Current Events > Do you believe in the Castle Doctrine?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Because youre placing their life above my safety. If they are coming at me, I dont care if their intent is to harm, I have no indication they arent intending to kill me so thats how I will defend myself

even if they promised they were just gonna break my legs, thats not worth suffering through just so that my attacker doesnt die

Sorry, maybe its just me, but i cant comprehend this

I just dont get what you mean here... Ya cant just say "i dont care about their intent, im killing them" Doesnt that sound kinda crazy?

Its not about placing them above you.... its about not thinking "hehe, yeah come in here if you dare... im gonna get ya"

Even if they intend harm? What duty do I have to protect the life of someone who intends to do me harm?

Why would flaying someone ever be a "safer" way to deal with a threat?

There are also other ways to protect yourself from a dangerous stranger in your home. Knives, fists, blunt objects, stun guns, pepper spray. It's not only about guns.

I just dont get what you mean here... Ya cant just say "i dont care about their intent, im killing them" Doesnt that sound kinda crazy?

If your options are shoot them dead or try to fight them off with your fists, its obvious which one sane people will pick

TonyKojima topic

Especially since theres another option lots of people are ignoring-

Telling them to get the fuck out, at either knife or gun point. If they dont comply, or make a wrong move, then we can start talking about shooting them.

Lethal force is justified, but you dont have to jump straight to it (unless forced to). The force continuum exists for a reason. This is something American cops dont seem to be held to, but cops in other countries like Australia are.

It doesnt matter if people disagree though, most sensible countries have a lot of leeway when it comes to self defence in your own home. Unless the cops find evidence you went blatantly over the top (like youve knocked them out, then while waiting for the cops you broke their arms and legs just to make sure) you should be in the clear.

Even Australia, a vehemently civilian-disarming country, isnt dumb enough not to acknowledge that.

I thought it was implicit that you would at least tell them to GTFO first. I didn't realise it was ever a question of not saying it first. To me it was a question of "is it worth me getting maimed/killed or my daughter raped just so this sick fuck can live" and the answer to that question is a solid no every time its asked.

For most people its implicit that youd give a warning first, but at least one post here said theyd shoot the intruder on sight, so not everyone thinks that way.

That's just the risk one has to take when they break into someone's house. You never know who's gonna give a warning or who's just gonna start blasting.

I know, Im talking from the perspective of the defender. You should give a warning first unless truly impractical. As correctly said earlier, most people do not want to kill someone. Regardless of moral and legal justification, it will fuck with you for the rest of your life.

The problem is the psycho fucks (like those mentioned earlier killing kids for coming onto their lawn to retrieve a ball), and perhaps worse, the cops not charging them for it (and/or the judge acquitting them). Such occurrences need to be rejected as not reasonable, and given nationwide coverage to let people know that.

As correctly said earlier, most people do not want to kill someone.

If you break into someone's home, you shouldn't need a warning that you might get shot. That's just the risk you take when you choose to be a scumbag.

Lemme try to make it easy. You don't know their intent. It is 100% impossible to know the intent of someone who breaks into your home.

As an aside, I never got the argument of "property isn't worth a human life." It feels like that should be said to the people who steal, not the people who value their property. Like, it's different if it happened in the street and they're fleeing and no longer a danger to you. But if they're in your house, all bets are off.

When it comes to the idea of their intention.... I think there is a problem with the inherent thought (based on whats been discussed in here) that we dont know their intention, so lets start at the top, assume they are here to rape our daughters and wives, make me watch, and then kill us all... so we better take them out first so that doesnt happen.

m also not gonna try to appease some crackhead that thinks its ok to just come up in my dwelling and take my fucking playstation for a rock. if they have to catch a .40 hollow point for me to get that point across than so be it, but they made the choice that my property was more valuable than their life the moment they broke in, I didn't make that decision because i'd rather not assume a criminal is just some swell guy

When it comes to the idea of their intention.... I think there is a problem with the inherent thought (based on whats been discussed in here) that we dont know their intention, so lets start at the top, assume they are here to rape our daughters and wives, make me watch, and then kill us all... so we better take them out first so that doesnt happen.

