Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2009 9:55:29 GMT
That sucks, here in australia he would have the book thrown at him heavilly, even if the burglar was armed and repeat offender, in australia unless the guy is armed with a gun or explosives you virtually cant touch him. Which is a shame, fact is that student would have never needed to do anything ........ if that burglar wasnt in his home in the first place ......... a shame thats forgotten these days. I keep my steel blunt under my bed, that way an intruder might just run off if they know I got a sword, if they attack I can just slap n wrap them senseless. Same problem here in NZ but as far as I am concerned if some s**t head comes into my home and would hurt me or my own then god better save him because law or no law that guy is dead for sure. I am not a violent person but the law is all messed up and it would seem there to protect the criminal and not the victim. as I see it if you are in my home and going to harm my family then its fair game and if the 20" of sharp carbon steel dont fix them then the shot gun will
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2009 10:06:27 GMT
coming from a police officers point of view you have two incidents that coincide. the suspected burglary of the garage and a case of self-defense. granted laws very from state to state and i am not familiar with the laws in that state but the way i read the story is that he did not strike/kill the intruder for breaking in, but because the subject lunged at him. most self defense laws allow you to defend yourself or others if you feel in fear. the sad side i have seen cases similar to this where the "good" guy was charged on scene, taken to jail, went through a trial, but was eventually acquitted. fyi i live in tennessee where you do not have a duty to retreat. I agree somewhat... but there is something that still bothers me a bit. Mainly, the description of the wounds (at least the way the media reported it, we all know how accurate they can be : would suggest to me a defensive posture, not an offensive one. One nearly severed hand with laceration to the upper body (probably neck/shoulder area) tells me the perp took a defensive posture *arm up shielding body*. According to the story, the young man noticed the side door of the garage pried open. Obviously we can all assume that the large door would be closed if the intruder needed to pry the smaller one. Also, most garages i have ever seen in my life only have one service/utility door. So it would be fair to guess that there was only one quick way in or out. Now [put yourself in the crooks shoes], if you are robbing a garage and are discovered by someone who is standing in or near the only exit, my first reaction would be to try and get around them and escape. That would obviously require a person to close the distance between them, which could be mistaken for a "lunge". But from a swordsman's perspective, i cannot fathom how someone who is lunging at the wielder would end up with a severed hand? The student said he struck the perp once. So, given that the upper body was cut, AND the hand severed it suggests to me that the hand must have been elevated (and in the path of the strike) to have been hit by the only blow delivered. We all know that the closer in to your body the target is, the harder it is to hit. Now think of how you lunge at someone... Do you lunge at a person with your hands covering your face? No,... you would imagine they would be out in an attempt to grab or strike the person your lunging at... right. So how would a mans hand get severed, AND his upper body if he was lunging when he was hit? That doesn't add up for me... I think the student said he was lunged at to cover his ass, because i think the crook was trying his damndest to get away once he was discovered. Don't get me wrong... I feel (and have stated) that the student should have just called the police when he noticed the door open. Now, it never says if he knew there was an intruder in the garage before going to investigate. Having been robbed just nights before he probably considered it. However, the fact that he brought the weapon with him when he did decide to go out and investigate tells us he expected trouble. I hear strange noises around my house all the time, but i don't go outside with a sword every time to investigate. My neighbors would think i was a nutcase! (They already may? : I also can agree that the "kill em all" attitude is a little silly. Surely if the circumstances required me to defend myself or my family i would do what needed to be done. But lets be logical... If i were to see a prowler outside my home, would it make more sense to go outside of my home to confront him? Your home is your best protection in that case. In that case, the best offense is a good defense... Check to make sure every door & window is locked, secure your family, and call the police. If they manage to get inside, well... your ass is mine. In this case, the student (i believe) acted out of protection of property (which is legal in some cases of justifiable homicide) AND A little bit of anger over the items which had been stolen previously, probably by the same guy (which is NOT legal under justifiable homicide). The kid screwed up, got pissed at the possibility of being robbed again, and ended up hurting the guy so bad he died. And the crook, who's record of 29+ offenses screwed up, when he was so bold as to attempt to rob the same people twice in as many days. (That's IF it was him that robbed them earlier, that's just speculation)
|
|
|
Post by skystone on Sept 16, 2009 11:26:30 GMT
