Use of lethal force to defend your home.

[Drooling Iguana]

Not a slippery slope in the least.

If someone's breaking in my house, I don't have time or temperment to poll them on their intentions over a donut and coffee. The risk to me and mine increase exponentially with proximity.

All I know is there's a threat there willing to risk death breaking into someone's house - I live in Texas and more likely than not any home you see has a gun in it and an owner willing to use it - and in this case it's my house. And in Texas there is no "duty to flee" under the law - a man's home is his final refuge and he has every right under the law to defend it with deadly force. And I have every intention of doing so.

The home invader has simply chosen a very roundabout way of committing suicide.

His life ain't worth shit once he crosses the threshold, and the world is left a better place for one less criminal.

Okay, so you've re-stated your premise. You still haven't indicated why a person illegally entering your house would be likely to kill you, rape your wife, or beat you senseless, or why you'd be morally (not legally) justified is killing an intruder when you have a chance to flee, or why your way of thininking makes you any less than a psychopath.

[The Question]

Okay, so you've re-stated your premise. You still haven't indicated why a person illegally entering your house would be likely to kill you, rape your wife, or beat you senseless,

The person has shown he is unwilling to respect my property rights. Ergo, he is unwilling to respect my other rights.

He has shown he is willing to risk death to accomplish some nefarious end.

I don't know what his intentions are, nor do I have any way of knowing. In this proximity, he is a threat. He may pull a gun or he may just want to grab the TV. I don't know. I also don't care. And if I wait around to find out, and it is a gun he is pulling, it is too late.

He is at that point a threat and I will use deadly force to eliminate the threat.

I'm sorry that if that doesn't compute in your closed circle of logic, but I don't really care.

or why you'd be morally (not legally) justified is killing an intruder when you have a chance to flee, or why your way of thininking makes you any less than a psychopath.

Because I am not the one initiating force, nor violating anyone's rights.

Once a threat is presented it is my judgement which determines the appropriate use of defensive force in response. Once a person is inside my home, he presents a great risk.

I'm not going to take chances. I'm not going to risk a single hair on my wife's head being hurt for the sake of a criminal. I am also not going to flee my home.

And I don't care if you think it is immoral or psychopathic. (The term you are searching for is "sociopathic" by the way.)

I value my TV more than I value the life of an intruder.

Don't like it? Don't break into my house.

[Howedar]

I tell them I am armed and that I have called the police. If they don't back down, I fire a warning shot. If they advance, I shoot to kill. If at any point someone starts to run, they are no longer a target (unless they return).

[The Question]

If at any point someone starts to run, they are no longer a target...

Sure they are.

Ya just gotta lead 'em a little more.

[Howedar]

Hehehe...


No seriously, if somebody ran off, I wouldn't shoot them in the back.

[The Question]

^^^


Kidding aside, that's totally reasonable.

[RedImperator]

Kinda scary how many people would rather kill another human being than suffer property damage...

"Property damage"? Did you read the part where the mob was coming to BURN DOWN your home? These aren't kids throwing pumpkins through the screen door on mischief night, this is a mob coming to destroy everything you've spent your whole life working for. Fuck yeah, my house and my possessions are worth more to me than the lives of the people in the mob. Is the sum total of my life's work worth less than the life of someone who would destroy it all for no good reason?

The sum toal of your life's work amounts to nothing more than the things you've got hoarded away? Wow. I'd be really depressed if I was in your situation.

News flash, dildo: most people have two tangible things to show for their work in life--their survival and their material possessions; i.e., their property. Further news flash: most people spend years working for their home--working to pay for it, working to improve it, whatever. For most people, it's by far their most valuable investment, the vast majority of their net worth unless the stock market has treated them well.

So, yeah, most people's homes represent the material total of their life's work, a concept I thought you'd understand the first time without prodding, but apparently the best you could come up with was more pseudo-enlightened pontificating in the form of a strawman distortion of my statement. Come back when you actually have an argument, rather than statements about sad I ought to feel.

[The Question]

"Property damage"? Did you read the part where the mob was coming to BURN DOWN your home? These aren't kids throwing pumpkins through the screen door on mischief night, this is a mob coming to destroy everything you've spent your whole life working for. Fuck yeah, my house and my possessions are worth more to me than the lives of the people in the mob. Is the sum total of my life's work worth less than the life of someone who would destroy it all for no good reason?

