Obviously a very different circumstance. Read my post again, which clearly referred to the specific example of a repeatedly victimized homeowner, who set up what should have been a non-lethal trap for a burglar, and which ended up killing the burglar.
Would you favor the same penalty in these two scenarios:
Individual who is repeatedly threatened by physically abusive stalker, shoots and kills stalker battering at her front door.
Individual fearful of strangers, who shoots through her front door and kills the UPS man.
How many times had this guy been robbed (possibly by the same guy) where he felt compelled to put up a sign and booby trap his home?
I always wondered what goes through the majority of minds of criminals who break into homes to steal. Do they consider what they will do if they encounter a resident during the break in? Will the majority of them run, or attack the resident?
In my mind, if you are in my home then you mean me harm. You made a conscious decision to take the risks associated with breaking and entering my dwelling. Odds are fairly strong that at this point you (as a burglar) have already considered this and simply don’t care, which means you are a danger to me.
I doubt that I’d set booby traps in my home after the first robbery, maybe not even after the second. But how many times before I start taking matters into my own hands? I absolutely must feel safe in my own home if nowhere else. If you keep taking that away from me, perhaps booby trapping becomes the only alternative. I know some will argue that I should just move, but is that always an option? If you live in a shitty neighborhood you probably can’t afford to move.
Still, it would take a serious situation for me to consider booby trapping my home, but I will say one thing, and this is something that will not be popular on these boards…
If I catch you breaking into my house, you will not leave alive. You’ve made a decision to take your life into your hands by breaking and entering and you should know that I consider you a threat to my life and the lives of my family. There is no way that I will allow you to live, so that you can come back after serving your sentence and exact your revenge on me at your leisure.
There is one certain way to guarantee that you will not be killed in my home, and that is to stay the hell out of it unless you have been invited.
People get killed all the time by burglars/robbers. Is their right to live any less than the potential killer’s right to live? Bust into my home, and you better be ready to run. It’s that simple. I won’t risk my life or the lives of others in my house to wait and see if you’re planning to kill someone.
I feel this is morally wrong. As I said, an intruder has to ask himself whether what he wants is worth his life. But that doesn’t mean his life has to be taken. In spite of my collection of firearms (some would call it an ‘arsenal’ and ‘alarming’) none of them are for defence. I do have one pistol with a loaded magazine, but the pistol itself is unloaded. I do not feel threatened in my home. (Or anywhere else, for that matter.) If someone came into my home, I might use the pistol to stop him. Stop. Not kill. He might die, but I would never intentionally kill anyone. If someone pointed a gun at me, I would shoot. But to stop, not to kill. Of course I’d aim for his torso. If he dies, he dies. He shouldn’t have pointed a gun at me. But my intention would be to stop him. If I kill him, then I’ll have to live with it the rest of my life. If I intended to kill him, then I’ll have to live with it the rest of my life and face possible criminal charges.
No, i would not favor the same penalty, but you’re completely missing the point of the argument. As the case cited by Campion says:
In other words, the law makes a specific distinction between a person firing a gun in defense of his or her home, and a mechanical gun that is set up to defend the property. The very decision you are asking us to judge is a decision that a mechanical gun has no power to make. It fires indiscriminately at whomever happens to trigger the mechanism.
In a case like this, the person who set the trap is being punished not only for the damage it did to the burglar, but for the damage it might have done to someone who had a legitimate reason for entering the house. And that’s why the damn things are illegal.
Another person who is specifically missing the distinction between being able to make the decision to fire yourself, on the one hand, and leaving it up to a machine, on the other. No-one in this thread is denying you the right to defend yourself on your own property.
As Metacom says, if you’re not at home, how is your life in danger?
I already said booby traps are not OK. I was concentrating on the “hint” that the bad guy had some innate right to safety or right to life that outweighs the victim in his/her own home. Again, I already said booby traps are bad.
Let’s suppose your property is surrounded by a fence. At night, for security, your attack trained guard dogs roam freely. They are unable to discriminate between bad guys and good guys. If they kill an intruder are you to blame?
But that’s a different question than the one being asked in this thread. If you are at home, and are in fear for your safety, the answer is “no.”
But if you’re not home, the question is completely moot because your life is not in danger. In such cases, the only question is whether a burglar’s life is worth more than your laptop computer or DVD player, and, much as i dislike burglars, the answer to that question is “yes.”
Well, i agree that you shouldn’t have to wait to determine whether the burglar is “just” going to steal stuff, or whether he actually has more nefarious motives. You should be able to defend yourself the moment he enters the place.
There was a case in Australia, some years back before i moved to the US, where a guy held up a store (antiques or jewellery, i think). He got his swag, didn’t hurt anyone, and left the store. As he left the property, the store owner pulled a gun from behind the counter, followed him outside, and shot him in the back as he ran away.
Now, as i said, i have no time for burglars or robbers, but in this case the only thing saved by this man’s death was a bunch of stuff. No-one’s life was in danger any more, the immediate threat was over. This is the sort of thing i think is unjustified.
If nobody is at home, I’d be pissed off at being robbed, but there was no life threat actual or implied. AS I ALREADY SAID, NO BOOBY TRAPS. However, if I AM at home and some tweaker smashes his way in, all bets are off.
Right. He had the stuff and was leaving. Nobody had been hurt. If he had been shot during the robbery, it could be justified… “We didn’t know if he was not going to kill us anyway”.
How many ways are we going to fiddle with the conditions? What if he looks like Freddy Kruger and materializes out of the wall? What if he looks like the hated cousin who tortured your puppies and drwoned you duck in the swimming pool? What if it’s a little green man with an anal probe?
If I am at home, and someone breaks in, and I feel threatened, I will shoot. If I wound him fine. If I miss and he shits his pants and runs off, fine. If he dies, it’s unfortunate but he was not supposed to be there anyway. What should I do? Offer him a cup of coffee and brownies? Wait for him to shoot or stab first? I don’t think so.