I went through an ordeal after a hurricane when power was out and it was well after curfew. No, Police no help. So why do so many people glorify savages who break into homes? The Supreme Court has ruled that it is not the Law Enforcements job to be there to protect you from intruders. It is your God given right in the Country that this incident occurred to defend yourself. "He who gives up one right for the safety and security of another, deserves neither" Ben Franklin. It is a shame that all too often victims are encarserated. There are always two sides to a story and why anyone should have sympathy for a criminal act behooves me. It worries me that this is something that has been conditioned into their thoughts and more and more the powers that be want the people to become sheep, preyed upon and every effort made to leave them undefended.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2009 11:47:12 GMT
A shame on all of you. A man's life was lost over little more then a few hundred bucks in electronics. Sure he was a repeat offender, but does that mean if a man drives over the speed limit enough times it is ok to kill him? I'm sure in a perfect little world of numbers and statistics we could look at this with the glee, as you all have, like this. -Crime will probably drop for the next couple years in that neighborhood. -Tax dollars will not be spent keeping this man incarcerated. -Members of the community might feel a tad bit safer in their day to day life which could ripple in who knows how many different directions. Most of you seem to think that this student has reached some sort of sword owner nirvana? It disgusts me that the majority of you are applauding this "victim" with phrases that resemble "He deserved to die", "I wish I could do the same thing" and "Well done student, you did the right thing." I'm not looking to make enemies on this forum, but it is my opinion that many of you need to ask yourselves why it is you own a functional sword. Are you just waiting for the "justifiable homicide?" Waiting for the moment that anyone steps foot onto your property uninvited so you can cut him down? I think not. I will go ahead and proactively counter point any challenges that may be made to my standpoint. Some of you might say that the student felt his life was endangered when the thief had lunged at him. Fair enough. But think of your current home. You've lived there for a decent amount of time, and know the layout. Also, if you are made aware of the intruders presence, you have a good idea of where he is. Would you put yourself in a position where the intruder could lunge at you? For that matter, what if the intruder had a gun? I wouldn't want to make my presence known at the last second, which would inspire a knee jerk reaction from the intruder to react to me with hostility. The fact of the matter is that when you decide to become an owner of a lethal weapon, you take on a responsibility to ensure the safety of every human life in any given conflict. If an enemy has a lethal weapon of his own, steps need to be taken to ensure your own safety or the safety of any other person who's life is threatened by the enemy. There are thos of you who will bring up the "shoot to kill" mentality. I tend to agree with that philosophy fully. The moment the student drew the weapon he was saying to himself that he is fully prepared to take a person's life. Again, I won't speculate as if he drew the weapon and then confronted or if he left it sheathed until seconds before using it. I do NOT believe that the student fully assessed the situation or the threat level presented by the intruder when he chose to use a lethal weapon against another human being. On a quick unrelated note: Itigar Your story about being broken into didn't sit well with me at all. I'll break it down as accurately as I can recall: -Father catches and detains intruder (would be thief)- No problems there -Family slaps him around a bit- Again no problems. Hell, he'd probably even spread the message to his thief buddies about the crazy people that live in your neighborhood and that if anyone is looking to do some thieving, to look elsewhere. -Brother takes a (rock?) and bashes the guy in the head? -Starting to have a problem there. Even a rock can be, and has been, used as a deadly weapon but that wasn't you and I don't want to dwell on it. -Cops show up and take your side and try to cover your butts. -I can live with that. -You and 10 of your friends jump this guy!?!? Perhaps you didn't tell the whole story. Perhaps you had caught him in the act of breaking in to your house or someone else's. But as far as I'm reading, you were hanging out with your friends and see this guy walking down the street and decide it would be a fun idea to ambush him and beat him severly for "old times sake?" I wont even go into questioning your intellect or questioning your mental stability. I will just say that the man had already paid for his crimes and if you didn't think he paid enough for what he did then perhaps you need to get involved with writing the laws in your community. Now for the rest of you, go ahead and call me a peace loving hippy that wants to sit around a campfire playing a guitar. All of you have the right to your opinions just as I do and I want to hear exactly how you feel about my stance on this topic, as long as we keep everything in a civilized tone. Some of you have already helped me in other threads, and I am thankful for that help. Like I said before, I'm not looking to make enemies here, I just want to voice my stance. -V Is it lonely up there on your pedestal? (although I did agree about Itigar but I find people liek that aren't worth responding to) I don't agree with the "yay someone died" mentality that a number of posters on this thread seem to have, I also agree with James that a few things bout the statements we were given don't seem to quite add up the way they're supposed to. But this was hardly an upstanding citizen, a very repeat offender, who should've been in jail in the first place but was let off because the key witness was busy fighting