Would you kill kill an intruder?

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

How is the concern for one's safety make somebody insecure?

[Wikkiwallana]

So? He's still a human being and he only has one life. You DO NOT have a right to decide about someone else's life.

Criminals do, apparently. There was a serial killer here who repeatedly got in theft and killed three people who woke up as he stole stuff by slitting their throats.

When the guy has a big knife and he's in your house stealing stuff, you have the right to shoot him. He poses a threat to your life and your property.

Or you'll just get raped by an intruder who just jumped in your house and stole your LCD Television. Was it worth it? I doubt it.

Being a criminal was his choice, he chose to take the risks. He chose the way where he could get killed, or kill while doing his ''job''.

And he lost the dice roll.

If he's slitting your throat if you wake up, how do you have time to get to the gun?

[Norstal]

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.

Until they wake up the neighbors and the property value goes down because you committed a manslaughter or possibly murder in your house.

[Ifreann]

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.

His accomplice outside heard him surrender and will testify to that in court. Quick, run outside and kill him too!

[Seperates]

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 he was lying on the ground at the time, he probebly surrendered. If it's execution style, it's likely he surrendered.

[Des-Bal]

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?

"You can't presume to know the intentions of criminals" that goes both ways. If he surrenders it is no longer your right to shoot.

[Kreanoltha]

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'm insecure when I'm told I can't protect myself. I'm plenty secure when I am protecting myself though.

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

His accomplice outside heard him surrender and will testify to that in court. Quick, run outside and kill him too!

If he has one. Its a risk you gotta take. But if his buddy testifies that, and I shot him because, despite "surrendering", he still posed a credible threat, I'm still in the right.

[Norstal]

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

How is the concern for one's safety make somebody insecure?

Because everything is a threat to your safety. Why are you not scared of outside radiation, but you're scared of a surrendering robber?

[Meryuma]

I'd kill them if they seriously threatened me, I wouldn't kill them for intruding.

[Des-Bal]

If he has one. Its a risk you gotta take. But if his buddy testifies that, and I shot him because, despite "surrendering", he still posed a credible threat, I'm still in the right.

No your not, you can't kill a person while their surrendering. There really isn't a situation where that isn't true.

[Separatist Peoples]

How is the concern for one's safety make somebody insecure?

Because everything is a threat to your safety. Why are you not scared of outside radiation, but you're scared of a surrendering robber?

Why should I trust the surrender of a thief? How do I know he isn't trying to do something to get the advantage over me? Besides, I wouldn't let him surrender. I'd shoot as soon as I realized that he wasn't a member of my family looking for a glass of water or something.

[Des-Bal]

Why should I trust the surrender of a thief? How do I know he isn't trying to do something to get the advantage over me? Besides, I wouldn't let him surrender. I'd shoot as soon as I realized that he wasn't a member of my family looking for a glass of water or something.

You can do that, you don't have to declare intent in your own home.

[Ifreann]

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.

Though, you'd have to be some kind of master marksman to reliably be able to shoot someone non-lethally. Such is my understanding, at least.

[Grinning Dragon]

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

Hmmm, where does it say that? There is no such provision or not even the intent of the Enumerated Right in the 2nd Amendment.

[Norstal]

Because everything is a threat to your safety. Why are you not scared of outside radiation, but you're scared of a surrendering robber?

Why should I trust the surrender of a thief? How do I know he isn't trying to do something to get the advantage over me? Besides, I wouldn't let him surrender. I'd shoot as soon as I realized that he wasn't a member of my family looking for a glass of water or something.

Why not take their fucking weapon, chase them away, and let them live? What purpose is there to kill a surrendering thief? You might even get charged for murder.

There's already enough grief in the world and you're adding more to it. Why?

[Seperates]

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

How is the concern for one's safety make somebody insecure?

It's like talking with paranoid schizophrenic...

*twitchs* But... the egg salad has a knife and the butter of peanuts *twitch* The aliens are coming for the Second coming of Jesus. Seriously, if criminals were that smart, would they have to resort to crime?

[Geniasis]

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.

If I tell him to turn and run, and he does, he's not really going to be able to disable me, is he?

[AETEN II]

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.

Though, you'd have to be some kind of master marksman to reliably be able to shoot someone non-lethally. Such is my understanding, at least.

A foot shot ain't hard.

[Separatist Peoples]

Why should I trust the surrender of a thief? How do I know he isn't trying to do something to get the advantage over me? Besides, I wouldn't let him surrender. I'd shoot as soon as I realized that he wasn't a member of my family looking for a glass of water or something.

You can do that, you don't have to declare intent in your own home.

I know. Thats what I would do. Thats why I said it. I will never have to deal with a "surrendering" thief. I will only have to deal with a dead thief, or a thief that manages to kill me.

[The Parkus Empire]

They're also effective weapons in skilled hands.

Yeah, so is a crowbar.

I can not safely assume his skill with a knife so I must assume that he is a master.

He might also be a master of Rex Kwon Do, so what?

Well he's already harmed me by breaking into my home and entering.

No he hasn't, he's harmed your property. There's a difference.

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.

Not much if you're pointing a gun at him and asking him to leave.

[Norstal]

Though, you'd have to be some kind of master marksman to reliably be able to shoot someone non-lethally. Such is my understanding, at least.

I do hope that if you plan to own a gun, you go to a shooting range and practice.

[Godular]

In regards to shooting to wound. You don't do it. You run the risk of missing and harming others in your wild firing. The rule is shoot to stop. The difference between shoot to kill is that you are only shooting enough to remove the opponent as a threat. If he's dead, so be it, if he turns and runs away, he stops being a threat and firing into his back turns your home defense effort into a manslaughter charge.

[Separatist Peoples]

How is the concern for one's safety make somebody insecure?

It's like talking with paranoid schizophrenic...

*twitchs* But... the egg salad has a knife and the butter of peanuts *twitch* The aliens are coming for the Second coming of Jesus. Seriously, if criminals were that smart, would they have to resort to crime?

What? Intelligence has little to do with crime. Intelligent criminals exist all over the place. Besides, that doesn't even make sense. The concern for one's safety does not make one insecure. That has nothing to do with intelligence.

[Seperates]

You can do that, you don't have to declare intent in your own home.

I know. Thats what I would do. Thats why I said it. I will never have to deal with a "surrendering" thief. I will only have to deal with a dead thief, or a thief that manages to kill me.

I can't wait until someone sues you for murder...