Rational and well thought out post. Are you sure you’re on the right board?
No way anyone should ever think that they and their family will be “safe” if they just gather themselves together and walk out the back door while some drunk or crackhead ransacks their house. That’s insane, along the lines of “if we show that we’re not armed and mean no harm, no one will bother us” pacifist ideals.
Hey, I’ve had a crackhead trying to break into my house. Fortunately he never got through my steel-core door. But the sight of me with a butcher knife in one hand and the phone - loudly calling 911 - did nothing to dissuade him from trying to break down my door (he could hear and see me through the open window 5’ from the door). Only the sight of my loaded .357 magnum made him change his mind and depart.
No fucking way I would have backed off and let him have his way with my house, thinking “it’s just stuff”. If he was willing to come in with me already calling 911 and being armed with a knife with a 10" blade, he was also willing to kill me.
Bottom line is that it’s the assumptions that kill you. You’d be a damned fool to assume that some drunk busting in your house is “harmless” and that you’re best off walking away and letting him do what he wants.
I have no idea for others; but for me I suspect I might. (I don’t have a gun, though, so killing would be pretty hard).
But this is not “the middle.” Nobody, certainly nobody here, is arguing that you should be able to do any of the things in the last four sentences.
Been there, done that. Very recently, in fact. If it were possible to shoot this topic, I would, execution-style.
I’m generally the sort that has fairly liberal attitudes over social issues and issues of law.
@ the idea that sneaking out the back is better:
If there is a loud violent stranger around your house, does it seem like a good idea to leave the confines of your safety (the house walls) and head out into the night? Can the violent stranger not also go around back? If you have several small children can they outrun a violent drunk with a gun or a knife? This is the most fucking pathetic excuse for an argument i have ever seen. If you are in a house, with a gun, stay where you are safer. Do not head out into the night and potentially exposed yourself to a violent person who man or may not have a weapon.
It is his responsibility to remain sober enough to recognize his house. Once he decides to get drunk and go on a tear through the dark of night, in my mind, he has implicitly accepted the consequences.
You yell at the fucker to leave, you yell at him that you have a gun, you give him a reasonable amount of time to retreat, and then you cease the threat by whatever means necessary before he is able to present an even greater danger to you and your family.
What you don’t do is run out into the night with three small children and a violent drunk.
I am speechless.
Read the thread (points to post #33 above).
The question contains its own answer:
“Tells.”
I’ve always been less traumatized when I win. Winning as in preventing the theft of my stuff, killing the intruder is merely the means to an end.
Vigilantism is by definition extra legal. Joe Horn did nothing illegal therefore his actions aren’t an example of vigilante justice. I certainly wouldn’t have pulled a Joe Horn on someone fleeing from my neighbor’s house with stolen goods but it wasn’t vigilantism.
I shouldn’t have a duty to retreat in my own home so whether I can escape or not is really immaterial.
Even if someone could escape I don’t see why they should be required to flee from anyone while in their own home. What’s so unreasonable about using deadly force to prevent someone from breaking into your house?
Odesio
Thank you for that --I kept saying in the other thread that having someone in your house really, REALLY feels sucky, and got really tired of the cavalier “so you’re itching to shoot a guy over a $100 DVD player, is what you’re saying” straw man. Your cite, and whoever made the inexact analogy to rape, came very close to capturing the sense of fundamental violation that is at the heart of the castle theories.
Animals don’t have homes in which they can be definitely secure, for the most part. Nomadic cavemen in a lawless society don’t. Serfs or those under communist tyranny don’t. We do, or are supposed to, and it’s a huge part of why we feel ourselves to be much better off than those in the situations I mention who can’t count on the inviolate nature of my property bounds.
The other side of this for me is that Burglary has been tacitly decriminalized through police procedures the minimize response, investigation and prosecution of property crimes and guarantee maximum possible response time to such crimes.
So what we’re left with is that, if you are required to retreat from your house in the face of a home invasion is that people are free to walk into your house, chase you out of it, rob you blind, destroy your property, kill your pets, terrorize your family; and the actual chance that they will be arrested and prosecuted is just slightly north of zero.
Virtually safe and legal for them, but potentially criminal for any homeowner who fails to comply with criminal demands.
I absolutely cannot support laws or legal systems that criminalize homeowners and victims while protecting criminal invaders. This is NOT the Rule of Law. (See also: Britain)
Weeeeee
Only 948 posts to go. I’ll check back tommorrow night 
“I expect” means “I have no proof, but I’m saying it because it’s convincing.”
Here’s a secret: most intruders who are confronted with a gun never actually have to be shot. They simply pick up and GTFO.
The argument could be made - and I believe it was made in Texas - that he was acting in Defense of Another.
Because the Intruder is committing a felony, and may not only have “taking your silverware” on his mind.
Because you don’t know that all they have on their minds is intrusion.
Some who breaks into an occupied home is probably less interested in stealing than someone who breaks into an unoccupied home.
“So being raped is traumatic, but shooting the rapist makes everything better and is less traumatic?”
Yes.
