NationStates

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:54 am**

Big Jim P wrote:
Free South Califas wrote:
Ah, thanks for clarifying. You said "any" consideration or respect earlier. Pretty different IMHO, sorry if this comes across as nitpicking.

Any consideration from me. Or any other adult.

Oh yes, of course that's what you meant...

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:40 am**

Azakhia wrote:
Cannot think of a name wrote:I don't go around trying to find scenarios where I would be 'willing' to kill someone.

Must be something wrong with me.

I don't go looking for them either. Just that I refuse to be a victim, since in the US we are not entitled to police protection.

I'm reminded of what this cat said once-

Mercucio wrote:Thou art like one of those fellows that, when he enters the confines of a tavern, claps me his sword upon the table and says “God send me no need of thee!” and, by the operation of the second cup, draws it on the drawer when indeed there is no need.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:52 am**

Im a bit cruel but, if its a he, Id feed a hot lead burger to the face. If its a she, I'd tase her and capture her, then torture her. Im cruel huh. After Im done, Ill call the cops, although, by that time the robber would be dead already. So, warning to robbers out there, dont come to my house if you want to live longer.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:58 am**

You would torture someone and then call the cops? You must like spending time with cops.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:44 am**

Trotskylvania wrote:
Spiritwolf wrote:Overkill is still a kill...........

It's also going to make the cop's pretty unwilling to buy your self-defense story.

When they find you on the ground, out of breath, sitting in a pile of gore that used to be an intruder, they're gonna be pretty unwilling to do anything but shoot you in the face. One would hope they'd have a bit more restraint than to actually do it, but still.

Galloism wrote:
Neo Arcad wrote:
lolno

Obviously, I wouldn't spin it like that. He was attempting to attack me, he must not have seen my gun or something, and I just had to think fast and stop him, so I put one through his skull. Who's going to present contrary eyewitness accounts? Deadington McSkullfucked? I don't think so. I'd get off with self-defense easily.

And have to live with the knowledge of what you did.

The investigation, trial (if it occurs), and press is the easy part.

The hard part is where you drink just to sleep because you can't sleep without it.

You say that as though drinking yourself to sleep is a bad thing.

New Rogernomics wrote:No, unless they are members of the Westboro Baptist Church.

"I had to shoot him, your honour, he was carrying a 'GOD HATES FAGS' placard"

Cannot think of a name wrote:I don't go around trying to find scenarios where I would be 'willing' to kill someone.

Must be something wrong with me.

Maybe you caught Euro-itis from Wittig.

Cannot think of a name wrote:
Azakhia wrote:
I don't go looking for them either. Just that I refuse to be a victim, since in the US we are not entitled to police protection.

I'm reminded of what this cat said once-
Mercucio wrote:Thou art like one of those fellows that, when he enters the confines of a tavern, claps me his sword upon the table and says “God send me no need of thee!” and, by the operation of the second cup, draws it on the drawer when indeed there is no need.

I thought Tybalt was the one named after a cat....

Quapaw Republic wrote:Im a bit cruel but, if its a he, Id feed a hot lead burger to the face. If its a she, I'd tase her and capture her, then torture her. Im cruel huh. After Im done, Ill call the cops, although, by that time the robber would be dead already. So, warning to robbers out there, dont come to my house if you want to live longer.

Comes off more juvenile than cruel.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:48 am**

Probably not, especially since I lack any sort of means to do so.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:02 am**

Cromarty wrote:The law in most civilised places disagrees with you. Force has to be reasonable. The moment it goes beyond that, then it's murder.

Castle Doctrine (The very basis of this thread) specifically states that if someone is in your house (some places may be extended to your whole property as well) you have the right to respond, fatally if needed. If someone breaks into your house with a gun or knife and you legitimately fear for your life or the life of your family, you are free to fire at will. You cannot and will not be legally charged. This also prevents the perp, if he lives, from suing you for shooting him.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:05 am**

United States of PA wrote:
Cromarty wrote:The law in most civilised places disagrees with you. Force has to be reasonable. The moment it goes beyond that, then it's murder.

Castle Doctrine (The very basis of this thread) specifically states that if someone is in your house (some places may be extended to your whole property as well) you have the right to respond, fatally if needed.