The sum toal of your life's work amounts to nothing more than the things you've got hoarded away? Wow. I'd be really depressed if I was in your situation.

News flash, dildo: most people have two tangible things to show for their work in life--their survival and their material possessions; i.e., their property. Further news flash: most people spend years working for their home--working to pay for it, working to improve it, whatever. For most people, it's by far their most valuable investment, the vast majority of their net worth unless the stock market has treated them well.

So, yeah, most people's homes represent the material total of their life's work, a concept I thought you'd understand the first time without prodding, but apparently the best you could come up with was more pseudo-enlightened pontificating in the form of a strawman distortion of my statement. Come back when you actually have an argument, rather than statements about sad I ought to feel.

You hit an important point most don't recognize - that the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to property are basically three ways of stating the same thing.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Kinda scary how many people would rather kill another human being than suffer property damage...

Hey, if I lived in a good house that I've spent years making payment on, I would be <edited> pissed at those people who wish to take it away from me. And if I, say, had a wife and child in that house with me, you'd better believe their lives and livelihood is much more important to me than the lives of the unruly mob who wishes to do us harm and make beggars of us.

[The Question]

Kinda scary how many people would rather kill another human being than suffer property damage...

Hey, if I lived in a good house that I've spent years making payment on, I would be <edited> pissed at those people who wish to take it away from me. And if I, say, had a wife and child in that house with me, you'd better believe their lives and livelihood is much more important to me than the lives of the unruly mob who wishes to do us harm and make beggars of us.

Hard to imagine, but there really are those who value the lives of criminals more than the lives of victims.

[Robert Treder]

I'll go out and say it; my stuff is worth more than the lives of the people who want it destroyed. And then some.

Luckily, I live in an area where people don't burn each other's houses down in angry mobs, and people don't defend their homes with AKs because they don't have to. So the scenario doesn't really apply to me, but yeah, I'd like to think I'd make the decision to save my property before I'd save a redneck or two. Or ten.

[The Question]

^^^

I've yet to see anyone show how the life of an aggressor is worth anything at all.

Shit, you should be able to charge their surviving family members for the bullets you wasted on their carcasses.

Them Hydro-Shocks and MagSafe's ain't cheap.

[Drooling Iguana]

Okay, so you've re-stated your premise. You still haven't indicated why a person illegally entering your house would be likely to kill you, rape your wife, or beat you senseless,

The person has shown he is unwilling to respect my property rights. Ergo, he is unwilling to respect my other rights.

Explain why the first implies the second.

He has shown he is willing to risk death to accomplish some nefarious end.

Even if that were true, and he did consider that his life was at risk before he decided to break in (a preposition which is doubtful at best) the fact that he's willing to risk death to accomplish his nefarious end does not imply that he's be willing to kill to accomplish that end. Not everyone is as crazy as you are. And even if he was willing to kill, there's nothing to indicate that he would deem it necessary to do so in order to achieve his end.

I don't know what his intentions are, nor do I have any way of knowing. In this proximity, he is a threat. He may pull a gun or he may just want to grab the TV. I don't know. I also don't care. And if I wait around to find out, and it is a gun he is pulling, it is too late.

The act of pulling a gun is a very distinctive and easily-recognizable motion. Even if you waited until the gun was visible, he would still have to properly position himself and aim the gun before he could fire, while you would presumably already have your weapon drawn and ready.

Because I am not the one initiating force, nor violating anyone's rights.

You are initiating force, since the burglar has not used force on you at this point, and you're violating his right to live.

Once a threat is presented it is my judgement which determines the appropriate use of defensive force in response. Once a person is inside my home, he presents a great risk.

Your judgement is severely flawed.

I value my TV more than I value the life of an intruder.

I rest my case. You, sir, are completely insane, and I hope they lock you up before you can hurt me or someone I care about.

[Drooling Iguana]

News flash, dildo: most people have two tangible things to show for their work in life--their survival and their material possessions; i.e., their property. Further news flash: most people spend years working for their home--working to pay for it, working to improve it, whatever. For most people, it's by far their most valuable investment, the vast majority of their net worth unless the stock market has treated them well.

