Castle theory of guns and protection

Great Debates
21

Protecting your family, yourself or others by all means give the creep both barrels.

Protecting your TV? Not seeing it.

I have not read the case this is about but if what I read above is true the homeowner was on the phone with police for 4-5 minutes. That to me does not define an imminent threat. That to me means you have time to get you and your family out the back door. Honestly if I had kids (no idea if there were children or others in this house) my first thought would be to get them out of the way and to safety rather than try and confront the intruder. YMMV of course. Maybe blowing someone away in your house is a good lesson for kids.

Again, protecting your life or others then absolutely shoot the guy.

As for the rest it is just stuff. Unless you have your life savings in cash on the family room floor I am hard pressed to think just how much one guy can get away with. Your computer? Your TV? Whatever it is there is a distinct limit to how much a person can carry. If you have exceptionally valuable jewelry or artwork then you almost certainly have it insured. Your TV and other usual stuff is covered under your home owner’s policy.

So, is a human life worth a $2000 TV to you? Maybe $300 for your deductible?

I understand someone taking your stuff is hugely angering. My place got broken into when I was in college. Furious barely covers it. But I wouldn’t kill someone over it.

Actually that brings up another point. If you caught up with the guy two blocks away carrying your TV is it ok to shoot him dead? If the cops get him should the thief get the death penalty for the theft? Why is it ok to shoot him at your house (assume you can easily get out the back door and to safety) but not kill him any other time if he is caught?

22

How about if we replace the TV with someone very valuable? How about if it’s something YOU value extremely highly? Perhaps something given to you by a lost loved one? Something you have invested a large portion of your money, time or labor into? Something irreplaceable?

It’s easy to hand wave away a TV as a strawman…but that isn’t the sum total of what people set value on. Even there though why should I permit someone to come into my house and take or break my possessions? Why is someones life who would do this of more value than my possessions?

What if I do have my life savings on the floor? Is it acceptable then? Where do you draw the line? What may be valuable to me (for sentimental or other reasons) may not seem that valuable to you. And why exactly does this persons live have any intrinsic value to me in this situation? Because s/he is a human? Many more worthy humans die every day and I can do nothing about that reality.

What would you do? Someone breaks into your house while you are there bent on taking or destroying your stuff…what would you do? Would you shout at them to leave? Use harsh language? Use physical violence to attempt to stop or restrain them? Where do you draw the line? Why does the life of such a person have intrinsic value to you?

It’s not really much of a point. If you caught up to some guy carrying your TV blocks from your house and simply shot him dead on the spot you would be committing a crime. Someone breaking into your house though is another matter…it’s YOUR house. While we have been stripped of many of our rights to defend ourselves there are still some vestige of rights concerning your own dwelling.

-XT

23

Y’know, I was standing on the sidewalk the other day, and I realized that the person standing next to me could shove me under an oncoming bus. I mean, I didn’t know that he did intend me harm, but then again, I didn’t know that he didn’t, either. And why should I be forced to take that chance? So I shot the bastard, and serves him right.

24

Classic slippery slope argument. How much is enough to be worth killing over? You’ll get a different answer from different people. Steal $500 from Bill Gates and financially he’d not even notice. Steal $500 from me and I will most definitely notice. Instead of asking how much is too much ask how much is just under the line of being worth killing someone over. That bird house you made in 8th grade wood shop and kept for sentimental reasons enough? It is irreplaceable afterall and means something to you.

Life itself is more valuable than stuff.

This is just appalling. It is ok to kill someone because lots of “more worthy” people die everyday that you can do nothing about? Are you serious?

Just because that person is of no value to you does not mean they are of no value. Chances are good they have someone who cares about them…a parent, a sibling, a friend and so on.

You are now left with valuing your stuff over another person.

