could have let me go after what they'd done, and made it quite clear that I would die when they were finished with me.

I absolutely believe that people have the right to defend themselves using whatever means necessary, whether that be gun, knife, or hand to hand combat. When it's you vs. them, choose you, because they most certainly won't. Along with these defense mechanisms has to come common sense as well. Not every situation calls for violence or weapons, and you have to know how and when to use them properly so you stay on the right side of the law and morality.

That being said, I am not a violent person, and will do just about anything to avoid violence of any kind. I consider myself to be a bit of an intellectual
(just a bit :p) and feel that I've failed to some degree if a situation escalates beyond reasonable (although sometimes heated) discussion. I've never been in a fight other than the two situations I've mentioned, and don't ever plan to be in one. I'm very much the 'girl next door', and pride myself on my even temperment and reasoning skills. However, if I feel physically threatened my red-headed temper will unleash itself and god help you if you're the threat. ;)

I went through a period of months following the incident I mentioned not knowing if I was going to go to jail or prison for my actions. I was also fighting a legal battle against my assailants and undergoing numerous medical procedures to try to undo some of the damage they had done. After the initial emotional and mental chaos died down, I was very much at peace with knowing that I might have to pay legally for what I had done. Our legal system is flawed, I know that, but I also know that for the most part it is there to protect people from the very situation I'd found myself in to begin with. I would have served my time with my head held high, knowing that I chose life, and that my story would help others do the same for themselves if they had to.

I'm a survivor, and a survivalist. I treat people with decency and respect and hope for the same in return. But I have come too far to allow someone without the same morals and principles to take my life out from under me, and will do everything in my power to stop them.

/deeppost2 :)

[Zyanya]

Murder itself, as a percentage of overall crimes committed, is fairly rare. On those grounds, do you find the laws against it absurd?

Rapscallion

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/weakanalogy.html

[Pedersen]

Anyway... Does this seem vaguely familiar..

Oh yeah, of course it does. Gee, can't quite place why, though....

Now, gimme a sec... *checks behind him. Nope. Under desk? Not there. Searches the closet next to him, checks outside the house, none there either.* Sorry, but since you were going to mention my right to life, I figured I'd go and find the 24 hour bodyguard you'd also assigned (or had the government assign) to ensure that right. Funny thing, though: I couldn't find him (or her). You sure the person is there?

Yeah, it's sarcastic, I admit it. Hopefully a slightly funny way to prove the point that this particular right is one that cannot be enforced effectively, not without violating two other rights you just listed: Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Sure, if I'm in a small cell with 24 hour monitoring, I'll be protected, my right to life ensured, but I'll have lost liberty. And my ability to pursue happiness will definitely be curtailed.

"Why is my life so worthless?" - in the context of comparing it with a wouldbe or convicted criminals.

Well - because that criminal has the same right - life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which, in this particular debate, means making you unhappy).

There are laws in place to deter (and punish) if people want to affect someone else's rights of any of the above.

So... your life isn't 'so worthless' in this context, it just isn't valued any more than any other person's - criminal or not.

And that part is the source of the question at hand, the reason for my asking the whole question that started this massively derailed thread. I've already shown that some life is more valuable than other life (http://www.fratching.com/showpost.php?p=8614&postcount=20). However, in case more needs to be shown, consider that there are people who do live with 24 hour bodyguards (the President, for example). These are people deemed valuable by society.

Consider the other end of the spectrum: Homeless people in some cities, if killed, wouldn't even have a murder investigation that went beyond "Anybody got any clue? No? Oh well." Different lives have more value than others. And that is the question I'm trying to discover an answer to.

There exists a segment of society that would leave me completely disarmed if I were to follow the letter of the law that they wish to have enacted. Not just in public, but at all. My biggest weapon would be either my car, or a steak knife (and the steak knife is questionable). I've spoken with people who believe this would be a good thing, and am appalled. They do not care that I would be disarmed. They care that would-be attackers would now be disarmed (supposedly, though they ignore the fact that people who are attacking already don't care about the law, and therefore would arm themselves in any way they so choose).

Why is it the case that I, a law abiding citizen, should be so disarmed as to make me vulnerable to anybody with even a slight disregard for the law? What about me (and people like me) makes my life so worthless that we should be sacrificed on the altar of an unattainable dream? I do not understand this mentality, and am seeing signs of something approaching it in other discussions on this forum. I'm hoping to gain this understanding here, so that I can either agree with it myself, or at least provide better counter arguments against it.

Given that... if a criminal affects your rights and will be punished for it by the laws of the land, ought not you also be affected in the same way? If it is murder that a person is punished for (the taking of life), ought not you also be punished for the same taking of life?

What if I have the ability to stop a murder? What if I have the ability to stop a slew of murders (me, and my family)? What if, in order to stop those murders, I have to kill? Why should I be punished if I simply protect myself, or my family?

Nope... that's not the initial argument at all... it was Pedersen saying that he ought to have the right to have weapons to defend himself (cos it came from 2 other threads about that topic), so he went the more moral and philosophical approach here. We're talking about the right to life, and whether the laws for the defendant should encompass lethal force or not - only.

:blink: Whoa. Someone who actually posted a response to the original question, and stayed on topic. I think I need to report this to a mod, as this is highly irregular, and may need to be dealt with through some sort of disciplinary action :)

On a side note, is it as depressing to you as it is to me that it took two whole pages of posts before anybody came back to the original topic at hand?

*Hmm...way to scare the shit out of everyone in your first major post Jules...* ;) I'm not this intense usually, but again, this runs deep in me.

Well, for one, I am not scared in the least. To me, you did something incredible, and something that I pray I never have to deal with either as a victim, or as a close person of a victim. I'm glad you're alive. And I'm almost as glad that those two are rotting away in jail.

[Rapscallion]

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/weakanalogy.html

Weak is still linked.

I find it more of a parallel.

So, feel like answering the question?

Rapscallion

[Zyanya]

Weak is still linked.

I find it more of a parallel.

So, feel like answering the question?

Rapscallion

It's not a meaningful or relevant question. It's a logical fallacy, and I don't play those games.