I understand THAT this is where guys are.... but I cant see grasp/understand the NEED to be there

yeah see... this is just plain psychotic

TC said i was sanitizing the discussion, but you guys are dramatizing to the point of satire here

Anyone I catch intruding into my home with intent to deprive me of life or property is henceforth subject to my judgement, and they'll be dealing with my associates, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.

I feel were at an impasse because this discussion is inherently american so I dont think i can even articulate my perspective here.

Im not making the claim that "property isnt worth a human life" to be clear

When it comes to the idea of their intention.... I think there is a problem with the inherent thought (based on whats been discussed in here) that we dont know their intention, so lets start at the top, assume they are here to rape our daughters and wives, make me watch, and then kill us all... so we better take them out first so that doesnt happen.

I understand THAT this is where guys are.... but I cant see grasp/understand the NEED to be there

Thing is, you are saying "the difference between" a trigger happy psycho.... but to me both situations are an example of just that.

if your gut reaction is "they are going to murder, rape, and/or kidnap me, I better shoot and kill them first" then for me, you are a 'trigger happy psycho' all the same.

What im getting at is the thinking it brings on. You hear someone trying to break into the house, are you not even going to assume that if you turn on a light it will scare them away? If you cant at least start here then for me its just trying to come up with a reason to shoot them first

If your options are shoot them dead or try to fight them off with your fists, its obvious which one sane people will pick

I feel were at an impasse because this discussion is inherently american so I dont think i can even articulate my perspective here.

Im not making the claim that "property isnt worth a human life" to be clear

When it comes to the idea of their intention.... I think there is a problem with the inherent thought (based on whats been discussed in here) that we dont know their intention, so lets start at the top, assume they are here to rape our daughters and wives, make me watch, and then kill us all... so we better take them out first so that doesnt happen.

I understand THAT this is where guys are.... but I cant see grasp/understand the NEED to be there

We had a few on 261 who felt it was never justified to use force to defend your home.

You know my story. If the dude had come up to and in the house he would have been warned first. Then told the police are on the way. His actions after that will decide on what happens. No one should be wandering around your property at 2am in the morning if you dont know who they are and dont identify themselves when asked. And refuse to leave when asked also

Is it reasonable to assume one or people kicking in my door or windows at 2am means to do me bodily harm? @zado19

depends, how many times has it happened? In reality and not in your mind?

Neither of those options are what I said. Is the issue here that you don't know what "flaying" means?

depends, how many times has it happened? In reality and not in your mind?

Shut the fuck up with this disingenuous bullshit. It only takes one time for you to end up dead by a home invader. Again, breaking into someone's home already shows that the intruder consents to the possibility of being killed

Why do people feel the need to not answer a question honestly? Does it really break your morals to just admit, "Yeah, the guy who is violently breaking down your door at 2AM doesn't have your best interests in mind"?

Shut the fuck up with this disingenuous bullshit. It only takes one time for you to end up dead by a home invader. Again, breaking into someone's home already shows that the intruder consents to the possibility of being killed

Why do people feel the need to not answer a question honestly? Does it really break your morals to just admit, "Yeah, the guy who is violently breaking down your door at 2AM doesn't have your best interests in mind"?

Does it break your morals to say that every burglar at night deserves death?
Who's to say the guy breaking down your door isn't bleeding out or saving you from a fire? You have every right to defend yourself and injury or death due to BURGLARY is a risk, but no i don't agree you should shoot to kill every unrecognized person in the house, ie intruders ie 'burglars'

Hell yeah I do

Is this a joke??

I don't agree with death for burglars. I acknowledge it is an inherent risk of such a crime.

That's different from the baloney here about shoot intruders on sight.