Would you kill an intruder?

[Tubbsalot]

And without editing them too!

Tubs: I have bolded the relevant definitions: The intruder is not MAKING threats. The Intruder IS a threat.

Are you implying that I edited my definitions? I didn't.

If threat had been used as a noun in the first place, that would be true, but it wasn't. So it's not applicable here.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

threat·en [thret-n]
verb (used with object)
1. to utter a threat against; menace: He threatened the boy with a beating.
2. to be a menace or source of danger to: Sickness threatened her peace of mind.
3. to offer (a punishment, injury, etc.) by way of a threat: They threatened swift retaliation.
4. to give an ominous indication of: The clouds threaten rain.

See? I can quote dictionary entries too!

Since those entries agree with me, I'm not sure what your point is.

One and three agree with you, yes. Two and four, as well as the third in my posted definition for threat, agree with me.

[Big Jim P]

threat·en [thret-n]
verb (used with object)
1. to utter a threat against; menace: He threatened the boy with a beating.
2. to be a menace or source of danger to: Sickness threatened her peace of mind.
3. to offer (a punishment, injury, etc.) by way of a threat: They threatened swift retaliation.
4. to give an ominous indication of: The clouds threaten rain.

See? I can quote dictionary entries too!

Since those entries agree with me, I'm not sure what your point is.

If there was no intent to harm then the intruder wouldn't be armed, and actions, in this case the breaking into a house, is a form of expression.

Really? For goodness sake. "They're armed, they must be planning to attack someone without provokation!" "He's looking at her suggestively, he must be planning to rape her!" You can't think of any other possible explanation for their being armed?

Breaking into a house and stealing things is expressing that you're a thief. Unless you can find a way to twist that into expressing that they're an evil murderer, I don't see the relevance.

They don't need to be an evil murderer. The fact that they are thieves, and breaking into you home is sufficient reason to use lethal force. They have made themselves a threat to your well being by breaking into you home and as I posted earlier: anyone not willing to stand up and defend themselves, their property and their loved ones is not worthy of any consideration or respect.

[Tubbsalot]

Since those entries agree with me, I'm not sure what your point is.

One and three agree with you, yes. Two and four, as well as the third in my posted definition for threat, agree with me.

Not at all. As mentioned, the noun definition of threat isn't relevant, because I wasn't talking about that in the first place. Otherwise you'd be totally correct.

"2. to be a menace or source of danger to: Sickness threatened her peace of mind." In this definition, the sickness has already begun to harm the woman mentioned. That is why it qualifies as threatening.

"4. to give an ominous indication of: The clouds threaten rain." In this definition, the threat is clearly communicated through the appearance of the clouds, which is why it's considered threatening. This is a slightly different case of definitions one and three.

[Tubbsalot]

They don't need to be an evil murderer. The fact that they are thieves, and breaking into you home is sufficient reason to use lethal force.

Mm yeah this is more of an opinion than some sort of universal axiom. Most people and most countries in the world would disagree that needlessly killing an intruder is kosher.

But the main point remains that they demonstrated no intent to harm.

[Big Jim P]

They don't need to be an evil murderer. The fact that they are thieves, and breaking into you home is sufficient reason to use lethal force.

Mm yeah this is more of an opinion than some sort of universal axiom. Most people and most countries in the world would disagree that needlessly killing an intruder is kosher.

But the main point remains that they demonstrated no intent to harm.

Yes they have: They have broken into your home.

Edit: That in and of itself is harm and an expression of intent towards further harm.

[Samuraikoku]

Then they would have had to have been invited to enter the house.

Let the Right One In.

Now, if it was a zombie that would be a different kettle of fish. Though killing the undead is a grey area...

"What, you're afraid to hurt their feelings? They're DEAD. Well, as dead as they can be before they're reanimated and put back to work again..."

Morte, Planescape: Torment

[Tubbsalot]

But the main point remains that they demonstrated no intent to harm.

Yes they have: They have broken into your home.

Edit: That in and of itself is harm and an expression of intent towards further harm.

That demonstrates an intent to gain access to your home. Explain how this demonstrates an intent to attack the occupant(s) without provocation.