So, yeah, most people's homes represent the material total of their life's work, a concept I thought you'd understand the first time without prodding, but apparently the best you could come up with was more pseudo-enlightened pontificating in the form of a strawman distortion of my statement. Come back when you actually have an argument, rather than statements about sad I ought to feel.

Only if all a person has done throughout their entire life is to work to amass material wealth, which is one of the most depressing things I've ever heard.

[The Question]

Explain why the first implies the second.

A person who shows no respect for property is, in fact, showing he will not respect my rights.

And the violations stop at the first one.

Even if that were true, and he did consider that his life was at risk before he decided to break in (a preposition which is doubtful at best) the fact that he's willing to risk death to accomplish his nefarious end does not imply that he's be willing to kill to accomplish that end.

You can debate that question after the intruder has you tied up and is raping your wife. You can probably even argue with him as he slits your throat.

I'm not giving an intruder that chance.

Not everyone is as crazy as you are. And even if he was willing to kill, there's nothing to indicate that he would deem it necessary to do so in order to achieve his end.

Since I don't know that, and I'm not going to dialogue about his life history, it's a moot point. I assume the worst, and respond accordingly.

The act of pulling a gun is a very distinctive and easily-recognizable motion. Even if you waited until the gun was visible, he would still have to properly position himself and aim the gun before he could fire, while you would presumably already have your weapon drawn and ready.

I'm not taking that chance. He breaks in, he dies.

I am not interested in giving criminals an even chance.

They had their chance before they broke in, and that was a choice they made.

You are initiating force, since the burglar has not used force on you at this point, and you're violating his right to live.

No, I am using force in defense of my rights - property and potentially life.

He initiated the threat of force by breaking into my house. His presence alone is the threat of force.

Therefore, he dies.

You, sir, are completely insane, and I hope they lock you up before you can hurt me or someone I care about.

Your precious burglars can avoid the necessity of premature death by making the simple choice NOT TO FUCKING BREAK IN MY HOUSE!

And in Texas I'd get a reward from the state and a commendation from the governor.

Goddamn pantywaist pacifist. People like you are enablers of crime.

[/b]

[The Question]

Only if all a person has done throughout their entire life is to work to amass material wealth, which is one of the most depressing things I've ever heard.

^^^


Ah, the mantra of a failure.


Whatever rocks your cradle at night, lady.

[Robert Treder]

Only if all a person has done throughout their entire life is to work to amass material wealth, which is one of the most depressing things I've ever heard.

What kind of pussy gets depressed by hearing about how much other people like their stuff?

Speaking for myself, it's not like I'm a psychopath who places no value on life. It's just that when somebody wants to destroy my stuff, I want to destroy them. I wouldn't be happy about doing it, and I'd probably throw up and cry afterwards, but I hope I'd do it. And it's also not like I define myself solely by my possessions; it's just that they're a big part of myself. I'd be able to move along after my house got burned down, but I would be FUCKING PISSED about it. I mean, come on - your house is burnt down. Insurance or no, you're basically reduced to being a hobo, and that sucks ass.

If the choice was between having my house burnt down and killing even just a single innocent person, I'd go with having my house burnt down. Even if the person was a total asshole, if he had nothing to do with burning down my house, I'd at least give it a second thought.

If you use the line of reasoning that human life is always worth more than anything ever other than another human life, then you'll have a tough time rationalizing our entire human history, because guess what: people kill people. Hope you like being depressed.

[Knife]

Warning shots? WTF?

Given the senerio,

Angry mob shows up threating to burn my house down, possible threatening violence to me and the family.

They get a warning that I am armed and the cops are on the way.

If they proceed to approach my house with my kids and my wife, their next warning is ME drilling their leader TWO IN THE CHEST AND ONE IN THE HEAD.

The mob mentality will probably dissapate when the ring leader drops dead. If not, they get the good old line of 'next one that takes a step towards my house gets drilled just like your fucking buddy there. Safety tip, don't slip on his pooling blood when you do approach.'