[Rapscallion]

It's relevant. Castle Doctrine is rare, so you don't see why arguments against it have any grounds. Murder is rare, so do you also see the arguments against it (such as the ones in the legal system) as being groundless?

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Firstly - Jules..

I'm glad things turned out the way they did (well - not the beginning and the middle, naturally...). And I reckon... yeah, probably better to have that injury for the rest of his life, than to be killed outright (but I'm a bit of a narky type of person, who - while idealistic - also realises we won't get there while those sort of people are still here... which would probably seem contrary to some of the stances I have on here...). Which country are you in?

Yeah - I haven't been in touch with her for a while (differences of personality, I think...), but last I heard she was going around to schools and telling of her experience, so others don't end up in the same place... apparently very healing for her as well.

TBH... this is the sort of thing that I look at and wonder if it might not be better if everyone were armed to the teeth... (but then I think "Gee - what would happen to New York?? Or bits of LA?" etc ). And I do think of the gun accidents that happen to the kids every year... and then there's 'going postal'.... but that's in a different thread (although related...)


Yeah, it's sarcastic, I admit it. Hopefully a slightly funny way to prove the point that this particular right is one that cannot be enforced effectively, not without violating two other rights you just listed: Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Sure, if I'm in a small cell with 24 hour monitoring, I'll be protected, my right to life ensured, but I'll have lost liberty. And my ability to pursue happiness will definitely be curtailed.

Sarcasm?? Naaahhhhhhh.......:p

You've brought up a couple of other ideas here, Ped!!

Ok... Mr Criminal's right to pursue happiness by your right to your happiness.. and liberty and all that...(after all, Mr Criminal is only a criminal because of the laws - not because of the inalienable right they are trying to have...). This line of reasoning... well - it's a whole new philosophical thread



And that part is the source of the question at hand, the reason for my asking the whole question that started this massively derailed thread.

Did we derail?? I thought we were just... exploring implications?

Now - for your next bit...

This thread has only taken into consideration 'criminal vs law-abbider', but you've brought up other stuff that still relates to the actual question posed...

Mrs Homeless needs a triple by-pass to live out the next 40 years of life. She doesn't have health insurance. Because she doesn't have health insurance, that's not going to happen - her life is 'so worthless' because of a lack of income... discuss


There exists a segment of society that would leave me completely disarmed if I were to follow the letter of the law that they wish to have enacted. Not just in public, but at all. My biggest weapon would be either my car, or a steak knife (and the steak knife is questionable).

No no no Ped... we're gonna take your car as well :P

Actually - if we're talking about steak knives now, that's in 'slippery slope' thread...(I'm wondering what ppl are doing walking around the streets with steak knives...).

I don't get the whole 'let's be sheep' ideology, and don't think you should be completely disarmed as has been hyped up in these threads (I've never seen anyone either say it straight out, nor even imply it anywhere... I take it as a bit of sensationalism to derail the thread :smiley I can't use cos I only get to use 4 of them...:). You're in your own home, you can keep almost any weapon in it (guns are a different kettle of fish... and a different thread...)


I've spoken with people who believe this would be a good thing, and am appalled. They do not care that I would be disarmed. They care that would-be attackers would now be disarmed (supposedly, though they ignore the fact that people who are attacking already don't care about the law, and therefore would arm themselves in any way they so choose).

Why is it the case that I, a law abiding citizen, should be so disarmed as to make me vulnerable to anybody with even a slight disregard for the law? What about me (and people like me) makes my life so worthless that we should be sacrificed on the altar of an unattainable dream? I do not understand this mentality, and am seeing signs of something approaching it in other discussions on this forum. I'm hoping to gain this understanding here, so that I can either agree with it myself, or at least provide better counter arguments against it.


Hey...question - I don't recall - are you pro-gun anywhere, or limited, or no gun - but other weapons... or what?

I still haven't had much of an answer to:

Will number of accidental/ misuse/abuse of weapons not substantially increase, while number of crimes drastically decrease?

As well... do having weapons actually decrease the crime rate more than changing the society in which they are in? It might be 'obvious' when ppl go citing all those low-crime, high-gun areas, but then... take a look at other countires and the society it's in. Will they stop ALL crimes? Including extremely violent ones? What's Switzerland's crime rate like? How about Finland's? And Canada's is relatively low (esp in relation to the US).

Might not it be far better to concentrate on those issues first? (I did the bit in gun control about $36Billion dollars in arms and ammo - how would that affect societies woes if that amount had gone into other areas...)




What if I have the ability to stop a murder? What if I have the ability to stop a slew of murders (me, and my family)? What if, in order to stop those murders, I have to kill? Why should I be punished if I simply protect myself, or my family?


Then go for it... 'should you be punished?'... depends on the specific circumstances... (but I know you'd know that..:D and we've had that discussion...)


:blink: Whoa. Someone who actually posted a response to the original question, and stayed on topic. I think I need to report this to a mod, as this is highly irregular, and may need to be dealt with through some sort of disciplinary action :)

On a side note, is it as depressing to you as it is to me that it took two whole pages of posts before anybody came back to the original topic at hand?



Hey... I thought we were on the original all the way through...?? No? Ok - apparently not. Besides, aren't you used to being derailed?? "Depressing" - nah... happens, brings up other points of view...



Well, for one, I am not scared in the least. To me, you did something incredible, and something that I pray I never have to deal with either as a victim, or as a close person of a victim. I'm glad you're alive. And I'm almost as glad that those two are rotting away in jail.


Agreed, agreed!!!



It's not a meaningful or relevant question. It's a logical fallacy, ...

Hmmm - I'm not convinced. The 2 are directly related in this context. Especially when you consider that 'Castle Doctrine' can be used to justify 'murder'....(back to that thread...). Besides, in general, other than obvious premeditation (and accident - depending on specific laws and the country/state you're in), the line between 'self-defence' and 'murder' can be somewhat blurred... pub brawls? Gangland warfare??



Slyt

[Zyanya]

It's relevant. Castle Doctrine is rare, so you don't see why arguments against it have any grounds. Murder is rare, so do you also see the arguments against it (such as the ones in the legal system) as being groundless?

Rapscallion

Please see the link I provided.


It's like saying 'I'm allowed to have a chemistry set in my house so why can't I have a drug lab, aren't they the same thing?'

