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

[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?

[DesignFox]

But what if killing criminals makes you happy?

Then you move to a state that still has the death penalty and become the executioner?

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 (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 )

[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 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.