| Ethics & Morality A forum for the discussion and debate of ethics & morality open to all members. |
|
View Poll Results: What would you do in a home invasion? | |
Shoot to kill
|     | 10 | 45.45% | |
Shoot or harm the invader, but not kill
|    | 11 | 50.00% | |
Refuse to harm another human being and hope they just take what they want and leave
|    | 1 | 4.55% |
 | | 
8th June 2012, 12:00 PM
|  | Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?
37     
 | | Join Date: 3rd July 2009
Posts: 8,794
Blessings: 16,215,770 My Mood 
Reps: 633,427,004,329,730,944 (power: 633,427,004,329,743) | | Originally Posted by Mling  If I owned a gun (which I don't at the moment, but that isn't a guarantee forever), I might shoot if I was being attacked. Not unless they made the first move, though.
Entering your house illegally was their first move.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
THE NEW BOSS: JUST LIKE THE OLD BOSS.
"Some people say journalism is in decline, they say you've become too politicized, too focused on sensationalism, they say you no longer honor your duty to inform America but instead actively divide us so that your corporate overlord can rake in the profits," Kimmel said. "I don't have a joke for this, it's just what some people say." |
8th June 2012, 12:06 PM
|  | Do you love your Guns? God? The Government?
33  
| | Join Date: 13th July 2006
Posts: 7,043
Blessings: 4,224,436 My Mood 
Reps: 151,925,216,728,060,128 (power: 151,925,216,728,074) | | Originally Posted by TerranceL Entering your house illegally was their first move.
Yea, and if you wait for another "first move," it might be too late at that point.
__________________
"Evidence for my belief? I don't need evidence to believe." - Trientje |
8th June 2012, 12:06 PM
| | Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?
37
| | Join Date: 3rd July 2009
Posts: 8,794
Blessings: 16,215,770 My Mood
Reps: 633,427,004,329,730,944 (power: 633,427,004,329,743) | | Originally Posted by Fenny the Fox Crazy as it may be, that is not an uncommon occurrence - when someone survives the shooting anyway.
There are also quite a few cases of people suing for being injured by accident in a home after breaking in. Or suing after being injured on property while trespassing, as well.
I remember this story from years ago...while trying to find the story all I found was a mention on another forum and a link to a aol.com website.. so yeah that's how old the story is.. instead of linking to the forum here's the story itself. In case you were concerned that Americans were becoming less litigious these days, a convicted robber is trying to sue a party store after he was shot in the arm while burglarizing it.
Scott Thomas Zeilinski is serving an eight-to-22-year sentence for robbing Nick's Party Store in Clinton Township, Mich., in 2007. Court records show that he entered the store and put a knife to the throats of several clerks, threatening to kill them.
Then, still making threats as he exited with stolen money and cigarettes, Zeilinski was shot in the arm and back by an employee who had grabbed a gun.
The burglar's lawyer filed a suit against the party store this week, seeking over $125,000 for pain and suffering and emotional distress. Following in the tradition of landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Plessy v. Ferguson, we hope the Supreme Court soon metes out justice in the case of Zeilinski v. Nick's Party Store.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
THE NEW BOSS: JUST LIKE THE OLD BOSS.
"Some people say journalism is in decline, they say you've become too politicized, too focused on sensationalism, they say you no longer honor your duty to inform America but instead actively divide us so that your corporate overlord can rake in the profits," Kimmel said. "I don't have a joke for this, it's just what some people say." |
8th June 2012, 12:18 PM
|  | The Avatar Says It All!
55     
| | Join Date: 24th February 2011 Location: South Carolina
Posts: 5,404
Blessings: 273,554,844 My Mood 
Reps: 2,604,870,819,467,160,064 (power: 2,604,870,819,467,168) | | | Shoot to kill...my lawyer told me that if I must, make sure that the perp falls in the house.NOT the yard, NOT on the porch.
Laws about it may change from state to state, but here,that way is the best scenario for not getting charged in the death.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm a Cultural Infidel coming from the Heart
posted by dad
"If we both stood on a panel which would electrocute the insane one, I would be smiling as I raced up to stand on it."
posted by Doveman
"That’s why I never lose debates, even if I don’t win them. "
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
8th June 2012, 12:33 PM
|  | Believes in the power of a good cuppa'
21   
| | Join Date: 26th September 2011 Location: London
Posts: 3,098
Blessings: 16,031,421 My Mood 
Reps: 103,304,426,856,538,528 (power: 103,304,426,856,543) | | Are people really considering shoot to kill over shoot to incapacitate just because they might get sued?
__________________
Misconception clearer upperer concerning atheists, gays, and liberals.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Genersis' irritations 1#:
We, as a company, understand your dislike for business speak; so our customer focused approach obligates us to succeed in bringing you down to earth, relatable dialogue because we care about you and your future with us.
Our little way of saying "Thank you". |
8th June 2012, 01:03 PM
| | The Avatar Says It All!
55
| | Join Date: 24th February 2011 Location: South Carolina
Posts: 5,404
Blessings: 273,554,844 My Mood
Reps: 2,604,870,819,467,160,064 (power: 2,604,870,819,467,168) | | Originally Posted by Genersis Are people really considering shoot to kill over shoot to incapacitate just because they might get sued?
People have been sued successfully for everything they have because they shot to incapacitate.