Start by acknowledging the difference between Self-Defense and Murder. Ethically, morally, and legally these are wholly different actions which any rational, reasonable person can see.

Then there is your intentional misrepresentation of my point: "Castle Doctrine is rare, so you don't see why arguments against it have any grounds. "

That is not what I said, nor the point raised.

The point raised was 'even in areas with Castle Doctrine, ordinary people don't turn into cold-blooded killers just because someone poked their head in the door'. It's not an issue of 'it's rare'. It's an issue of 'it's so statistically rare as to be unworthy of consideration, cause it doesn't look like it has actually ever happened', rather like the cases of people who have actually caught AIDS from failing to use a toilet seat protective tissue and who have gotten pregnant after someone masturbated in a pool. Sure, it theoretically could happen. Find me a substantiated case, and then we can discuss if Castle Doctrine is wrong. I can find you plenty of home invasion murders. It's up to you to prove that the number of criminals killed in cold blood while they tried to back out of a door while surrendering is statistically significant next to the people who have been raped and murdered because they couldn't defend themselves. I doubt it's even a 1-10,000 ratio, as any such event would be such a statistical rarity that the gun control lobbyists would on it like flies on shit.

Thus, it is a logical fallacy on multiple counts. 1 - It's an intentional misrepresentation of my point and 2 - it's a pathetically weak analogy.

[Jules Of All Trades]

Since I've not yet attempted my hand at the "Multi-Quote", I won't butcher this by starting that now...perhaps if I post more (and with the warm reception I've received I might do just that).

Slyt,

The only reason I'm glad he (and the other guy) are not dead is because I believe they're suffering a much more difficult fate living in prison for as long as I can keep them there. Otherwise, I would not feel an ounce of guilt over killing him instead of just injuring him. This may not sound very nice, but I hope with everything I have in me that they suffer every damn day for what they did to me. I do, I suffer long term consequences because of their actions, they should as well. These are the only people I've ever wished harm on in my entire life, but I believe they deserve it. I hope they live long, agonizing lives, because they've never shown a hint of remorse for what they did, in fact, their last statements were that I deserved it and that it was my own fault for being who I was at the time (separate thread needed there...derailing).

I'm in the US, and while I don't always carry a typical "weapon" with me, I am always prepared in case something were to happen. I've taken more self defense classes than I can count, and have learned how to use almost anything to not only defend myself but to bring things to a screeching halt if needed. I will never be the initiator, the "aggressor" so to speak, but I will not go down easily. My knowledge and experience has empowered me to be strong and confident, and I won't live my life afraid of anyone.

Now that I've gone completely off course (sorry...know how you guys hate that :p), I'll just keep going...;)

Pedersen,

Thanks for your thoughts as well. Being alive is a good thing, it suits me well. :) I'm also glad my intensity didn't freak you (or Slyt for that matter) out, it just seemed like I dove in head first and some people don't receive that well. This incident happened quite some time ago, and it's easy for me to talk about now very factually, but at the same time passionately. I've read all of the threads with similar topics, but I'm going to sum up my thoughts here so to not confuse myself too much:

1 - Absolutely believe in the right to bear arms (of almost any kind) for protection.
2 - Castle Doctrine - need to do a little more research but support it completely from what I've learned already. I'm in the same state as Rahmota, it's about time we empowered ourselves.
3 - I have not been in the position where I've needed to defend someone other than myself, however I would take the same stance I do on personal protection.


I'm sure there's more but I've already hijacked this thread enough for now. I'll try to touch on the others and possibly start the thread I mentioned above as well, after checking to make sure there's not another one like it first...can't make that kind of 'noob' mistake. :D

Jules

[Pedersen]

Ok... Mr Criminal's right to pursue happiness by your right to your happiness.. and liberty and all that...(after all, Mr Criminal is only a criminal because of the laws - not because of the inalienable right they are trying to have...). This line of reasoning... well - it's a whole new philosophical thread

Agreed. And not one I'm sure I'm ready to pursue just yet :)

Did we derail?? I thought we were just... exploring implications?

Well, considering that I read two pages of posts between you and me which got further and further off topic and now contain a raging debate about whether someone exercising rights under Castle Doctrine is committing murder or not and what the statistical likelihood of it occurring is (even though there's a whole thread about Castle Doctrine)... Yeah, I'd say some derailment has occurred :)

Mrs Homeless needs a triple by-pass to live out the next 40 years of life. She doesn't have health insurance. Because she doesn't have health insurance, that's not going to happen - her life is 'so worthless' because of a lack of income... discuss

That is a failing of society to control the rising costs of advanced medicine. I'm still not sure of what the best way to implement universal health care is, though I believe it should be done, especially for those cases like the one you've described. So, not a good choice. If you'd like a better example, let's choose something else. You see, you need a fatal disease, but one that doesn't affect a significant portion of the population (1%, at most), that's very painful, but not very sexy, so gets no research funding.

Do those people deserve to die, and painfully, simply because their cause isn't big enough to get any research funding? No, they don't. Their lives are no more worthless than mine.

Actually - if we're talking about steak knives now, that's in 'slippery slope' thread...(I'm wondering what ppl are doing walking around the streets with steak knives...).

Well, these are people who are worried about being attacked (for whatever reason), and aren't allowed to arm themselves in any other way. Either they can't afford something better (tasers still aren't cheap enough), they can't carry something better (pepper spray is not legal everywhere, neither are batons), or they simply can't think of anything better that will let them remain legal.

I don't get the whole 'let's be sheep' ideology, and don't think you should be completely disarmed as has been hyped up in these threads (I've never seen anyone either say it straight out, nor even imply it anywhere... I take it as a bit of sensationalism to derail the thread :smiley I can't use cos I only get to use 4 of them...:). You're in your own home, you can keep almost any weapon in it (guns are a different kettle of fish... and a different thread...)

Actually, it's not. I've actually interacted with people, personally, who are so afraid of the world that they want to make sure no one can harm them, ever. They genuinely want complete disarmament. They're an extreme, to be sure, but I do see people in these boards saying to disarm people in public, and I'm not even in agreement with that, as I am about to show.

Hey...question - I don't recall - are you pro-gun anywhere, or limited, or no gun - but other weapons... or what?