a war. Now you talked about owning a lethal weapon and takign responsibility for it and for others... YOu ask me this student did just that. You should not have to wait for someone to brandish a knife or gun in your face before being allowed to defend yourself and others. If the kid had used a 12 ga we wouldn't even be having this conversation in the first place. The only reason this is even news is because a sword and not a shotgun was used, gives it that "exotic twist" all the networks are always looking for. It's also very easy to go "well if i was in that situation I would've responded this way, or I would've done this instead. The way he behaved is deplorable". When you're actually in that situation your mentality can be quite different no matter how much you've tried to prepare mentally for it. There are plenty of people who tlak the big talk who wouldn't have even had the courage to step foot into that garage. So frankly I give him bravery for actually stepping in in an attempt to protect his home, his property, and anyone else in the immediate vicinity of his house. Lets say he just scared the guy away, we can't just assume it woudl've ended there. This burglar could've simply strolled next door grabbed a kitchen knife and slit the throat of everyone he found because he was in a bad mood over a kid showing up with a sword. I say always assume worst case scenario, I've talked to people about the idea of someoene breaking into my home even unarmed... I have a black belt, I assume that whoever is breaking in could be a 8th dan black belt. In that case I'm gonna want a lil extra insurance on my side, despite that its unlikely i'll necessarily be facing someone with the same knowledge or more I just assume not take the chance. If it comes down to my life or the life of someone I love I'm not going to be worried about some low life criminal who shouldn't be out on the streets in the first place. And if you want to play the "he had family too" aspect of it, that doesn't change what he is, and his family needs to accept that he was a low life thug, and not some proud son of society. I don't think taking life should be talked about so lightly, but I feel no sympathy at all towards the burglar. I think the student acted bravely, and assuming the accounts are accurate, he reacted quickly to the best of his ability to diffuse a situation, in this case it was simply a permanent solution. Quite frankly I found a lot of the posts in this thread to be somewhat naive in the attitude and tone. But posts like yours suggest to me that your the same kind of person who passed laws to protect people like the burglar in the first place. I'm sure this kid will be taken to court, hopefully it will be thrown out because it shouldn't be taking to court in the first place. The rights of law abiding citizens should, but rarely do, outweigh the "rights" of law breaking "citizens" Also guys lets face it.... unless you have a really big house with high cielings... a sword is just downright impractical for home defense. A wakizashi at best. Me I'll take my sai, far more suited to self defense, and far more versatile as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2009 12:13:28 GMT
It is your God given right in the Country that this incident occurred to defend yourself. Can we leave religion out of this? This is the 3rd time i have heard someone say "God given right". Its not necessary to inject a piece of faith into every conversation... Thanks ;D
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Stagmer on Sept 16, 2009 12:35:14 GMT
Man that is right in my backyard. I have to say it is a shame that the kid had to do that but I mean he had to. He is lucky that the guy was such a piece of crap. Had it been a teen just pulling a prank or something this could have been awfull.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2009 13:04:58 GMT
If I catch a thief in my yard/home, he is in serious trouble. I've been stolen from numerous times and I'm out in the country. I hate thieves passionately and pity the next bastard that I catch stealing from me. I will beat on him with a vengeance and I will be totally out of my mind. If nobody is there to pull me off, I may not stop. I have guns within reach of my bed, as well as my trusty Shrade Oldtimer glistening sharp on the headboard, a baseball bat sits beside my front door ( and yes, I've used it ). I see in the news every day where home invasions result in deaths and injuries to innocent people. We don't have much in this word except the safety of our homes and property for ourselves and family members. More people need to stand up to the lowlifes who terrorize. I would gladly sign a petition to defend this kid. $.02
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2009 14:06:00 GMT
An interesting range of viewpoints represented here. I'll throw mine in for what they are worth. First, that ex-felon, who was back out robbing homes literally only days after being released from jail-where he had been for theft-took a chance that he could steal and get away with it. Clearly, jail wasn't doing a great job of deterring him. The student, who had been robbed just hours before, probably by the same guy, wanted to see who was out there. Police response being what it is in larger cities, in all probability he would have waited in vain for police to catch the thief. In cases like this, police usually show up in time to make a report and get some coffee. The two encountered one another in the garage-part of the house by legal definition. We are only going to get one side of the story, the other side being beyond deposition or testimony. However, man caught in the act of theft, commits aggravated battery and loses life. On another's property, in the act of committing felony. In the dark. He played a rough game. He lost. As far as I'm concerned, good shoot slash.
