Would you kill kill an intruder?

[Separatist Peoples]

Why else carry that knife in what he is doing if not to defend himself? And you underestimate the lethality of a knife. I know several individuals that could come out on top of that particular fight when armed with only a knife.

I carry a knife wherever I go. If I needed to open and chisel shit all the time, such as a burglar does, then I'd have even more cause to carry one.

Either way, even if the knife is there for defense, you have no cause to shoot him, since he wasn't intending to murder you or anything, but rather only had a knife to combat lethal efforts made against him.

All the more reason to interpret it as a threat.

And if he has the knife for defense, your argument might hold water, except for the fact that he is breaking into my house. Any tool of self defense he has on him has now become a certifiable threat.

[Lessnt]

You never know if he may have another hidden weapon.

Why would he use it?

You never know how people will react to a gun pointed at them.

[Kreanoltha]

You either really love your stuff or don't give a shit about rape and murder.

Is it so bad to hold my property to a higher point of value then I hold the lives of those who would hurt me and steal my property? That seems, to me, acceptable.

I'm liking your arguments right now.

True. What I do know is that they broke into my home, and they appear to be stealing. They're criminals. It would be naive and stupid to assume they they aren't armed. I'm dealing with an armed intruder. I'm going to blow his fucking head off.

I wouldn't, not unless there were multiple. I'd tell the guy to put his hands up, but I can see how you feel. However, the OP made it clear that the intruder is armed with a knife and you're armed with a gun, so the whole "he's armed!" argument is kinda worthless, since his armament isn't effective, and you don't even know if he's carrying that knife to use on people.

So you would assume that the criminal doesn't know how to use his weapons or that he's not concealing weapons? I'll send flowers to your funeral.

Except we have the right to protect ourselves. We don't know what the criminals are thinking, we don't know if they are armed and trying to trick us, or just drunk and in the wrong house. How do you be sure? Shoot em, and let God sort em out. That way our property is protected, our lives are protected, and the criminal is unable to do any damage to me or my family. I honestly don't get whats so hard to grasp about the concept.

One man is dead and our constitution is violated when that probebly been avoided with the same good outcome. I honestly don't get what's so hard to grasp about the concept.

Hey about your right to bear arms? That's the right to bear a barrel loading musket, not a machine gun.

My right to bear arms extends to all weapons used by the US government and it's affiliates.

[Des-Bal]

Why would he use it?

That's not my concern, you can't presume to know the mindset or intentions of criminals you can only respond to the situation.

[The Parkus Empire]

All the more reason to interpret it as a threat.

Not really. Knives are very useful tools, especially for people who open shit.

And if he has the knife for defense, your argument might hold water, except for the fact that he is breaking into my house. Any tool of self defense he has on him has now become a certifiable threat.

Not unless you plan to harm him, which unfortunately you do.

[Kreanoltha]

How is that a logical rebuttal?

He says that they aren't entitled to the right of a fair trial. I say he doesn't have the right to shoot someone on his property, for any reason. Both are nonsensical.

I never said that he's not entitled to a fair trial. I said that I'm entitled to shoot intruders in most states.

[Natty Narwhal]

I'd probably let him pass through and take what he wants. I have nothing valuable or irreplaceable.

[Seperates]

Ah all the Die-Hard wannabe's... I just love NSG.

[Separatist Peoples]

Except we have the right to protect ourselves. We don't know what the criminals are thinking, we don't know if they are armed and trying to trick us, or just drunk and in the wrong house. How do you be sure? Shoot em, and let God sort em out. That way our property is protected, our lives are protected, and the criminal is unable to do any damage to me or my family. I honestly don't get whats so hard to grasp about the concept.

One man is dead and our constitution is violated when that probebly been avoided with the same good outcome. I honestly don't get what's so hard to grasp about the concept.

Hey about your right to bear arms? That's the right to bear a barrel loading musket, not a machine gun.

Funnily enough, the right isnt specified in the Constitution. Ergo, it does extend to a machine gun. And if you disagree, then the BATF's Class 3 Weapons Permit disagrees with you.

And one man is dead, yes, but he died attempting to violate another's rights. If you are ok letting him steal from you, you can let him live. But I will be taking the necessary steps to protect my life, my family, and my property.

[Seperates]

He says that they aren't entitled to the right of a fair trial. I say he doesn't have the right to shoot someone on his property, for any reason. Both are nonsensical.

I never said that he's not entitled to a fair trial. I said that I'm entitled to shoot intruders in most states.

Yup, making you the judge, the jury, and the excutioner.

His right to a fair trial overrides your right to shoot SURRENDERING inturders.

[Kreanoltha]

All the more reason to interpret it as a threat.

Not really. Knives are very useful tools, especially for people who open shit.