Actually, I'm in favor of private ownership of capitol class warships. That's right, I want to be able to legally own a fully operational aircraft carrier that has whatever planes I care to have on board. Or my own nuclear sub. Etc, etc, etc. If you want to debate that, please do start up a thread on it, I'll join in and provide all kinds of reasoning.

Heh, it's only happened to me once, but I can see me hitting the 15,000 character limit on that thread pretty easily :)

Will number of accidental/ misuse/abuse of weapons not substantially increase, while number of crimes drastically decrease?

I'll give you the only honest answer I have: I don't know. And yes, it is an answer.

My conjecture? In the short term, the number of accidents will rise, and possibly the amount of crime will, too. Within 20 years, though, those numbers will change. As people grow up with these weapons, and the criminals learn that the consequences of crime can be life changing, even to the point of fatal, without the courts getting involved, things will change. That transition period would be horrible, to be sure, but to my mind it would be preferable to turning people into defenseless sheep awaiting the hands of whichever person out there they might run into.

Might not it be far better to concentrate on those issues first? (I did the bit in gun control about $36Billion dollars in arms and ammo - how would that affect societies woes if that amount had gone into other areas...)

It wouldn't. Time for a bit of a reality check on the idea of beating poverty: It is not possible to do with any current socioeconomic system in use anywhere in the world without tearing down everything and reverting to nomadic tribal status. And I'm not sure it's possible even then. As long as poverty can be measured in some specific amount (dollars happens to be handy), there will always be an economic underclass.

Take the most extreme example of one way to remove it for a moment: Execute every person who currently lives below the poverty line. By definition, there are no more poor people. Anytime somebody falls under it for even a minute, we execute them. Poverty is now solved, right? Except now the poverty line moves. There's still a segment of society which lives worse than the rest, and within a couple of years, they will be defined as poor, and the poverty line will move to include them. This is an endless cycle. So, that $36B really won't do very much at all.

Way for me to derail my own thread, though, wouldn't you say?

[Slytovhand]

Firstly... Jules, your post is what the entire thread is about! Why are you apologising for it? :)

As for your thoughts towards those 2... yep, I'm with that. I've thought similar things myself over people I've known (one is on the sex offenders list we have over here.... bullet's too quick..).

I'd be interested in your other posts on the other threads (let's keep them all in a nice straight line :p)...

Ok... Pedersen.....


Isn't this thread somewhat about Castle? Not in it's entirety, but very closely connected? (that's the annoying thing, as I've mentioned... too many threads all about something similar - hard not to cross over...). Ah well.... we survive... (I'm a bit amused to see 2 seperate debates going on in the same thread.. here and elsewhere.. a couple on the original, and a couple going hammer and tongs on something else...:P)


That is a failing of society to control the rising costs of advanced medicine. I'm still not sure of what the best way to implement universal health care is, though I believe it should be done, especially for those cases like the one you've described. So, not a good choice. If you'd like a better example, let's choose something else. You see, you need a fatal disease, but one that doesn't affect a significant portion of the population (1%, at most), that's very painful, but not very sexy, so gets no research funding.

Do those people deserve to die, and painfully, simply because their cause isn't big enough to get any research funding? No, they don't. Their lives are no more worthless than mine.

Hmmm... what if that disease is, say, scurvy! Because they are in low economics, they need vitamin C. Because of their low income, they can't afford to get the vitamin C they need (perhaps they have no income). They then realise that the only way to survive would be through crime... (don't worry, I'll be getting onto aliens actively using humans to breed with soon... so if you're waiting for incredibly ridiculous......). Actually - I thought of scurvy because I heard a case where a uni student over here was diagnosed with it, because the student wage was so low, that she was surviving on rice and noodles - no fruits...(and have we got a Universal Health Care thread?? or a "Who deserves to live, who doesn't?" thread???)

But we're now heading into politics... yes?

[/quote]Well, these are people who...[/quote]

oh.. ok.....

Actually, it's not. I've actually...

Hmmm - where do you stand on total peace and harmony? (without the fear though)? Can you see it happening in some utopia? Can humanity get over it's crap to such a place? Or is it always doomed to violence and oppression? And how are you on 'zero-tolerance' societies for all laws - like the Star Trek episode where Wil Crusher got on the 'do not walk on the grass' and was up for execution (all crimes - 1 punishment...though, it was Wil - he should have fried :p).


...private ownership of capitol class warships...

Go on... thread it!

We're heading into where I start arguing for Plato's Philosopher Kings... That sort of thought pattern (warship ownership) would head us into a massive oligarcy... those with the money control the means to oppress everyone else...

I'll give you the only honest answer I have: I don't know. And yes, it is an answer.

No it's not, no it's not...oh.. alright... it is :p

Your conjecture is pretty much what I would think as well. But I believe that there are other ways to get us to the more utopian ideal than by arming everyone first, and let Darwin have some fun...(not to say some shouldn't go the way of execution...I haven't entered into that affray yet...). Basically becomes the argument Raps was throwing... do you have the right to judge, jury and executioner to someone unlawfully in your home?


It wouldn't. Time for a bit of a reality check on the idea of beating poverty: It is not possible to do with any current socioeconomic system in use anywhere in the world without tearing down everything and reverting to nomadic tribal status. And I'm not sure it's possible even then. As long as poverty can be measured in some specific amount (dollars happens to be handy), there will always be an economic underclass.

Take the most extreme example of one way to remove it for a moment: Execute every person who currently lives below the poverty line. By definition, there are no more poor people. Anytime somebody falls under it for even a minute, we execute them. Poverty is now solved, right? Except now the poverty line moves. There's still a segment of society which lives worse than the rest, and within a couple of years, they will be defined as poor, and the poverty line will move to include them. This is an endless cycle. So, that $36B really won't do very much at all.

(yep - need the whole quote here...)

I can agree that it would need some major adjustments, but it's possible to do a hell of a lot of it. If there are so many millionaires in the US (around 9% apparently, who have a total worth of aroun $11 Trillion), and the reforms came in to bring everyone up to a baseline by accessing their millions - then that's going to have a major effect as well...