Which is an immoral and barbaric principle. Violence is absolutely never justified.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:06 am**

Spiritwolf wrote:
Free South Califas wrote:
There is an implied subservience here. Who decides when lethal force is necessary? That is a homeowner or tenant's right within reason, and should be viewed with leniency when s/he is protecting the lives of others (which by the way is not necessarily happening when someone comes to your place to steal your stuff, even if they have a knife, though of course their brandishing a weapon makes the line blurry). But on the battlefield, sometimes an American must value respect for freedom and self-determination above the goals of the politicians who volunteered them into some dank hellhole. Many Marines in the Vietnam Era served their country by refusing to shoot the poor suckers with the other uniform on. Think about the dilemma of a black soldier, probably lacking civil rights in their home state, drafted by a country which has no room for them in its economy, where their countrymen hate him and throw rocks through his window if he dares get too close to the Included Ones. If you were that man, would you fire because the politicians that hold you down, told someone to give you an order? Many of these men had unspoken agreements with their co-draftees on the other side: if they saw each other, they would avert their eyes and keep looking for the enemy in another direction. Two people live another day, maybe with the hope of coming home to put food on the table, maybe hoping to come home and change their society for the better. I think our country is much stronger for these men having survived, and come home to participate in our democracy, and I despise the implication that servicemembers who respect life above hierarchical command are "worthless".

At the very least, you should acknowledge that this is my country too and I get to determine who is and isn't worthless to me.

This is the beauty of combat operations in the FMF........ they handle their own problems their way. Simply put, if you were in my Unit and i observed you "refusing to shoot the poor suckers with the other uniform on" i would make it my business to find an opportunity to waste your fucking ass. Then you could "avert your eyes" from six feet under all day long. My Marines are not gonna die in a firefight due to your inaction/moral objections.

Thus demonstrating for once and for all that participation in the military is utterly immoral, deplorable, and scornworthy.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:17 am**

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:
United States of PA wrote:
Castle Doctrine (The very basis of this thread) specifically states that if someone is in your house (some places may be extended to your whole property as well) you have the right to respond, fatally if needed.

Which is an immoral and barbaric principle. Violence is absolutely never justified.

And i sir, call complete bullshit to that. Violence is justified given the right circumstances, such as defending oneself or friends and family or your own house. I personally believe that anyone that believes that any and all violence at any point in time is immoral needs to grow a serious pair. Im sure you'd think the same thing if you walked into the gates of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Chelmno, Warsaw Getto, Lodz Getto, Treblinka, Sobibor, Dachau. Heck, my uncle was one of the soldiers to Liberate Dachau, and he said himself he was never the same afterwards. Im oh so sure (Obvious sarcasm for those of you with broken detectors) you would have the same outlook after being forced to witness that. Or being shot at, stabbed, suffocated, robbed.

You people are lucky to be able to have that naive outlook on life. Violence is a necessary evil in this world, and no about of your having forgiveness is going to keep some junky from murdering your butt to get a few bucks for his next shot.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:20 am**

I would set up an ambush of sorts and when he comes by, shoot him in the chest. If he lives, and he's actively reaching for his knife/gun/potato, finish him off. When the cops ask, "Why are there bullet holes in his head and chest?" I would probably shakily respond "I did what I needed to do to protect myself"

Sometimes you've gotta do what you've gotta do

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:21 am**

United States of PA wrote:...I personally believe that anyone that believes that any and all violence at any point in time is immoral needs to grow a serious pair.
...
Violence is a necessary evil in this world...

Hahaha, oh wow.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:22 am**

United States of PA wrote:
Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:
Which is an immoral and barbaric principle. Violence is absolutely never justified.

And i sir, call complete bullshit to that. Violence is justified given the right circumstances,

There is no such thing.

I used to think as you do, but then I got out in the real world and realized that a naive and fantasy-land viewpoint such as yours is not tenable.

I personally believe that anyone that believes that any and all violence at any point in time is immoral needs to grow a serious pair.

One does not destroy hate via acts of hatred towards the haters.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:24 am**

Yup just pull out my gun and shoot him till death.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:24 am**

Petrovsegratsk wrote:
Cromarty wrote:And then you go to prison. (Image)

Nope, it's self defence.

It's not self defense if the intruder doesn't attack you. It's murder.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:25 am**

Insignificance wrote:
Petrovsegratsk wrote:
Nope, it's self defence.

It's not self defense if the intruder doesn't attack you. It's murder.

Im not sure but i think if a man breaks into your house you are allowed to kill and or harm him to protect yourself, family, and property or at least in the US i think it is.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:30 am**

Socialist republic of Andrew wrote:
Insignificance wrote:
It's not self defense if the intruder doesn't attack you. It's murder.

Im not sure but i think if a man breaks into your house you are allowed to kill and or harm him to protect yourself, family, and property or at least in the US i think it is.

The word "defense" means exactly that. If all he is doing is stealing your TV and you kill him, are you saying you killed him because you were defending your TV? As I said in my previous post that for the life of me I cannot find, you can replace a TV. A human life, no matter what that human chooses to do with it, cannot be replaced. Once it's gone, it's gone.