They're also effective weapons in skilled hands. I can not safely assume his skill with a knife so I must assume that he is a master.

And if he has the knife for defense, your argument might hold water, except for the fact that he is breaking into my house. Any tool of self defense he has on him has now become a certifiable threat.

Not unless you plan to harm him, which unfortunately you do.

Well he's already harmed me by breaking into my home and entering. Therefore, it's a threat to me no matter what. I can't safely assume to know what he'll do if he sees me.

[Phonencia]

however if the intruder attacked me or one of my family members I can safely say I'd double tap him in the chest...

Only a double tap? Dude might be high on PCP or some shit. Hence the rule of 'Shoot to Stop'. Shoot him until he stops coming towards you. If that means he's dead, oh well.

lol, good point, there is a large amount of meth monkies and crack heads in my states to worry about,
but for starters I'd prolly just double tap him, if for whatever reason the shots were ineffective I would continue to shoot him and if I were close enough I'd prolly give him one in the head. it's best to attempt to be lethal during self defense because if you shoot someone trying to harm you and they DON'T die it'll cause plenty of problems for you. Even moreso if you shoot them after they're down because they didn't die instantly. of course if I did shoot the guy and he didn't die I'd try my best to stop the bleeding and keep him alive until help arrived. unfortunately, I have absolutely no medical knowledge or training (something I should work on) so I'll prolly just be able to SLOW the bleeding by clasping my hand tightly over the entry wound to prevent blood loss. anyhoo, thats my two cents.

[Separatist Peoples]

I never said that he's not entitled to a fair trial. I said that I'm entitled to shoot intruders in most states.

Yup, making you the judge, the jury, and the excutioner.

His right to a fair trial overrides your right to shoot SURRENDERING inturders.

He is lying dead on my floor. I'm standing over him with a smoking gun. He has clearly broken into my house. Prove he surrendered.

[Norstal]

Castle laws have been in many states for years now, as we all know. Also the general answer you will get from cops about if you shuld shoot to kill is "kill them, they cant sue if they are dead"

So, here is the scenario. You live in a state where it is legal to shoot and or kill a tresspasser. One day a robber breaks into your house and starts stripping it to the walls. You notice the robber also has a large knife.

Assuming the robber doesnt want to kill you unless he knows he has been caught

You have a gun. Assuming the robber doesnt want to kill you unless he knows he has been caught, do you shoot to kill, shoot to wound, or let him strip your house to the walls?



Personally, id probably shoot to kill. He is armed and poses a threat. he is also trying to steal everything ive ever owned for the express purpose of getting money.

Shoot to wound, then interrogate. Shooting to kill is irrational, unless a death threat is forced upon you or another member of the household.

I mean, really folks, shooting to kill is stupid. You could probably get a bounty on the robber or something if you just wound them.

[Geniasis]

If I was trying to rob someone, chances are I wouldn't be going in wanting to kill. After all, that severely increases the severity of the crime. It's likely that most cases where it happens involve the assailant panicking a bit and making the situation a lot worse than intended. Furthermore, if I was threatened with a gun and told to leave, I would. I value my own life. I doubt I would try to regroup and go back either, doubtless the would-be victim is calling the police. Even if I did sneak up on him, that wouldn't leave me much of an opportunity to do anything but get get arrested. I'd probably take the opportunity to get as much of a head-start as possible to get away.

If you're in the house, you have already committed a crime. Therefore it would behoove the person with the gun to make sure that you do NOT leave. PREFERABLY by having you throw whatever weapon to the side and lie down on the floor until the police arrive. If ya run, hope yer good with driving on two flats.

'course, if ya don't have the car/van/etc parked right outside, and just run off climbing over fences and stuff, well, enjoy the adrenaline rush. The folks in my neighborhood like raising pitbulls. Apparently as guard dogs, for all the barking and snarling they do. I won't shoot you, though. You cease to be a threat the moment you're running away.

Ah, but what would it be to me at that point? In such a situation my concern for my well-being trumps any concerns I have for the law. Restraining him while calling the police would be troublesome, particularly if I lived alone. Chasing him off achieves the same goal.

[Kreanoltha]

I never said that he's not entitled to a fair trial. I said that I'm entitled to shoot intruders in most states.

Yup, making you the judge, the jury, and the excutioner.

His right to a fair trial overrides your right to shoot SURRENDERING inturders.

Even if he has surrendered he's still a threat to me and my safety! I look away for a second and I could have a knife in my chest! I'm not taking that chance.

[Seperates]

One man is dead and our constitution is violated when that probebly been avoided with the same good outcome. I honestly don't get what's so hard to grasp about the concept.

Hey about your right to bear arms? That's the right to bear a barrel loading musket, not a machine gun.