If I had a decent chance at retreat then that is what I will do which the person in the OP surely could have done (4-5 minutes on the phone with police). If they just come barging in while I am sitting there and cannot retreat I’ll fight. I have no problem with defending yourself or others nor do I think someone needs to wait to see what the intruder’s intentions are. Faced with an immediate situation then you are cool having an immediate response. When you have five minutes noticing someone banging on your door and are chatting with the cops the situation is clearly not immediate. Go out the back.

Well…guess it depends where you are. Joe Horn shot two guys in the back that were robbing his neighbor.

If you live in the middle of nowhere and the nearest cop is 60 minutes away I can see more of a justification to defend your property. No one else can. If you live in a city and police are less than 10 minutes and you can chat with them for 5 of those minutes then get out of Dodge.

25

Which was the point I was trying to make. Who decides what is or isn’t valuable? Who decides what level of violence is acceptable?

Or maybe you just get to categorically decide, ehe?

No, it’s ok to kill them because they broke into my house to steal my stuff or threaten my life or the lives of my family…or perhaps both. What’s appalling here is either your lack of understanding of that point or your deliberate attempt to give me a man of straw of your own making.

A person IN THAT SITUATION has no intrinsic value to me over the value of my own possessions. Why should s/he exactly? Again, just because they are human this means they somehow have an intrinsic value to me over that of my own possessions WHILE THEY ARE BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE?

As with you are obviously with me I’m appalled by your own attitude here. Of course, I also don’t think this would carry through if you were actually in this situation and had the means to defend yourself and that of your family and your possessions. My guess is you’d defend yourself in much the same way I would…but threatening force to either drive off or subdue the intruder. Finding that the guy was completely drunk and possibly even more of a threat you might do exactly the same thing as the guy in the OP…it would depend on circumstance.

Over a person breaking into my house? Oh, certainly I would value my stuff over such a person.

Well, it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round (actually, it goes around all on it’s own, but it’s still a saying), and I can’t fault you for your convictions. If you would rather retreat and allow someone to steal or trash your house…well, it’s YOUR house after all and you can do whatever you feel is right. Not everyone feels the same way however and I have to say that, given the history of our species that the norm here is that people DO feel that there possessions are more valuable than other peoples lives. In fact, it’s pretty clear that some people feel that OTHER peoples possessions are worth more than some peoples lives.

This doesn’t make it right or fair…but it does illustrate how the vast majority of humanity (throughout our history) has thought about this kind of thing.

As you say, it depends…and I think that he should have been prosecuted. But then no one asked me.

That’s entirely up to you.

-XT

26

He was pretending to be drunk. he just wanted desperately to kill your family. He should be blown away forthwith.

27

Exactly! It is so arbitrary as to be absurd. Anyone could set the bar anywhere. Maybe a guy picks up your jacket in a pub. It is YOUR jacket and your wife gave it to you for your first Valentine’s Day! It has irreplaceable sentimental value so shoot the fucker before he gets away with it! Nevermind that he was going for his jacket underneath or mistook your jacket for his. It is YOUR stuff and you have a right to protect it and no one can gainsay what value you place on it up to and including killing someone for it.

Yeah the above is absurd. It is supposed to be. The point is where do you draw the line? You take me to task for “categorically” deciding these things so you cannot gainsay the above. Someone else may think that is reasonable and it is not for you to decide. Once you place a value on your stuff so high that it includes killing to keep it then pretty much all bets are off.

We are debating our versions of right and wrong here. I cannot affect the law or decide for you but I can try to change your mind. That’s all that is going on here.

Sorry if you do not like the straw man. Please explain then what relevance “more worthy humans die every day and I can do nothing about” has to whether or not you should shoot someone breaking in to your house.

