I’m glad deadly force is authorized by law where I live and as long as they are inside my house I am the only one who needs to make the determination.
Diff’rent folks, diff’rent strokes, obviously.
Myself, I’m glad the law where I live values human life above material goods, and that deadly force is authorized only in extremely special circumstances.
Seems the people who make the laws in some jurisdictions just aren’t smart enough to recognize what constitutes a threat to human life.
Encouraging criminals also seems to be popular with them.
Seems some people just aren’t smart enough to recognize what constitutes a threat to human life.
That’s why in Canada’s the right to protect one’s self and others is well established, while at the same time excessive force is not permitted.
Right.
But I took your remarks to pertain to the case mentioned in the OP, in which the burglar (who had prior convictions for robbery, assault and theft) was hiding behind a door in an occupied bedroom, and when confronted “a struggle ensued”. It’s thus relevant to ask how in this case it should/could have been determined that this burglar was not a threat.
Reading the linked article, it sure sounds to me like Johnson was a clear threat. But I realize newspaper articles don’t always give the full facts.
So the point I’ve been trying to make is that it is possible that Mahilal wasn’t justified in everything he did and that he may have been legitimately arrested.
So it’s settled then, you’re a dipshit.
I don’t think those things made me look bad to anyone but you. Because, as I previously mentioned, this board is dedicated to vulgarity and obscenity directed at people/things that you feel in the moment are worthy of commentary or acts you would not otherwise in real life take part in.
I’m not *pretending *to be a tough guy. I’m not pretending to be anything. I’m in fact being someone who makes light of a terrible situation, and I’m proud of that. If you don’t like it, there is an “ignore” feature. That’s what makes the internet great - the option to turn off someone else’s stupid. If we met in real life, my commentary would not change I assure you. I’m known to my friends as “One Step Too Far [Uber]”.
If we were to meet in real life, I wouldn’t be aggresive or douchey (the attitudes it seems you’re ascribing to me) - because that’s not cool. But if you flung your over-righteous poo at me in real life, you can bet we’d have a colorful conversation. You might get your feelings hurt, but I’m inclined to think you’d “take the high road” and apply a generous dose of smug ambivalence and point out how crude and ignorant I am.
As you are now doing. Have fun with that. Seems boring to me, but whatever floats your dinghy.
?Yeah, which is why Canada has such a high rate of violent crime, right?
Uber, the world isn’t trying to make you look bad. We’re just standing by and watching you make yourself look bad.
Statistics Canada: “Crime Comparisons between Canada and the United States.” (pdf)
Well ***I *** saw what you did there, even if no one else did.
You do realize that there is no “we” for you here right? You’re up to now completely alone in all this. Perhaps you have silent accomplices feeding you the lines you perceive to be so witty? This is all but a hijack in and of itself…so I’ll have to grant you that success…you have managed to yank this train off the rails. This’ll have to be my last reply to you here, since we’re about a flea’s nipple width from new pit thread territory.
Exactly how you are interpolating my feelings of paranoia about the world’s goal to make me look bad I cannot fathom…and as I said previously, I’m fine with everything I said since it was mostly tongue in cheek.
Do you know how that concept works? Tongue in cheek humor? Dependent on a heavy dose of hyperbole and awkward insinuation. May I recommend a brief study of Monty Python’s Flying Circus? Too dry for you? OK…try The Kids in the Hall. Too gay for you? OK…try In Living Color. Too black for you? OK…try The Red Green Show. Too out-doorsy for you? Well I can’t help you beyond that. But I’m sure you’ll get the hang of it one day.
Until then, cheerio mate. Lighten the fuck up and see a therapist. You’re taking this shit way too seriously. Thanks for giving me a punching bag for a while though; it’s been…energizing.
Of course not.
By the time I drew, he’d have turned the corner.
In all of these scenarios, the intruder is still a burglar. But he is not a threat. This is an important distinction. Because, as I’ve been posting, you can’t shoot an intruder because he is a burglar. You can only shoot him if he is a threat. You cannot shoot a burglar if he is not threatening you.