Your rights stop at my nose (safety) and attempting to burn my house down with me and the family in it (weather or not you are sucessful) is suffiecent reason to drop a mother fucker. I wouldn't take out the whole mob, if they didn't persist in trying to kill me, but my life and my prosperity (not to mention my family) means more than the life of some dumb fuck who was intent on killing me.

[Darth Wong]

Only if all a person has done throughout their entire life is to work to amass material wealth, which is one of the most depressing things I've ever heard.

^^^

Ah, the mantra of a failure.

Ah, the mantra of an asshole.

Does it ever occur to you that someone might think there are things more important than money without necessarily being poor? If my son was dying and I needed money to pay for some life-saving operation (this would presume that I'm living in the US, where such dilemmas are commonplace), I would empty out my retirement savings in a heartbeat, without hesitation. I would sell my car, all of my assets, everything I own if I have to. I would mortgage everything, max out my credits cards, stretch my lines of credit. My belief that there are things more important than my material possessions does not necessarily mean that I must be dirt-poor or a "failure".

[Perinquus]

In Missouri, if you shoot the guy, you better make sure he falls and dies inside the house and if he doesn't, you best drag him back inside. Otherwise, you can be charged with a crime.

I'm joining this debate a bit late to reply to this post, but as a law enforcement officer I feel almost a public duty to disabuse as many of you as possible of this notion.

If circumstances force you to shoot someone while he is outside your house or outside the curtilage of your property, do not ever, under any circumstances, even consider for an instant dragging the body inside your house! I cannot stress this point highly enough. And if anybody ever tells you to do this (it may even be a cop himself who tells you - don't listen to him; even cops can be dumbasses), point out to him that he has just committed an offense called "suborning perjury", and in most U.S. states it's a felony.

If you move the body, you may take a completely justifiable self-defense shooting and make it look like a murder! I've got news for you: the fact of whether or not a person was inside or outside of your house, or on or off of your property has little to nothing to do with whether or not you are justified in killing him. What justifies you or not is the level of threat he represents to you. The only way the property may enter into it is that some states require you to make every reasonable effort to escape the threat, but most (not all) do not require you to leave your home - there you can stand your ground. And it is still perfectly possible for someone to represent a deadly threat to you while he is outside your house. If he is getting ready to throw a molotov cocktail through your window, he most certainly represents a potentially lethal threat to you, and as you are in your home, from which you may not be required to flee, you can shoot him, even though he's outside. If someone is pumping rounds from a high powered rifle into your house, he most certainly represents a deadly threat to you, since those bullets will easily pierce the walls of your house, and may go clean through the whole building. Shoot the bastard and leave him where he drops; you're justified. It doesn't matter that he's outside. If the threat to you is sufficiently great to put a reasonable person in fear of his life, IT DOES NOT MATTER.

But if you drag the body inside, it now looks as though you're trying to make an unjustifiable shooting appear justifiable. You WILL be discovered. Have no illusions on that score. Even if you are not observed by someone while you're moving the body (and the sound of gunfire may bring out people who want to see what's going on), there will be a lot of forensic evidence to tell the investigators where the body actually fell. Modern forensics uses infrared and ultraviolet photography, chemical reagents, and other tools to pick up even the smallest traces of evidence - things like clothing fibers, carpet fibers, blood traces too small for you to see, etc. Once it becomes known to police, and more importantly, a judge and jury, that you tampered with evidence and lied to investigators, your credibility is shot to hell. You may be convicted or murder for what was actually a justifiable homicide. Think how you'll feel when the judge pronounces you guilty of murder when you know you're actually innocent.

[Darth Wong]

Angry mob shows up threating to burn my house down, possible threatening violence to me and the family.

Glocksman's scenario was seriously flawed. He clarified later that it was not supposed to imply a threat to your safety or the safety of your family. It was supposed to strictly pit property rights against the attacker's life.

Unfortunately, I agree that the scenario strongly implies a threat to your life, not just your property, hence everyone keeps trying to answer the wrong question.

To answer the question as it was INTENDED to be read, I would grab the family photo albums off the shelf (they're the only thing that you really can't replace with insurance money), boot it out the back door with my family in tow, and file a claim. I'm not going to snuff out a human life for a house and a bunch of furniture, all of which will be replaced (newer and better, I might add) by the insurance company.

