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

[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 )

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
• 14 yeard old girl kills mother, father, brother, gets sentenced to 10 years
• Father kills his family, then self
• Gunman kills two, gets to stay at Club Fed, with golf course/etc
• Angolan psychopath goes on murder/robbery rampage

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 ), 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)