Funnily enough, the right isnt specified in the Constitution. Ergo, it does extend to a machine gun. And if you disagree, then the BATF's Class 3 Weapons Permit disagrees with you.

And one man is dead, yes, but he died attempting to violate another's rights. If you are ok letting him steal from you, you can let him live. But I will be taking the necessary steps to protect my life, my family, and my property.

True enough, but that is what it was meant for at the time, if we choose to look at it from the Founding Father's perspective. Oh, Goody, but once he has surrendered he has stopped violating your rights and anything you do to kill him has violated his right to a fair trial.

[Seperates]

Yup, making you the judge, the jury, and the excutioner.

His right to a fair trial overrides your right to shoot SURRENDERING inturders.

Even if he has surrendered he's still a threat to me and my safety! I look away for a second and I could have a knife in my chest! I'm not taking that chance.

What an insecure man you are... Freud would be having a field day with this one.

[Separatist Peoples]

Funnily enough, the right isnt specified in the Constitution. Ergo, it does extend to a machine gun. And if you disagree, then the BATF's Class 3 Weapons Permit disagrees with you.

And one man is dead, yes, but he died attempting to violate another's rights. If you are ok letting him steal from you, you can let him live. But I will be taking the necessary steps to protect my life, my family, and my property.

True enough, but that is what it was meant for at the time, if we choose to look at it from the Founding Father's perspective. Oh, Goody, but once he has surrendered he has stopped violating your rights and anything you do to kill him has violated his right to a fair trial.

How do you know that? How do you know he isn't planning on catching you off guard? Or that his buddy is somewhere nearby, and he is waiting for the opportunity to turn the tables on you?

[Lessnt]

Even if he has surrendered he's still a threat to me and my safety! I look away for a second and I could have a knife in my chest! I'm not taking that chance.

What an insecure man you are... Freud would be having a field day with this one.

I am incredibly insecure.
Which is why shooting first makes a ton of people feel better.

[Des-Bal]

Shoot to wound, then interrogate. Shooting to kill is irrational, unless a death threat is forced upon you or another member of the household.

I mean, really folks, shooting to kill is stupid. You could probably get a bounty on the robber or something if you just wound them.

Ow, OW! That was so stupid it hurt! 1. You can't injure and interrogate people that's unlawful imprisonment. 2. nobody will ever advise you to wound someone because it's more difficult and even if you hit them in a non lethal zone bleeding is a significant risk.

[Wikkiwallana]

I think your discounting exactly how bad things get. Most people don't get their food and clothing from the government, they do however get their protection from the police. After the 2005 hurricanes decided to run train on florida the cops caught a man with a cloth sack, a coil of rope, and a hunting knife skulking around my neighbors back yard.

Okay, so let your neighbor blow him away if he poses any sort of threat. Still no need for the cops there. And it's not as if they're doing anything a private security firm couldn't do anyway.

And now people are supposed to be aware of everything that happens on their property 24/7? They can't sleep or focus their attention on any one task other than CONSTANT VIGILANCE?

[Kreanoltha]

Yup, making you the judge, the jury, and the excutioner.

His right to a fair trial overrides your right to shoot SURRENDERING inturders.

He is lying dead on my floor. I'm standing over him with a smoking gun. He has clearly broken into my house. Prove he surrendered.

If I were a girl I'd say something like, "My hero!" I'll just post some clapping smilies:

[Godular]

If you're in the house, you have already committed a crime. Therefore it would behoove the person with the gun to make sure that you do NOT leave. PREFERABLY by having you throw whatever weapon to the side and lie down on the floor until the police arrive. If ya run, hope yer good with driving on two flats.

'course, if ya don't have the car/van/etc parked right outside, and just run off climbing over fences and stuff, well, enjoy the adrenaline rush. The folks in my neighborhood like raising pitbulls. Apparently as guard dogs, for all the barking and snarling they do. I won't shoot you, though. You cease to be a threat the moment you're running away.

Ah, but what would it be to me at that point? In such a situation my concern for my well-being trumps any concerns I have for the law. Restraining him while calling the police would be troublesome, particularly if I lived alone. Chasing him off achieves the same goal.

I would not restrain him. I would simply tell him that if he gets up, he will be a threat, and a threat will be dealt with. As I said, if he runs rather than hits the floor, I'll put a couple rounds in his tires or let him disappear over the fences. The whole point of the situation is to not let him get a chance to disarm YOU. if that happens, you're dead.

[Natty Narwhal]

Yup, making you the judge, the jury, and the excutioner.

His right to a fair trial overrides your right to shoot SURRENDERING inturders.

Even if he has surrendered he's still a threat to me and my safety! I look away for a second and I could have a knife in my chest! I'm not taking that chance.

Everyone is a threat to you; anyone, at any moment, could stab you.