It's basically the opposite of your thought pattern - instead of executing the poorest and thus removing the 'poor' population, you take away from the rich (not necessarily executing though...), and redistribute the wealth so that everyone meets certain minimums, at the same time as adjusting people's attitudes towards materialistic goals, crime would plummet. (but I won't argue about sociopaths... )

(damn... how long does it take you to do your posts?? I started this at 1:50, and it's now gone 3:00... course, I'm at work as well...)

/derail

Slyt

(what gets to me, is that I'm a smiley-poor person who is obviously being oppressed by the smiley-rich people, who have decided I'm allowed a maximum wage of only 4 smiley's per post. I want to rise up and rebel!!!)

[Pedersen]

Since I've not yet attempted my hand at the "Multi-Quote", I won't butcher this by starting that now...perhaps if I post more (and with the warm reception I've received I might do just that).

Don't worry, the first time will have you asking WTF? The second time you'll be an old hand at it. It's pretty easy, I think.

Now that I've gone completely off course (sorry...know how you guys hate that :p), I'll just keep going...;)

I think I'm the one who hates it the most. Post a topic, hoping for a debate on that topic, and find yourself sucked down an alternate path and completely killing the original topic, so you can't even try to get answers. Been there, done that, don't like it :smiley since I'm over my limit too:

Isn't this thread somewhat about Castle? Not in it's entirety, but very closely connected? (that's the annoying thing, as I've mentioned... too many threads all about something similar - hard not to cross over...). Ah well.... we survive... (I'm a bit amused to see 2 seperate debates going on in the same thread.. here and elsewhere.. a couple on the original, and a couple going hammer and tongs on something else...:P)

Yep, it is connected. That's why I linked to it in the very first post on this thread. I acknowledge that. But this was intended to be a very different question than "Is Castle Doctrine a good or a bad thing?" Honestly, that's only a tangential question to me, since answering a single, larger, question can also answer Castle Doctrine, or at least provide a more solid understanding of what it should entail.

And that's what I was aiming for with this. Ah well, my aim will improve someday.

Hmmm... what if that disease is, say, scurvy! Because they are in low economics, they need vitamin C. Because of their low income, they can't afford to get the vitamin C they need (perhaps they have no income). They then realise that the only way to survive would be through crime... (don't worry, I'll be getting onto aliens actively using humans to breed with soon... so if you're waiting for incredibly ridiculous......). Actually - I thought of scurvy because I heard a case where a uni student over here was diagnosed with it, because the student wage was so low, that she was surviving on rice and noodles - no fruits...(and have we got a Universal Health Care thread?? or a "Who deserves to live, who doesn't?" thread???)

Not so sure scurvy is a very good choice. Highly preventable, easily fixed. Nope, you need something noticeably worse. AIDS, when it was very first diagnosed, made a good example (after all, it was a gay only disease, and nobody cared what happened to them. Just stating opinions of the times, folks).

As to those other two threads, they don't seem to exist. Which is actually surprising to me.

But we're now heading into politics... yes?

oh, yeah.

Hmmm - where do you stand on total peace and harmony? (without the fear though)? Can you see it happening in some utopia? Can humanity get over it's crap to such a place? Or is it always doomed to violence and oppression? And how are you on 'zero-tolerance' societies for all laws - like the Star Trek episode where Wil Crusher got on the 'do not walk on the grass' and was up for execution (all crimes - 1 punishment...though, it was Wil - he should have fried :p).

In this regard, I'm very much a pessimist. I do not believe it will happen in my lifetime. In fact, until something really big happens, I don't believe it can happen. And by really big, I mean something like ET popping up and killing anybody he sees. Humanity is incredibly fractious. Until something happens from outside to direct our attention away from our differences. Until then, I do believe we are quite perma-fucked as a species.

Zero Tolerance == Zero Intelligence. They're an easy cop out for tough problems. "Well, the law says that since you fought back against an attacker and accidentally killed him in the process, we have to execute you." No thought allowed, no special cases allowed. You're screwed. Also, the factor of intent is too easily ignored.

Gah, this particular section is turning its own threads. Not going to go into all of my issues with it right now.

Go on... thread it!

We're heading into where I start arguing for Plato's Philosopher Kings... That sort of thought pattern (warship ownership) would head us into a massive oligarcy... those with the money control the means to oppress everyone else...

Sounds like one of us needs to start that thread tonight. You get the option of making a title you like better though, if you're first :smiley for the forum:



I can agree that it would need some major adjustments, but it's possible to do a hell of a lot of it. If there are so many millionaires in the US (around 9% apparently, who have a total worth of aroun $11 Trillion), and the reforms came in to bring everyone up to a baseline by accessing their millions - then that's going to have a major effect as well...

Okay, here's the part I left out earlier, though I did hint at it. Consider the current poverty line in the US (and, I believe, in the UK and Canada), and compare it with 100 years ago. In particular, think about things that 100 years ago were only owned by the very rich, but now are considered things that you would have to be beneath poor not to have. For instance:


Indoor plumbing
Electric lighting
Non-animal based transport (100 years ago, horses were common, now you have bicycles, motorcycles, cars, trucks, etc)
Garbage removal services


There are more things, but I figured that would be enough to get you thinking about it. These things are, by and large, considered standard. Even necessities. If someone were able to go back in time 100 years, and tell people without them that they were living below the poverty line, they would be considered a lunatic.

The point is that the poverty line is moving upwards. Execute the poor, or hand them money, in either case, you do the same thing: You remove the poor. And make a new class of them, because there will always be a class of poor people.

Ah well, I'd say this thread is pretty well done. Still don't have answers to my original question, though. Maybe someday. And looks like time for some new threads from it :)

(damn... how long does it take you to do your posts?? I started this at 1:50, and it's now gone 3:00... course, I'm at work as well...)

Average for these is about 30 to 45 minutes, actually.

[Greenday]

As far as the main thread goes, I don't see why law abiding citizens shouldn't be on par with criminals as far as being able to protect ourselves. They invade our home, we should be able to properly defend it, anywhere from an unarmed intruder to armed to the teeth intruder.

As for the side politics thread, I'm guessing you are talking about ways to make everyone above the poverty line? If so, I don't see how the small minority of people with a huge chunk of the nations wealth is helping. Sure, some earned it, but how many people could easily be given the bare necessities if the wealth was spread out just a lil bit?