People do lots of things that others do not like or adversely affects them. I am surprised I have to argue the intrinsic value of life here and why it is more important than your shit (channeling George Carlin: Ever notice how all your shit is stuff and everyone else’s stuff is shit? :D)

Even if other people’s lives have no intrinsic value to you does not mean they have no value. Killing someone is irrevocable. That person is unique. The knock on effects of their death can be dramatic to lots of people and are difficult or impossible to calculate. There is a reason theft does not carry the death penalty anymore…anywhere (in the US at least). Some crimes do, that doesn’t. Apparently society (and even Texas) agree that life is worth more than stuff. But hey…if you catch the guy in the act then off with his head.

When I took martial arts I asked my instructor what he’d do if he got mugged. He said he’d hand the mugger his wallet. This despite him probably being able to annihilate the mugger. My instructor said anyone can get lucky and he could get stabbed or the guy has a friend nearby you are unaware of and the other guy shoots you. In short the $50 in his wallet and drivers license are replaceable. His life is not.

I keep this in mind when pondering things like this. If I could confront the intruder why would I? Maybe he has a gun too (except I do not have a gun), maybe he has a buddy I am unaware of just outside…whatever. My life is worth more than my stuff. If I can get away then that is my default action. This would be especially true if I had kids or others to protect. My duty is to see to their safety. Going mano-y-mano with some intruder is not the best course to see them safe (it may be the only course in which case you do what you must but getting away is a better option if it presents itself).

28

Yes, because the situation described above is completely analogous to someone breaking into your house in the dead of night. Any reasonable person could see that.
Odeiso

29

There could be a wide variety of reasons why the home owner choose not to use the backdoor. There’s a possibility that his backdoor doesn’t actually lead to the back of the house, maybe he doesn’t have much of a yard to speak of, maybe once in the backyard there is no way to exit without passing in sight of the front door, or maybe the homeowner thought that going outside might increase his chances of actually confronting the crazy drunk guy who was out there. I probably would have stayed put while on the phone with the police.

Odesio

30

I would think so. Kids are often smarter and more observant than we give em credit for. I bet the kids would GET two very good real life lessons from that one.

31

Ah the classic battle between Liberal douches and Right Wing assholes. One side thinks life should be considered sacred at any cost and the other looks for any excuse to use that stupid-ass shotgun they’ve been itching to shoot someone with for years. Every argument will be an extreme slipery slope and this will go on for a thousand posts.
Look, you have a right to protect your life and property. Why should you have to surrender your home because some lunatic or drunkard breaks into it? And what are you supposed to do? Sneak out the back with your family and hide out on the block until the cops come while he trashes your house?

Sure, it’s “just stuff”, but it costs money and may have irreplacable sentimental value. Should you refrain from shooting an arsonist because it’s just a house and can be replaced? Should you let someone steal your car because it’s “just stuff” even though it may be your only form of transportation or livlihood?
There is also the matter of “reasonableness”. You do not have the legal or moral right to start blasting away at any jerk who steps foot on your property. A reasonable person should be able to first determine whether a) it’s worth killin’ over and b) can the situation be defused or resolved without endangering anyone (including you or your family).

For example:
A couple of kids are stealing your lawn gnome.
NO - Your stupid gnome can easily be replaced and it’s not worth killing someone over a dumb prank

Some guy is trying to violently break into your house.
(PROBABLY) YES - However, you should call the police first if you can and you might want to judge whether a warning of “HEY ASSHOLE! I’VE GOT A GUN AND I CALLED THE COPS!” is appropriate for the situation.

And what does it matter if the guy was drunk? Because drunk people are never violent?
We all know the story about the guy from Texas who killed some dudes breaking into his neighbor’s house. While legally acceptable IIRC, he still acted like an asshole. He could have placed his neighbors at risk with errant fire or far as the guy knows, the “robbers” could have been the neighbors friends and were supposed to be there.
Basically, the correct answer is use your fucking head. Sure you may come into a situation where lethal force is justified or required. But most sane people are tramatized by killing another human being so don’t be so eager to be Dirty Harry. Also, drunk or not, breaking into someone’s home is a great way to get shot.