On the down side...that kid is going to need counseling. He killed a man close up and personal with a bladed weapon. He's going to see that man's face, watch the blood spurt, and listen to him scream his life away every night in his dreams for a very long time.
My ex-father in law killed a Chinese soldier in Korea in a bayonet fight. He had a Garand and the Chinese had one of those Russian rifles. He still had nightmares about it 40 years later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2009 15:30:05 GMT
A shame on all of you. A man's life was lost over little more then a few hundred bucks in electronics. Sure he was a repeat offender, but does that mean if a man drives over the speed limit enough times it is ok to kill him? Apples to oranges. Your comparison does not work. Speeding is not a violent crime. B&E is. Assault is. The dead guy was guilty of both. Correct on all counts. Where's the bad? The bad is that the student in question, whether he is prosecuted or not, will have to live with the fact that he killed someone. That's not easy to do. But it Is easier than living in constant fear that you cannot protect, and therefor do not in any actuality own, what you have earned through your own hard work. He absolutely did the right thing. He protected himself and his property and made his neighborhood just that little bit safer. It's not sword-owner nirvana. It's homeowner nirvana. The weapon doesn't really matter. Do firearms owners have those weapons because they Want to shoot and kill someone? No. (We are discounting criminals from this equation, because it doesn't matter what weapon they have, they plan to use it) They have them because their desire Not to shoot someone is outweighed by their desire to live and to keep their families safe. Or how about Soldiers? Do they enlist because they WANT to go to war and kill people and see their buddies die and people blown to bits? No. No they don't. The kid heard a noise. That's something that happens all the time. Might be a cat or something. But he wants to know what it is, so he gets up to investigate. He's Scared. He's been robbed before. And he knows how long it takes the cops to show up. The only way he can protect his stuff, that He earned with His hard work is to stop the thief, if there is a thief. The only way he can end his victimhood, he's been Victimized before, remember, is to protect his stuff. The Only way he can heal the psychological damage of being a victim is to Stop being a victim. He's not thinking this consciously. All he knows is he's scared, he's been violated before, and he has a weapon on hand. So he arms himself. And he goes and investigates the noise. And it's a guy robbing him. He draws the guy's attention somehow and the guy attacks him. He swings in self defense. Dead thief. The victim is no longer a victim and no longer has to live in fear. Or he could do what say he should have done: cower in his room with the door locked and call the cops and just Hope that either the cops get there in time or that if someone is in his house, that someone doesn't want to hurt him. And then what if it isn't someone in his house? What if it's just a cat or something? Then he is humiliated when the cops show up and they don't take him seriously next time he calls because "That guy jumps at every little noise." You seriously want people to live in fear like that? Honestly? Or are you just jealous that this kid had the balls to do the right thing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2009 15:46:20 GMT
Mainly, the description of the wounds (at least the way the media reported it, we all know how accurate they can be : would suggest to me a defensive posture, not an offensive one. One nearly severed hand with laceration to the upper body (probably neck/shoulder area) tells me the perp took a defensive posture *arm up shielding body*. You raise a good point. One I am sure any prosecution will, too. However, since there is only the one story and any evidence to go by, that is readily dealt with by the defense: "He lunged at the kid, who struck back, saw the sword coming and tried to block it by raising his arm." An arm that is unencumbered (ie no shield, or anything heavy in the hand) can be raised that quickly. Hell, even if it Is encumbered, a little bit of training allows you to raise it that quickly. And a lunge to get Past someone looks in the dark, to a scared person, the same as a lunge AT that someone. Finally, we don't know at what angle that cut came in. A lunge with hands slightly outstretched to grab the kid could very possibly put that hand in the path of the blow. If the cut was perpendicular to the arm, you have a defensive arm position. An oblique angle says otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2009 16:13:02 GMT
It is your God given right in the Country that this incident occurred to defend yourself. Can we leave religion out of this? This is the 3rd time i have heard someone say "God given right". Its not necessary to inject a piece of faith into every conversation... Its a choice of words that conveys something but I don't think we are really talking religion here James. We are talking about something that is naturally ours without the need for a law written by some beaurocrat to convey it to us. Thats all. If anyone is offended by my use of those words, you have my apologies. Skystone-- You are absolutely correct. Police have no responsibility to protect anyone as individuals. Only to protect society as a whole. The Kalifornia supreme court has already upheld this. In other words, if you call them they do not even have to show up. That's what bothers me when people say "call 911". They have become the answer to "our" problems. We have become a society of sheep. I'm not saying we should be