[Rapscallion]

It's an issue of 'it's so statistically rare as to be unworthy of consideration, cause it doesn't look like it has actually ever happened',

Still ignoring my point that anyone having used this doctrine is very unlikely to brag about it in public. I'll be back to this later - on my way to work now.

Rapscallion

[Zyanya]

Still ignoring my point that anyone having used this doctrine is very unlikely to brag about it in public. I'll be back to this later - on my way to work now.

Rapscallion

Rapscallion, if you would like to offer a valid point, please, go ahead. But I'm not going to play games with your weak analogy of 'well, this could happen and you can't prove it won't!'. You could catch aids from a toilet seat too. Doubt anyone goes bragging about that either.

MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT CAPABLE OF COLD BLOODED MURDER.

If you'd like to address that point, the one up there all in bold capital letters, specifically the underlined portion, please feel free. But until you can counter that point, your hypothetical event isn't worth considering.

While life isn't CSI, I doubt people are regularly getting away with this sort of thing as you apparently think they are. In spite of Castle Doctrine, shooting someone trespassing on your property still opens an investigation to determine if the shooting was justified. It's not the automatic license to kill you seem to think it is. Please get your facts straight here and actually learn what Castle Doctrine entails before trying to pass judgment on it.



And you still haven't addressed the issue that the power and choice in the issue were on the part of the criminal. If he/she had not willingly and knowingly undertaken actions that he KNEW could result in putting a homeowner in a position where they were afraid and would shoot, the criminal wouldn't be dead. Again, until you address that point, your hypothetical situation has little merit.

I have no sympathy for the criminal, just as I have no sympathy for the folks who try to beat the train and end up smeared across the tracks. All the sympathy in the world for the homeowner and train engineer, none for the idiot who willingly (and stupidly) gambled with their life and lost.

Darwin won. The world is probably better off for it.

[Difdi]

Ok... Mr Criminal's right to pursue happiness by your right to your happiness.. and liberty and all that...(after all, Mr Criminal is only a criminal because of the laws - not because of the inalienable right they are trying to have...). This line of reasoning... well - it's a whole new philosophical thread


A criminal gets happiness from raping, murdering and robbing. All of these interfere with the victims pursuit of happiness, and assuming the victim's pursuit of happiness causes no overt or direct harm to someone else, I'd say the victim's right prevails over the criminal's right.

But what if killing criminals makes you happy? :p

[DesignFox]

But what if killing criminals makes you happy? :p
Then you move to a state that still has the death penalty and become the executioner? :D

Just sayin'

[Rapscallion]

Rapscallion, if you would like to offer a valid point, please, go ahead. But I'm not going to play games with your weak analogy of 'well, this could happen and you can't prove it won't!'. You could catch aids from a toilet seat too. Doubt anyone goes bragging about that either.


I did offer a valid point - people were quite happy to provide scenarios in which castle doctrine would be acceptable, so I provided some in which it wouldn't be, but people could get away with what would be legal murder. That's countering with the same.

As to my query about laws against murder, I still hold that the same principles of argument were in place.


MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT CAPABLE OF COLD BLOODED MURDER.


If I found someone in my house, I wouldn't be cold blooded. It would be a heat of the moment thing. Quite frankly, I'd be shaking like a shitting dog and less than likely to think in anything other than a spur-of-the-moment manner. In the immediate aftermath, I would imagine it would be very easy to say, "Well, officer, he was coming at me..."


If you'd like to address that point, the one up there all in bold capital letters, specifically the underlined portion, please feel free. But until you can counter that point, your hypothetical event isn't worth considering.


If my hypothetical points are worth considering, then none are - that includes those put forward by others in this thread supporting castle doctrine.


While life isn't CSI, I doubt people are regularly getting away with this sort of thing as you apparently think they are.


Hmm - putting thoughts into my mind now. I reckon people are getting away with it, but considering the nature of the offence then I cannot see any way to quantify it.


In spite of Castle Doctrine, shooting someone trespassing on your property still opens an investigation to determine if the shooting was justified. It's not the automatic license to kill you seem to think it is. Please get your facts straight here and actually learn what Castle Doctrine entails before trying to pass judgment on it.


I think what really bugs me about this is that if a homeowner is a trained gun owner, then they're very likely to be the only witness. I'm not an expert for obvious reasons, but I rather suspect the corpse of someone who was backing away as opposed to that of someone who was charging a gun wielder to be very similar. Either way, they're not going to be saying much. I don't really see the burden of proof. I can see far too many loopholes that cost lives.


And you still haven't addressed the issue that the power and choice in the issue were on the part of the criminal. If he/she had not willingly and knowingly undertaken actions that he KNEW could result in putting a homeowner in a position where they were afraid and would shoot, the criminal wouldn't be dead. Again, until you address that point, your hypothetical situation has little merit.


Oh, I fully support the idea that those who break the law deserve the full punishment of the law. I just don't think that the death penalty should be invoked for theft.

Since everyone here loves hypothetical situations (they have been brought in on both sides), how about someone so blind drunk that they stumble into the wrong house in the middle of the night? Maybe the door was accidentally left unlocked, or a window ajar - drunks tend to do stupid things ("I got the wrong keys, let's get in through the window!"). The houseowner hears lots of crashing around noises, what with the furniture being in different places to the drunk's home and in the dark, comes down, sees a lumbering shape headed towards him, and shoots the guy dead. Lights come on, sees his neighbour and occasional bridge partner. Confesses all to the police. Thought his life was in danger when it wasn't - can't prove it was. One death and another life ruined, though I have no idea what Harry Houseowner's punishment would be over there. Over here it would probably be counted as manslaughter.


I have no sympathy for the criminal, just as I have no sympathy for the folks who try to beat the train and end up smeared across the tracks. All the sympathy in the world for the homeowner and train engineer, none for the idiot who willingly (and stupidly) gambled with their life and lost.

Darwin won. The world is probably better off for it.

Agreed, but it's a matter of degrees for me. Someone tries to thump a bouncer who is built like Hercules, and they deserve to be splatted. Someone tries to steal something, it's not worth the risk of killing someone for an item, often something that can be easily replaced.