32

… Not a liberal, and not a Ring Wing asshole…

But I reserve the right to shoot anyone who breaks into my house.

33

If something like that is the case then sure. If you do not have a good or reasonable option for retreat then by all means defend yourself.

34

There was a case the other day where a kid was shot while Trick or Treating because the homeowner thought he was being robbed and another case from a few years ago where a foreign student attending a costume party went to the wrong house and was shot.

I’m not saying there is never a case to shoot an intruder, but I expect that mistaken shootings are more common than cases where the homeowners really do save their own lives.

35

I think the guy in Texas is an example of the person looking for an excuse to use that shotgun (at least subconsciously to him).

And therein lies the danger I think.

Yeah getting your house trashed is awful on a variety of levels. But again where do we draw the line? Wherever it is the line will be arbitrary. What matters to one does not matter to another. You can end up with someone setting the bar to shoot someone justifiably very low indeed.

You make a good case for just applying reasonableness and common sense in such situations but many people do not do that. Joe Horn in Texas could have easily stayed out of it but he was explicit in that he knew the new law in Texas and thus made himself a vigilante. Judge, jury and executioner right there. Apparently Texas is ok with that, I’m not.

In the end, if you can get away, why is it ok to shoot the intruder instead? If the police catch him later after he steals your stuff you cannot kill him. If the guy gets a half block away with your stuff you cannot kill him (legally…except maybe Texas and probably not even there). But in your house have at it even if you could get away. Why is that a magical case that makes killing someone ok? (Again assume you can get away…I have no problem with defending yourself or family when you have to)

36

[

](http://articles.homesecuritystore.com/articles/3104/1/The-Psychological-Effects-of-Home-Burglary/Page1.html)
[

](http://www.crimevictimservices.org/victimtypes/burglary.php)
[

The reason burglary is different from a stolen wallet or a stolen car is because the victim is trying to avoid this kind of emotional trauma. It’s worth pointing out that elderly people especially are vulnerable to the emotional trauma a burglary can cause.

Frankly, telling a victim “it’s just stuff” sounds awfully similar to telling a rape victim “it was just sex.” The sense of violation caused by a burglary is not as great as that of a rape, but it is no less real.

37

So being burgled is traumatic but then is being there when it happens and killing the intruder make everything better and is less traumatic?

38

Because nobody should ever be obliged to fly from their home and yield it to an individual who has shown that he’s perfectly willing to violate the security of others for selfish gain.

Quite aside from the terrible violation of the individual, what message does it send to criminals if the law-abiding are at all times expected to yield to them and their violent, self-entitled ways? It’s like feeding wild animals: they will simply become bolder in response.

39

I don’t know all the details of the cited case, but to be honest, there is not a material possession on the face of the Earth, that I have ever possessed or ever could, that I’d kill someone for.

Threaten my family, and I’ll happily blow someone’s head off and feel not one pang of remorse. And I’ll grant that a homeowner should be given the benefit of doubt if they see a person breaking into their home to assume that person represents a threat to their lives; in such a situation if a reasonable man would think it a break in attempt, deadly force is justifiable. But if I actually knew I was only defending a possession (which normally you would not know), fuck, no way I’d kill for it.

40

I’m not saying you don’t. But a person shouldn’t be all that eager about it either.

Somewhere in the middle.

No one should have the right to drive you from your home. This belief is fundamental to our way of life. This is your home, you have a right to it, they do not and you should be able to defend it and not relinquish it out of fear. It’s the same as if I up and decided to beat the crap out of you. You are not required to sit there and take it. The line is drawn, IMHO, when someone enters your home without your permission. At that point the burden is on the intruder to convince you to not shoot them. But you may only use enough reasonable force to remove the threat. ie you can’t just fire a coup de grace shot into their head execution style if you happen to merely injure them severely. You can’t tie them up and torture them for hours. You can’t blind fire through the outside door just because someone is banging loundly on it. You get the idea.