[Robert Treder]

Unfortunately, I agree that the scenario strongly implies a threat to your life, not just your property, hence everyone keeps trying to answer the wrong question.

I guess I should have read the entire thread; I wasn't aware that it was supposed to be an entirely dispassionate decision. Yes, I suppose I would get out of the house before I'd kill the attacker.

[Perinquus]

I guess I'm just a little more ruthless than some of you here. Yes, the insurance money could replace a lot of my things (but not all, for example, my grandad's old Winchester shotgun from 1911, my antique, family heirloom bedroom furniture, or the antique china in my dining room that's been in my family for over 100 years, etc.), and they are only things. But you know what? I shouldn't have to endure the loss of everything I've worked for or inherited all my life. I shouldn't have to be be put out of my house. I shouldn't have to go through all that because some shitbag decides to come after me. I'd shoot him. But it's only property? Too bad. Nobody forced him to engage in violent criminal behavior, or to direct his violent impulses at me. That was his decision. If he didn't come after me, he wouldn't end up dead.

[Enforcer Talen]

angry mob with torches? I think I am in danger of my life.

I am still opening fire.

[Tsyroc]

I'm joining this debate a bit late to reply to this post, but as a law enforcement officer I feel almost a public duty to disabuse as many of you as possible of this notion.

If circumstances force you to shoot someone while he is outside your house or outside the curtilage of your property, do not ever, under any circumstances, even consider for an instant dragging the body inside your house! I cannot stress this point highly enough. And if anybody ever tells you to do this (it may even be a cop himself who tells you - don't listen to him; even cops can be dumbasses), point out to him that he has just committed an offense called "suborning perjury", and in most U.S. states it's a felony.

If you move the body, you may take a completely justifiable self-defense shooting and make it look like a murder! I've got news for you: the fact of whether or not a person was inside or outside of your house, or on or off of your property has little to nothing to do with whether or not you are justified in killing him. What justifies you or not is the level of threat he represents to you. The only way the property may enter into it is that some states require you to make every reasonable effort to escape the threat, but most (not all) do not require you to leave your home - there you can stand your ground. And it is still perfectly possible for someone to represent a deadly threat to you while he is outside your house. If he is getting ready to throw a molotov cocktail through your window, he most certainly represents a potentially lethal threat to you, and as you are in your home, from which you may not be required to flee, you can shoot him, even though he's outside. If someone is pumping rounds from a high powered rifle into your house, he most certainly represents a deadly threat to you, since those bullets will easily pierce the walls of your house, and may go clean through the whole building. Shoot the bastard and leave him where he drops; you're justified. It doesn't matter that he's outside. If the threat to you is sufficiently great to put a reasonable person in fear of his life, IT DOES NOT MATTER.

But if you drag the body inside, it now looks as though you're trying to make an unjustifiable shooting appear justifiable. You WILL be discovered. Have no illusions on that score. Even if you are not observed by someone while you're moving the body (and the sound of gunfire may bring out people who want to see what's going on), there will be a lot of forensic evidence to tell the investigators where the body actually fell. Modern forensics uses infrared and ultraviolet photography, chemical reagents, and other tools to pick up even the smallest traces of evidence - things like clothing fibers, carpet fibers, blood traces too small for you to see, etc. Once it becomes known to police, and more importantly, a judge and jury, that you tampered with evidence and lied to investigators, your credibility is shot to hell. You may be convicted or murder for what was actually a justifiable homicide. Think how you'll feel when the judge pronounces you guilty of murder when you know you're actually innocent.

Good stuff to know.

I don't think he meant that you should actually drag the person's body back inside. I think what he meant is that you always hear that if you shoot someone they better be clearly in your house because that's the only way the law will agree with you that you felt threatened and the shooting was justified. When you get down to it that doesn't entirely make sense but I would imagine the idea has probably kept a lot of people from shooting people who really weren't a threat.

The whole thing probably started as someone's simplfied "rule" on when Joe Civilian could use a weapon to defend himself and when he shouldn't. If it keeps some people from blazing away at anyone who just happens to come on to their property I think it's not a bad misconception for people to have since it's probably prevented a lot of really stupid shootings.