Sure, I'm all for the death penalty for murder - I'm certainly no liberal. However, this debate for me hinges on when the death penalty should be applied, and castle doctrine expands the death penalty to more situations than I'm comfortable with.

Rapscallion

[Zyanya]

I did offer a valid point - people were quite happy to provide scenarios in which castle doctrine would be acceptable, so I provided some in which it wouldn't be, but people could get away with what would be legal murder. That's countering with the same.

No, it isn't, because the scenarios in which castle doctrine would be acceptable have actually occurred. Not only that, they are becoming more and more common. Home invasion burglaries are not a vague hypothetical. They are an existing problem.

If I found someone in my house, I wouldn't be cold blooded. It would be a heat of the moment thing. Quite frankly, I'd be shaking like a shitting dog and less than likely to think in anything other than a spur-of-the-moment manner. In the immediate aftermath, I would imagine it would be very easy to say, "Well, officer, he was coming at me..."

That is not the scenario you offered. I find your backtracking amusing.

If my hypothetical points are worth considering, then none are - that includes those put forward by others in this thread supporting castle doctrine.

Here again you neglect to notice the difference between REAL occurrences and HYPOTHETICAL occurrences.

I can see far too many loopholes that cost lives.

Which brings it down to a simple question.

Would you rather the loophole cause the death of the criminal, or the death of the victim?


One of the two is going to be in more danger of death. Who would you rather it be?

So far, all your arguments show that you would rather the victim die than the criminal.

[Rapscallion]

I never accepted that the death of the victim was a guaranteed outcome. It isn't. Most entries into properties by non-owners are with the intent of theft. Were it otherwise, funeral parlours would be much busier.

In a case where there is definite intent to harm the houseowner, let slip the safeties of war and go in blazing. However, I don't see that there is the burden of proof in castle doctrine in order to prevent someone being killed for a simple act of theft. With castle doctrine, there are a number of ways that someone could shoot an intruder and claim that the deceased was either coming at them menacingly or had said something that could be taken as a threat.

That is not the scenario you offered. I find your backtracking amusing.


It's being offered now. This is a debate - it should go back and forth and cover ground. I find your avoidance of the latest offering telling.

I'm currently minded of Sting's "Englishman in New York", wherein he points out that it takes more than a licence to hold a gun. You come, assumedly, from the viewpoint of the SU where there is a ingrained acceptance of guns. I come from the UK, and we don't have the same demand to be armed. We have a general law allowing us reasonable force in order to defend ourselves, and that is decided upon in the court of law should we act in a way considered to be improper by the police. Castle doctrine goes a step further and gives legal backing to kill people with the simple claim of, "I thought he was going to hurt me." I've come to the conclusion that this is the part I don't like about it. It would be too easy to get away with killing someone who was only a thief.

I've just looked back at my first paragraph. Thinking about it, I'm willing to accept that in a gun(g)-ho society where weapons are accepted such as the US, it may be more likely that a burglar is going to be armed, so castle doctrine may be more acceptable. It certainly isn't the case over here.

Rapscallion

[Zyanya]

With castle doctrine, there are a number of ways that someone could shoot an intruder and claim that the deceased was either coming at them menacingly or had said something that could be taken as a threat.

Then you aren't actually aware of what Castle Doctrine states. Please learn more about the rights it gives and the rights it does not.

[Slytovhand]

Then you aren't actually aware of what Castle Doctrine states. Please learn more about the rights it gives and the rights it does not.

Ummm - I did that. I linked. I copied and pasted actual parts of the legislature... It does allow (in some states) for an intruder to be shot pretty much 'on sight' without legal retaliation... those were the bits I highlighted (the term 'property' is used a lot, and also 'felony' - and even more specifically - 'burglary' or 'robbery'.

If someone is in your home without a lawful reason (ie - a 'burglar') then you have the right to defend your home, and your property, using force - upto and including lethal force.

Your scenario of the tall strong man in the room of your child was supposed to mean you felt that you had a good reason to feel threatened, and thus 'shoot to kill' would be acceptable. I still say it's not... not without some sort of warning or ascertaining a better idea of the situation. After all, if someone walks past a window that is wide open in the middle of the night, and they have a need for money, then why wouldn't they take a look in and see what they can get.

No - I don't think that person deserves a bullet just for that - even if it just happens to be the bedroom of your child! And that scenario is the most likely (not that the person is a kidnapper/rapist/paedophile/murderer intentionally out t get you and your son).

Yes... if you warn them (such as cocking a gun - esp if a shotgun) and then they turn and move towards you, you are on far better grounds... but your scenario, as I read it, was the person had their back to you... or at least wasn't advancing towards you in any way (and didn't even know you were there).


... in a gun(g)-ho society where weapons are accepted such as the US, it may be more likely that a burglar is going to be armed, so castle doctrine may be more acceptable.

Oooh - circular arguments... cool :D (no - not yours Raps..).


Pedersen... thought, if you choose to have such a weapon in your possession (which you've sort of intimated) which is not sanctioned by the law, and you get invaded etc...what then of your 'I'm a law-abiding person' bit??

AIDS, when it was very first diagnosed, made a good example (after all, it was a gay only disease, and nobody cared what happened to them. Just stating opinions of the times, folks)

yeah - I thought of that, then thought that it's become so rampant that they had to do something big about it... so wasn't quite the same... maybe Asian Bird Flu - but in the US??


Okay, here's the part I left out earlier, though I did hint at it....

Ummm... so is that merely a form of greed?


Still don't have answers to my original question, though. Maybe someday.

Ah, well, you see.. the problem there is that your original question begs the question... it presumes that your life is actually worth less than a convicted criminals (or others - depending on how far we take it). I'm saying it's not... but that you don't get to decide whether someone else should live or die just because .... (whatever that 'because' may mean - without pulling in other threads...)

Actually - this will go a bit into your Battleship thread... if you're going to be buying battleships, subs and aircraft carriers, then why aren't you also initialising various community projects and all that will help lessen the possibilities that people will turn to crime in the first place??