EDIT: I amn't trying to justify people breaking in to your house to steal your stuff either. I am just pointing out the fact that items such as TVs and stereos can be replaced.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:32 am**

Socialist republic of Andrew wrote:
Insignificance wrote:
It's not self defense if the intruder doesn't attack you. It's murder.

Im not sure but i think if a man breaks into your house you are allowed to kill and or harm him to protect yourself, family, and property or at least in the US i think it is.

It varies. But if you've shot an intruder 30 times then 25-27 of those shots probably weren't necessary to defend yourself, and shooting people unnecessarily is often frowned upon.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:38 am**

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:
United States of PA wrote:

And i sir, call complete bullshit to that. Violence is justified given the right circumstances,

There is no such thing.

I used to think as you do, but then I got out in the real world and realized that a naive and fantasy-land viewpoint such as yours is not tenable.

I personally believe that anyone that believes that any and all violence at any point in time is immoral needs to grow a serious pair.

One does not destroy hate via acts of hatred towards the haters.

Let me get this straight - if a guy comes in your house at night, for the express purpose of killing you, you should let him, rather than commit violence?

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:39 am**

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:
Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:There is no such thing.

I used to think as you do, but then I got out in the real world and realized that a naive and fantasy-land viewpoint such as yours is not tenable.

One does not destroy hate via acts of hatred towards the haters.

Let me get this straight - if a guy comes in your house at night, for the express purpose of killing you, you should let him, rather than commit violence?

You could always try escaping... that is of course if you are lucky enough to hear the intruder coming before they get to you.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:40 am**

Oh sorry i ment to say you can kill them if they have a deadly weapon but if they don't then you can't here it is
Break in and steals stuff and has a weapon then yes you can use lethal force
Just broke in no weapon jus to steal your tv then only Non lethal tactics can be used

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:00 am**

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:Which is an immoral and barbaric principle.

No, its not.
It is my life, my property and my family. I should have full right to blow your brains out if you threaten any of them.

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:Violence is absolutely never justified.

Good, so I can slap you all I like; and you will keep turning another cheek?
Where's your address?

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:01 am**

Insignificance wrote:
Socialist republic of Andrew wrote:Im not sure but i think if a man breaks into your house you are allowed to kill and or harm him to protect yourself, family, and property or at least in the US i think it is.

The word "defense" means exactly that. If all he is doing is stealing your TV and you kill him, are you saying you killed him because you were defending your TV? As I said in my previous post that for the life of me I cannot find, you can replace a TV. A human life, no matter what that human chooses to do with it, cannot be replaced. Once it's gone, it's gone.

EDIT: I amn't trying to justify people breaking in to your house to steal your stuff either. I am just pointing out the fact that items such as TVs and stereos can be replaced.

A few things. To start off, I would kill the intruder. Hands down. It's tantamount to a once in a life time opportunity.

Defense does not always have to be about personal defense. No one leaves their stuff unguarded; it has to be defended. A thief is trying to steal your property, so defending it is only natural.

Violence is not immoral, despite how negative it seems. My reasoning is that, animals fight and act violent towards one another all the time, yet no one has the insanity to call them immoral. People act violent all the time because it is natural; they are naturally aggressive. The thing we have to watch out for is, are they being reasonably aggressive? Are they violent for the right reasons?

Next, when it is said that people are not replaceable: are you sure about that? I believe we all learn that people are reproducing everyday around the 7th grade, don't we? We are so good at replacing people that just a few months ago we now have 7,000,000,000 of them on the planet. Soon, and even at the present, the world is facing overpopulation. One might go so far as to say to kill a thief would be helping future generations...

And then, back to this topic, some personal effects are not immediately replaceable.
For example, a computer, or a laptop which holds a lifetime's worth of family pictures which will never be replicable once stolen.
Or the family heirlooms which looks valuable, yet holds special memories about deceased relatives?
Or the inscribed jewelry which was given by an old loved one which still has meaning to its owner?

In essence, my thesis is that while people can be replaced (easily, if you know what I mean), some items are too filled with memories and feelings that to let them slip away would be unbearable.

Arguements?

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:02 am**

Someone giving me an excuse to kill them, and a good chance of the courts supporting it? Oh, did they pick the wrong house to break into.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:04 am**

Insignificance wrote:The word "defense" means exactly that. If all he is doing is stealing your TV and you kill him, are you saying you killed him because you were defending your TV? As I said in my previous post that for the life of me I cannot find, you can replace a TV. A human life, no matter what that human chooses to do with it, cannot be replaced. Once it's gone, it's gone.

EDIT: I amn't trying to justify people breaking in to your house to steal your stuff either. I am just pointing out the fact that items such as TVs and stereos can be replaced.

Sure.
Of course, I guess you are willing to fork out the money to replace it? While, I am not defending my TV; I am defending my wealth that I earned through my work.

NationStates

Would you kill an intruder?