[Galla-]

Since those entries agree with me, I'm not sure what your point is.


Really? For goodness sake. "They're armed, they must be planning to attack someone without provokation!" "He's looking at her suggestively, he must be planning to rape her!" You can't think of any other possible explanation for their being armed?

Breaking into a house and stealing things is expressing that you're a thief. Unless you can find a way to twist that into expressing that they're an evil murderer, I don't see the relevance.

They don't need to be an evil murderer. The fact that they are thieves, and breaking into you home is sufficient reason to use lethal force. They have made themselves a threat to your well being by breaking into you home and as I posted earlier: anyone not willing to stand up and defend themselves, their property and their loved ones is not worthy of any consideration or respect.

Truth spake.

[Big Jim P]

But the main point remains that they demonstrated no intent to harm.

Yes they have: They have broken into your home.

That demonstrates an intent to gain access to your home. Explain how this demonstrates an intent to attack the occupant(s) without provocation.[/quote]

It is an attack on the security of the occupants in and of itself, and any damage they do in breaking in is harm.

[Tubbsalot]

It is an attack on the security of the occupants in and of itself, and any damage they do in breaking in is harm.

I'm not interested in arguing about whose entirely subjective opinion is factually correct, so I'm going to reiterate my request for you to explain how breaking and entering demonstrates an intent to attack the occupant(s) without provocation.

[Big Jim P]

It is an attack on the security of the occupants in and of itself, and any damage they do in breaking in is harm.

I'm not interested in arguing about whose entirely subjective opinion is factually correct, so I'm going to reiterate my request for you to explain how breaking and entering demonstrates an intent to attack the occupant(s) without provocation.

Irrelevant. The breaking in has already caused harm, and is sufficient reason to use lethal force.

[Tubbsalot]

I'm not interested in arguing about whose entirely subjective opinion is factually correct, so I'm going to reiterate my request for you to explain how breaking and entering demonstrates an intent to attack the occupant(s) without provocation.

Irrelevant. The breaking in has already caused harm, and is sufficient reason to use lethal force.

Okay yeah see that's just your subjective opinion, being stated for the third time. I would disagree with your assertion, but I'm still not interested in thrashing out whose opinion is factually correct.

So unless you're going to explain how breaking and entering demonstrates an intent to attack the occupant(s) without provocation, as you asserted, I'm not seeing a lot coming out of this conversation.

[Big Jim P]

Irrelevant. The breaking in has already caused harm, and is sufficient reason to use lethal force.

Okay yeah see that's just your subjective opinion, being stated for the third time. I would disagree with your assertion, but I'm still not interested in thrashing out whose opinion is factually correct.

So unless you're going to explain how breaking and entering demonstrates an intent to attack the occupant(s) without provocation, as you asserted, I'm not seeing a lot coming out of this conversation.

No, nothing is likely to come out of this conversation. You refuse to see that someone breaking in is a threat in and of itself. I am guessing from you psots that you are one of those unwilling to defend themselves, their property or their loved ones.

[The Republic of Lerasia]

Guys it's simple ok? If an armed intruder enters your premises illegally then we do the following: we shower them with lots of love and understanding. He is obviously just carrying the knife as a form of self-expression or maybe he just likes to float in and out of windows at odd hours carrying a knife, who are we to judge. So, to conclude, when this scenario plays itself out in your home, try and show a little care and compassion to towards this poor misguided soul who has no concept of personal property or the implications of breaking into a home, at odd hours, which may or may not be occupied at the time by completely irrational people with concerns for the safety of said property or their loved ones. That way, if all your shit gets stolen or your family comes to harm (remember this may or may not happen, wait for a CLEAR indication), you can stand in your empty home or a pool of your wife or children's blood and feel all warm and fuzzy inside, knowing that you took the moral high ground.

[The Jahistic Unified Republic]

Yes.

[Tubbsalot]

No, nothing is likely to come out of this conversation. You refuse to see that someone breaking in is a threat in and of itself. I am guessing from you psots that you are one of those unwilling to defend themselves, their property or their loved ones.