wolves, but there is honor in being the dog that protects its own flock. I work in the 911 system as a fireman. We work with the cops fairly closely.Most of them are really good guys that want to protect everyone in their district as individuals. But its the system and the law I'm talking about, not the guys doing the job. Most of the time the calls have enough information that we won't go into a bad situation without the cops securing the scene first. Sometimes we wait a while before they show up to do that, all the while the victim is unshielded. Sometimes the call doesn't come in with the proper info and we walk into a domestic dispute and things become VERY dangerous. My point here is that the cops are 'RESPONDING' to situations that the citizen is 'ALREADY' in. If it's say a friday night and theres a lot going on, it may be quite a while before they show up. Veldruk-- I don't even know where to begin. Shame on us? For feeling some satisfaction that this bottom dweller is no longer a burden on society and its taxpayers? Maybe you have more money than you need but I would rather put my children into a good college than support a POS like this in a prison that has shown little success in the rehabilitation of its population. I have no desire to take a life, with a sword or any other weapon and I very much doubt that any of our other forum members want to either. In fact, I spend most of my days hoping I'll be up to the challenge of saving one. But I refuse to feel any sympathy for the criminal who died in this instance because of his own choices and I hope the kid who killed him will not have to take on a legal burden as well as the emotional one. Does the habitual speeder need to die? I think the answer to that is obvious but why don't you ask that of someone who has had their child run down in a school zone and see what their answer is. I don't support vigilantism but I do support 100% a mans right to defend his home, his family and his property.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2009 16:14:17 GMT
Sure he was a repeat offender, but does that mean if a man drives over the speed limit enough times it is ok to kill him? -V No offense intended to the poster but this is a totally nonsensical argument. I stopped reading after this.
|
|
|
Post by brotherbanzai on Sept 16, 2009 17:44:48 GMT
Well said Tom.
And well said Sean.
As to the wounds on the burglar appearing defensive... It could also be that he lunged at the kid and mid lunge realized he was going to get hit and raised his arm to defend himself. Or possibly his raised arm was grabbing for the sword. Even if the kid was standing near the door and the burglar was just trying to escape, how could the kid know that for certain? Once the burglar closes with the kid, if the kid doesn't use his weapon when he has the chance, he could find himself in a wrestling match and possibly have his weapon taken and used against him. Of course there is also the possibility that the kid just cut him down like a dog and never felt threatened at all.
Here in Florida, if someone is trying to forcibly and unlawfully enter your home, car, or place of business, you have the right to use deadly force. If someone is already in your home they are assumed to constitute a threat and the use of deadly force is again justified. In addition... "Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:
Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm; Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2009 17:48:30 GMT
Go, Florida.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2009 17:55:06 GMT
Once again, I am glad I live in Oklahoma I have never had a break in to deal with, thank God, but one time I was awakened at night by the sound of somebody approaching my bedroom window, walking across crunchy snow (I am a very light sleeper ) I grab my 12 guage, intending to part the curtains with the end of the barrel to frighten away the would-be intruder. As I jacked a shell into the chamber, suddenly I heard the crunching sound of footsteps again, running away very fast By the time I got to the window, there was nothing to see. The would be intruder obviously had heard and recognized the sound of the shell loading into the chamber and fled in terror
|
|
|
Post by skystone on Sept 16, 2009 18:15:09 GMT
It is your God given right in the Country that this incident occurred to defend yourself. Can we leave religion out of this? This is the 3rd time i have heard someone say "God given right". Its not necessary to inject a piece of faith into every conversation... Thanks ;D Only stating and quoting The Law & Constitution of the United States, as you did in your piece James.. Looks like a touchy thread so I will bow out, but you will have no apologies from me. Thanks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2009 18:32:28 GMT
I keep a Ka-Bar heavy bowie hung on the back of my door aside from my collection in my living room. I dont like guns for my own reasons. Blades don't jam, run out of ammo and are more controlled. Please do not argue your oppinion on guns to me because it was just a statement of personal preference and I don't look down on guns, there just not for me. So save it. I plan on protecting myself and those around me in a defensive way. If that means using my blades then so be it. If it means using a broomstick then so be it. That kid used the object that would BEST defend his life and it so happened to be a sword. Im sure if the kid used a gun it would be a cut and dry case but this just goes to show you how the inintelligent society demonizes bladed tools.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2009 18:43:31 GMT
Ok, I think my overall message might have gotten lost in my disgust for the complacency some of you show over human life.