Reasoning? After the perp gets out of prison, they will be unable to work because of their wound.
All it does is victimize the victim of the crime,twice.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm a Cultural Infidel coming from the Heart
posted by dad
"If we both stood on a panel which would electrocute the insane one, I would be smiling as I raced up to stand on it."
posted by Doveman
"That’s why I never lose debates, even if I don’t win them. "
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
8th June 2012, 01:18 PM
|  | Newbie
| | Join Date: 2nd January 2012 Location: WMU 37
Posts: 13
Blessings: 5,375 My Mood
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by miniverchivi I'm a supporter of the castle doctrine so obviously I agree with the law that allows you to take out a home invader, but I wanted to get some other views on the topic?
Do you feel that justifiable homicide should be used for cases of home invasions? If someone broke into your home, how would you handle it?
I've attached a poll to collect some responses.
I'm Canadian, we don't have 2A rights, and our firearm laws are pretty tight, we can own handguns, but they must be locked up tight and stored seperate from the ammunition...That being said, I will use "no more force than neccessary" to defend my home and my family.
During my training, I was introduced to the National Use of Force model, which states what the appropriate level of force would be for everything from resistance to deadly force. The only problem is, a situation will never progress seemlessly from one behavior level to another, a subject can go from passive resistance to using deadly force on you in the blink of an eye.
So in answer to the part of How Would You Handle It? It would simply depend on the threat level to myself and my family. No matter what, the subject will still be leaving my home, how he does so is his choice. He can choose to run off after I call out, he can choose to stay and get into an altercation with me...If it's the latter, there are a few possible outcomes.
1: We get into a scuffel, I restrain him until police arrive.
2: He approaches in a threatening manner, I sense an immediate threat, he gets struck in the soft tissue of the leg or arm with a very heavy MagLite.
3: He's got an edged weapon or a small firearm, I sense the threat of grevous bodily harm or death to myself or my family, he get's struck about the head, ribs, or spine.
Keep one thing in mind though...If you get into an altercation with a MagLite, knife, or whatever, you can be certain of one thing: There is a MagLite or knife in that fight, doesn't matter who's packing it.
So simply put, I would use no more force than neccessary to get the subject to leave, or eliminate the threat to my family, myself, and my home.
__________________
Luke 9:24
For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it.
Romans 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. |
8th June 2012, 01:30 PM
| | Loudmouth
   
| | Join Date: 3rd July 2008
Posts: 3,045
Blessings: 100,714 My Mood 
Reps: 127,433,160,464,321,440 (power: 127,433,160,464,329) | | Originally Posted by TerranceL When an unkown person enters your house without your permission be breaking and entering you are in immediate danger.
Probably not. According to the source I used earlier, 80% of people caught were convicted for non-aggravated breaking and entering, meaning they didn't inflict injury on the owner - or weren't even carrying a weapon ( link). They're probably more interested in robbing your house than attacking your family. Originally Posted by Genersis Are people really considering shoot to kill over shoot to incapacitate just because they might get sued?
Indeed. Aiming to kill someone to avoid getting sued seems ... ghoulish. The obvious thing would be to change the law so that a person has no right to sue the owner if they are on their property illegally.
__________________ I judge you unfortunate because you have never been unfortunate; you have passed through life without an antagonist; no one will know what you can do, not even yourself. Lucius Annaeus Seneca If we seriously think about it, it probably makes more sense to assume that this is a naturally evil world that has somehow been mysteriously 'contaminated' by goodness, rather than the other way around. M. Scott Peck Thanks to everyone for the good reputation points. |
8th June 2012, 01:45 PM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 2nd January 2012 Location: WMU 37
Posts: 13
Blessings: 5,375 My Mood
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson Indeed. Aiming to kill someone to avoid getting sued seems ... ghoulish. The obvious thing would be to change the law so that a person has no right to sue the owner if they are on their property illegally.
Ideally, that's the the way things would be...And the same should apply to these people who cry "brutality" and misconduct after they throw a punch at a LEO or resisting arrest and threatening the officer and wind up getting a good dose of OC and eating concrete...If you physically threaten or assault a LEO, you can take your medicine like a big boy.
You threaten someone with grevous bodily harm and they put a couple slugs in your leg or your shoulder and you can't work when you get outta prison, too bad for you. If you wanted to work, you should've been out applying for jobs or learning new skills instead of breaking into someone's house. And be very thankful the person wasn't trained in the Mozambique drill.
__________________
Luke 9:24
For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it.
Romans 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. |
8th June 2012, 02:35 PM
|  | Atheist with a Reason
26 
| | Join Date: 24th June 2005
Posts: 3,927
Blessings: 26,167,751
Reps: 31,029,506,250,719,260 (power: 31,029,506,250,730) | | Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson Indeed. Aiming to kill someone to avoid getting sued seems ... ghoulish. The obvious thing would be to change the law so that a person has no right to sue the owner if they are on their property illegally.
Well the problem with that is that it would make situations like this legal: Karate expert keeps shop burglar as sex slave for three days - Mirror Online
I agree that a homeowner should have every right to do whatever is necessary to stop a burglar. Using excessive force so that the homeowner is not at risk might be acceptable (like: shooting the burglar, while he doesn't even know that anyone is home). But it should not cross the line into "you can torture any burglar to death"-territory. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