Slyt

(with more to come later :D)

[Pedersen]

Pedersen... thought, if you choose to have such a weapon in your possession (which you've sort of intimated) which is not sanctioned by the law, and you get invaded etc...what then of your 'I'm a law-abiding person' bit??

Well, by definition and from the terms of the question: I'm a law abiding citizen. As such, I don't have illegal weapons in my home.

And, actually, so far as I know, I do not have any illegal weapons in my home. A couple of swords is as exotic as it gets.

Which is a roundabout way of ignoring your question, isn't it?

Since I won't disarm, if the people who are so frightened of weapons get their way, I will find myself in very illegal territory. This could leave me having to try to defend this position to a judge someday.

And I would disagree with the laws which tried to disarm me as unjust and immoral laws, and I would fight back to have them declared as unconstitutional.

Ummm... so is that merely a form of greed?

Is it merely a form of greed to point out that there is always an economic underclass, regardless of how much money is given to them, because any economic system currently in practice anywhere in the world finds ways to give more to some than to others?

Well, I don't think so. Still, I suppose it's possible it could be. Of course, we have another issue: pack animals, in nature, have leaders (alphas) and bottoms (omegas). They, too, follow these exact same rules. You wanna be the one to teach the alpha wolf that he has to allow the omega an equal share, instead of a marginally sufficient share? :)

Ah, well, you see.. the problem there is that your original question begs the question... it presumes that your life is actually worth less than a convicted criminals (or others - depending on how far we take it). I'm saying it's not... but that you don't get to decide whether someone else should live or die just because .... (whatever that 'because' may mean - without pulling in other threads...)

Actually, my original question does not require the death of anybody else. I acknowledge that death of an intruder could happen, but it is by no means required. Go back and re-read (http://www.fratching.com/showpost.php?p=8486&postcount=1) it if you doubt me.

I readily admit that I could wind up killing an intruder. I also admit that I did not state I would not kill said intruder. However, the question still stands: I could, with a weapon, kill someone. Laws are being made to remove my ability to legally own said weapons. To remain law abiding, I disarm. The criminal, not caring about the law, does not.

I am defenseless against this intruder. And this is viewed as an acceptable situation. I do not understand why it is acceptable, I really do not.

Actually - this will go a bit into your Battleship thread... if you're going to be buying battleships, subs and aircraft carriers, then why aren't you also initialising various community projects and all that will help lessen the possibilities that people will turn to crime in the first place??

That part is conjecture, since I don't have the money to do so. But, if I did, who says I wouldn't be trying to prevent crime on a community level? I've never intimated one way or another what I would do there.

If I had the money to be buying the weapons, I can guarantee that I would be putting at least some of that into trying to make sure the community is strong enough that criminals don't want to be there.

[Zyanya]

Ummm - I did that. I linked. I copied and pasted actual parts of the legislature... It does allow (in some states) for an intruder to be shot pretty much 'on sight' without legal retaliation... those were the bits I highlighted (the term 'property' is used a lot, and also 'felony' - and even more specifically - 'burglary' or 'robbery'.

I've also researched castle doctrine. And your statement above is extremely misleading.

No state at all gives the right to shoot anyone on sight for merely setting foot on the property.

[Slytovhand]

I've also researched castle doctrine. And your statement above is extremely misleading.

No state at all gives the right to shoot anyone on sight for merely setting foot on the property.

No - not 'property' as in bits of land, but 'property' as in bits of stuff you have inside the house - things that can be stolen...

So - no, I wasn't insintuating that you can be shot on sight for just stepping onto the property (unless, you have other good reasons). I haven't gotten to saying that yet (although that guy in Iowa?? made things interesting...)

Slyt

[rahmota]

Well I have to say that Pederson has the right ideas and points in this conversation and I agree with him. In the question of would I rather be a victim or able to defend myself I will always choose defending myself. And if that requires the use of force up to and including lethal force I will not loose any sleep from capping some punk arse scumbag who broke into my home and threatened me or my family. they got exactly what they deserved as their life becomes worth less than dogturds the moment they threatened me or my family.

And I find it sad and sick that there are people who would be willing to see a woman raped in her home rather than give her the right, power and ability to defend herself. That they would rather see a family murdered than permit a single weapon to be kept available to defend that family from a criminal. A person who does not care about the law. that is why they are a criminal.

You are a victim for 15 minutes (hell in some parts of the county here it can be up to an hour before the first sheriff shows up.) before the police can arrive in the VERY BEST of circumstances. The vast majority of the time police officers function as little more than crime reporters where crimes of violence occur. Police services are REACTIONARY in nature where violence is concerned. As violence can rarely be correctly predicted, only the criminal and the victim can prevent, halt or change the outcome of the incident; the police can only respond if called or told of the incident. Is it really enough to have a well-intentioned officer promise you: -WE'LL GET HIM- as you provide details of your beating? Your loved one's beating? Your rape? The muder of your wife or child? Don't fool yourself; if you have not been a victim yet that has much more to do with timing than anything else. One day events will happen in a certain sequence, and you'll find yourself at the mercy of an animal on two legs. Even if the 911 call was made, do you have any idea what he can do to you in LESS than a minute?

Having a weapon and the training and the will to use it can mean the difference between you or someone you love living and death.

[Zyanya]

So - no, I wasn't insintuating that you can be shot on sight for just stepping onto the property

Others however, are.

[daleduke17]

Rahmota, I agree completely with you. If someone breaks into my apartment and attempts to mess with myself, my wife, or my child, I should have the ability to protect them...even if during the act of protecting, the suspect ceases living.

Right now, all I have for protecting in our apartment (other than the deadbolt and chain locks) is a 4-cell Maglite. Yes, it has been pulled before when it sounded like someone was trying to break into the apartment. If the person would have gotten in, there would have been hell to pay. Did I know who it was? No. Was it anyone planned to be visiting/stopping by at that time of night? No. Was it my wife coming home from work? No (she was in bed as well). What did it turn out to be? A friend of a neighbor who got drunk and mistook my door for the neighbor's (he apologized the next day). If I would have had a gun would I have started shooting as soon as the door was being shook? No. If the person had entered, he would have seen someone drawing him down and telling him to get on the ground while my wife called 911.

Are there some people who would have started shooting when the door handle started shaking? Probably. Should they own guns? Probably not.