I'm NOT saying throw the book at the kid and put him away like all the other criminals out there. I'm also not saying "poor thief."
Heck, just reading this story inspired little more then a "What a shame, someone needlessly died" feeling in me. The reason for my "pedestal" was that I hold life in the highest regards and some of the reactions just got my blood boiling.
I know all of us here at SBG forums aren't savage blade wielding barbarians, just waiting for the moment to use it. I could also go so far as to guess that if most of you, in a clear state of mind (not panic, knee jerk, angered ect) had an option to allow someone to live vs. killing them, we'd choose life unless killing them was the only way to protect yourself or your family.
I'm sorry I can't jump on the "protecting his property" bandwagon with the rest of you. Any life is worth more to me than any property... unless that property is supporting life... like a breathing machine or something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2009 18:58:09 GMT
Can we leave religion out of this? This is the 3rd time i have heard someone say "God given right". Its not necessary to inject a piece of faith into every conversation... Thanks ;D Only stating and quoting The Law & Constitution of the United States, as you did in your piece James.. Looks like a touchy thread so I will bow out, but you will have no apologies from me. Thanks I didn't quote the constitution,... and neither did you. Apologizes? No... I asked nicely for you & others to follow forum rules is all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2009 19:54:07 GMT
And now to riposte: who knows what might be the case had the kid left his katana inside. the news report could have been "police seeking suspect in robbery/homocide." If I'm not mistaken, the police did not find a weapon on the intruder. But this is all speculative as to "what might have happened" But I would tend to agree with the scenario that James Gall had presented. It parallels my own in many ways and I am hard pressed to call this death a product of self defense. posts like yours suggest to me that your the same kind of person who passed laws to protect people like the burglar in the first place For the record, if I was king of everything there would be no such law protecting the aggressor against bodily harm. Whether it would be getting cut, shot, bludgeoned ect. My only problem with this story is that the kid did not apply an equal reaction of force, and the more I read what little information we had, this kid might have committed outright murder. But that is not for me to decide. Apples to oranges. Your comparison does not work. Speeding is not a violent crime. B&E is. Assault is. The dead guy was guilty of both. Breaking and entering is not a violent crime. It's a crime against property. Assault is, but I'm not convinced that the kid was lunged at in the first place. But you are right, speeding is a traffic violation (even tho speeding could lead to the death of other motorists and then vehicular manslaughter charges would be brought up) So lets compare B&E, a crime against property, with another crime against property. Vandalism. Do you think vandals should be killed when caught in the act? As for the rest of your counter arguments: -Of course I can see the positive outcomes of this conflict, it doesn't mean I'm happy about a man dying. -When I asked if the rest of you if you are just waiting for the moment to cut someone down, I had answered the rhetorical question on my next line with "I think not" Of course no one is waiting to end another person's life. If they did, well, they'd probably have done it by now. -As to why people own weapons. I own guns because I like to apply a physical force to things like skeet and targets. That is the same reason I have decided to become a sword owner. If a situation arises where I will need to apply a physical force to another person in order to protect my life or the life's of others, then I will. But there is a reason that the first round coming out of my mossberg is a 'bean bag' round. And no, I don't think that people need to cower in their homes while outlaws roam free. People have a right to defend themselves however they choose. I'm just not convinced that this kid was defending his life. shoboshi- If the intruder had a weapon or if there had been more evidence that this kid felt his life was literally about to end at the hands of this intruder, then hell yeah, I'd be right there with the rest of you singing songs on this kid's praises. Hell, lets take a made up scenario. Guy A breaks into Guy B's house with a gun. Guy B kills Guy A in his house. Yay Guy B. To me, Guy A had made the decision that he was ready to end a life by brining a gun with him. So that right there proves intend to hard or kill. So well done Guy B for defending yourself. As far as our system of punishment for repeat offenders? Yeah, it's screwed up. "Instead of 3 strikes you're out", I think it should be "3 strikes and you get a hand chopped off... do it again and we'll take the other one and give you a spoon in it's place" ChrisA- Yeah, as I stated previously, I should have compared crimes against property. I'll go and fix it in my OP.
|
|