I never want to kill anyone, and the vast majority of people don’t – despite the claims of many people to the contrary. But the simple fact of the matter is that most people are horribly ineloquent and lack the ability to convey themselves, or don’t care to convey themselves, in a way that actually represents their opinion – but I will if I feel threatened.
Hmm, I’m getting this odd sense of deja vu.
The thing I’d like to note about this discussion is that the gun-toters here are merely defending their position, typically with reasonable arguments, and are not trying to convince other people to adopt their behaviors; they just want people to back off and let them react to home intrusions in the legal manner they choose to without having to listen to people slandering their moral character.
The gun-haters are trying to push their position onto other people, and fairly consistently have to misrepresent the position of their opposition to the degree of turning it into a strawman in order to not sound ridiculous for opposing it.
I don’t hate guns, I just hate you.
No your property is not worth someone else’s life. My property is, by definition, valued by me somewhat differently.
There are several situations wherein I would, reluctantly but without hesitation, use all legally appropriate force upon an unwelcomed intruder in my home.
But, unlike you, that’s not a value judgement I would make for others who feel differently.
Back in the '80s a friend of mine, “Greg” was having dinner with his family in the “socioeconomically challenged” neighborhood where they lived when a woman they didn’t know ran into their front door screaming for help. Her ex (or estranged) husband was chasing her with a pistol and a knife and was just behind her- he had chased her for several blocks- and he was bombed out of his mind on various substances (PCP was one of them if I recall). Greg’s mother tried to slam the door shut to keep the guy out and he pushed the door back so hard that the little half-inch crack between the door and the floor actually passed over Greg’s mom’s foot (breaking it as it did so), and then he tried attacking his wife again. When Greg tried to stop him he was pushed aside, and wife and husband went running through the house. It’s one of those old houses that has a sort of indefinite and illogical floor plan so rather than running out a back door she couldn’t find the wife hid in a bedroom closet, with of course the husband just behind her.
Well, the man had already assaulted Greg and his mom- granted he couldn’t have told you what either one looked like, they were just barriers between him and his woman. Greg took his .22 revolver (that’s a very small handgun for those not familiar) and had to empty it into the guy- 9 bullets- before the guy even slowed down. The guy still managed to walk around a good bit before passing out (the chicken with his head cut off), and he died in the hospital a few hours later.
So, a drugged up armed intruder assaults and injures two completely innocent people in the home he has broken into while chasing a woman he clearly means to kill or at very least seriously eff up and this is in Montgomery AL, a state where guns are passed out in Welcome Wagon baskets- you would think it would be open and shut. It wasn’t: Greg had to speak with a lawyer and go before a grand jury as a prosecutor tried to get an indictment against him on the argument that the man wasn’t trying to injure Greg or his family!
The [del]wife[/del] widow and her family testified to the grand jury that there was no doubt he’d have killed her (long history of abuse and death threats) and even some of the deceased’s relatives agreed- he was a messed up thoroughly insane guy with a lifelong history of violence and substance abuse and this end was pretty much inevitable, and this from people who said up front that they loved him. The police told them that they’d been called to his wife’s house but that she was gone and on the run before they could get there and that it was very clear from Greg’s house that the man was armed and out fo control. Justice prevailed in that the grand jury gave a pretty much unanimous “Why are we even here? Greg should get a commendation, not be charged with anything! Self-defense pure and simple!” so the matter didn’t have to go to trial.
Still it was infuriating to everybody that he even had to explain himself to a grand jury. (There were allegations of racism as Greg is black and the intruder was white, but then the prosecutor was black as well so I don’t think so, I think it’s just a mixed up system.) I understand to some extent that there has to be an investigation no matter how open and shut the circumstances would seem, but it’s ridiculous that you’re almost guilty until proven innocent when you shoot an intruder.
Of course of far grayer ethics is the Joe Horn case I started a threadsome months ago. Short version: a retiree (no criminal record) shot and killed two men as they were leaving the house of his neighbor who they had just burgled; both men were illegal aliens with long criminal histories here and in their native Colombia, but because they were not a danger to him directly and because they were black there was a lot of outcry about Horn’s vigilantism. However, the anti-Horn faction simply couldn’t get enough momentum to do anything because too many people (white and black and Hispanic) were saying “good riddance”. I’m afraid that as the victim of burglaries and other types of theft where police could or would do nothing that, to paraphrase Chris Rock, “I can’t approve of what he did… but I understand”.
I’m very much of the Home is Castle mindset. It’s one of my few really conservative stances. In a home invasion where there’s any reason to believe I’m in danger I should have the right to use my own discretion in shooting. If it’s an 8 year old boy with a teddy bear and I empty my SIG P228 then pop in another clip I’ve overrreacted, but I’ve never heard of this happening (and if it did I’d want that Teddy Bear examined for proof there were no IEDs in it). If there’s any violence at all, aim for center of mass. (Much of this philosophy comes from having lived 20 miles from the nearest police station in a county where the deputies made Barney Fife look like Michael Westen, but the deputies were nice enough to tell you ‘we’ll help you reposition the bodies when we get there’.)
You have now.
That wasn’t even close to a home invasion though; it was a crazy felon hopped up on drugs who fired through the door as soon as someone rang the bell on Halloween.