Mm actually I've already stated that I would indeed defend my property, just not by immediately shooting dead the intruder.

you can stand in your empty home or a pool of your wife or children's blood and feel all warm and fuzzy inside, knowing that you took the moral high ground.

Yes, immediately murdering an intruder is the only imaginable way to avoid the death of everyone you love. You have convinced me and probably everyone else reading.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

One and three agree with you, yes. Two and four, as well as the third in my posted definition for threat, agree with me.

Not at all. As mentioned, the noun definition of threat isn't relevant, because I wasn't talking about that in the first place. Otherwise you'd be totally correct.

"2. to be a menace or source of danger to: Sickness threatened her peace of mind." In this definition, the sickness has already begun to harm the woman mentioned. That is why it qualifies as threatening.

Quibbling based off of the example given. An armed intruder most certainly is menacing and a source of danger.

"4. to give an ominous indication of: The clouds threaten rain." In this definition, the threat is clearly communicated through the appearance of the clouds, which is why it's considered threatening. This is a slightly different case of definitions one and three.

It is not at all the same; one and three require verbal or written communication of intent; four merely requires that its nature as a threat be apparent. Which it, you know, is since you have an armed intruder who has broken into your property, and a robber isn't likely to arm themselves unless they're willing to use the weapon, precisely because possessing a weapon is an explicit demonstration of danger.

[The Republic of Lerasia]

No, no Tubs, you misunderstand, I also added that you should reason with them. After all, doing what he's doing is the behaviour of a completely rational human being, why would he not want to get into a discourse with you concerning the wrongness or rightness of his actions? So by all means, reason with them if this ever happens to you, maybe you can even take his weapon away in a soothing, non-threatening way. Hope that works out for you I really do. I'm going to stick with good old pro-active threat removal here, hope that's okay with you. My moral compass has never been one of the straightest anyhow.

[Tubbsalot]

"2. to be a menace or source of danger to: Sickness threatened her peace of mind." In this definition, the sickness has already begun to harm the woman mentioned. That is why it qualifies as threatening.

Quibbling based off of the example given. An armed intruder most certainly is menacing and a source of danger.

So presumably you'd say that if a drunk driver went past, you'd accuse him of threatening you? Just having the potential to cause harm does not mean something has threatened you.

Of course, since you have a gun in this example, it's more like a drunk driver going past your fully operational tank, and you shelling the car for its impudent threats.

"4. to give an ominous indication of: The clouds threaten rain." In this definition, the threat is clearly communicated through the appearance of the clouds, which is why it's considered threatening. This is a slightly different case of definitions one and three.

It is not at all the same; one and three require verbal or written communication of intent; four merely requires that its nature as a threat be apparent. Which it, you know, is since you have an armed intruder who has broken into your property, and a robber isn't likely to arm themselves unless they're willing to use the weapon, precisely because possessing a weapon is an explicit demonstration of danger.

See previous reply to Big Jim: can you seriously not think of one possible reason that a thief might arm themselves other than to attack you without provocation?

[Samuraikoku]

I'm going to stick with good old pro-active threat removal here, hope that's okay with you. My moral compass has never been one of the straightest anyhow.

That last sentence actually contradicts the "hope that's okay with you".

[The Republic of Lerasia]

See previous reply to Big Jim: can you seriously not think of one possible reason that a thief might arm themselves other than to attack you without provocation?

Oh I dunno, okay why would a thief be armed when breaking into my home?

[Cromarty]

See previous reply to Big Jim: can you seriously not think of one possible reason that a thief might arm themselves other than to attack you without provocation?

Oh I dunno, okay why would a thief be armed when breaking into my home?

Self-preservation. With so many wannabe murderers around, he'd be stupid not to.

[Tubbsalot]

blah blah blah

I'm not about to waste time talking to someone who speaks in strawmen.

Oh I dunno, okay why would a thief be armed when breaking into my home?

For defence, in case they're attacked by the homeowner.

[The Republic of Lerasia]

That last sentence actually contradicts the "hope that's okay with you".

Sarcasm. I know it's a low form of wit but it's the only one I have.