[/quote]
How do I put this? All you did with thisis expose the terribly dark fact… that we were assuming a not-obviously-helpless intruder. So yes, your brilliant detective work has uncovered something any five-year old could have seen. Congratulations, Sherlock. I honestly didn’t think such a ridiculous side issue was even worth noting. In the future, I will try to be pedantically obnoxious to cover all possible scenarios some damn idiot with an axe to grind might come u with, even if it’s obviously not part of the specfic discussion.
Oh wait, I won’t, because it’s a waste of time.
Because you (a) don’t know his motives, (b) don’t know what he’s capable of or prepared for psychologically, and (c) don’t know how, if at all, he may be armed. What you do know is that he was willing to break into your home, probably knowing people were inside, which means he’s probably willing to consider violent acts and has no respect for you.
Certain people have tried to pretend that laws protecting the burglar is about not valuing “stuff” over lives.
Now whether valuing legitimate and legally-acquired property over the life of a thief might indeed be a reasonable rule is irrelevant, because my purpose is the protect the law-abiding citizen in his, or her, own home, not specifically stuff. I don’t really give a god-damn what happens the burglar at that specific moment. His life, whatever abstract value is may have to God, is less valuable than ensuring the safety and well-being of the homeowner in my eyes.
I further do NOT expect the homeowner to use “measured responses” or “coolly evaluate the situation” or “employ reasonable force”. They’ve been faced with an unknown, potentially dangerous intruder in their private space, and if they panic and kill the sumbitch, well, thems the breaks. Private citizens do not have a duty to practice for combat situations or gain experience in instantly evaluating criminal situations. They do have a reasonable expectation for safety against criminals.
As long as they don’t injure other, innocent people in the process, I do not propose to deeply question their actions. The moral content of their character is likewise between them and God, and not something the law can adequately gauge except in the scenarios you outlined above, which were not the situation I was discussing, at any rate. This is why your response is so grossly intellectually inadequate. You outline bright-line situations where all facts are clear, and ignore the murky unknowns which characterize the problem under discussion.
The first duty of government is to provide as best as practical for the security of citizens against crime, through the employment of law and enforcement. Government which does not do this, or makes is difficult or impossible for citizens to provide for themselves, has failed at the most fundamental purpose of law. And as the law cannot be everywhere at once, it must recognize that people must, at times, ensure their own safety.
Smiling Bandit for TFW.
Bravo on spelling it out.
But you’re forgetting a key element. This isn’t just a thread about the general topic of a generic homeowner shooting a generic intruder. The OP was about Moses Mahilal stabbing Kino Johnson and whether there was a legitimate reason to arrest Mahilal.
What I’ve been pointing out is what you’re now admitting is true - that sometimes a homeowner doesn’t have the justification to stab or shoot an intruder. So maybe the Toronto police had a good reason to arrest Mahilal.
You’re correct that all I’ve done is say something that’s obviously true. But it took a lot of effort to reach the point where people are agreeing that what I said is obviously true.
See, I wouldn’t agree that hitting him again is necessarily the wrong choice. I’m a 5’2" woman. If a male criminal can get up, I’m probably done for if my weapon is anything but a gun. In your scenario, hitting him until he is not able to get up is my only way of ensuring my safety. The more vulnerable the homeowner is, the greater force they need to use to ensure their safety, because they can’t be sure of overpowering an adult male that isn’t completely incapacitated. I’m not comfortable telling anyone that they be sure of overcoming an intruder they’ve hit a couple times just because the guy says “stop.”
As explained to me on different occassions by a couple of police officers I know, when there is an intruder in your house the proper steps are:
- Shoot to kill in the front of their body.
- If intruder does not have a weapon, go in your kitchen, get a knife and put it in their hand.
- Call 911
- Repeat to police, “I was afraid for my life.”
I’m a pretty big guy but let’s say for argument’s sake the intruder looks like he could easily overpower me (and I’m also not immune to bullets). With the hammer raised I’d tell him to stay down and put his hands behind his back.
I couldn’t just smash his face in and potentially make him a mental invalid, or even kill him, at the point where he has not shown any aggression to me yet. So I guess I put myself at more risk but to me it’s The Right Thing To Do[sup]TM[/sup].
And yes I do think that excessive force should be a prosecutable offence, although the circumstances should of course affect sentencing.
Where you wrote “police officers,” i think you meant “criminals.”
- Which he obviously was allowed to do.
If I’d of come home in such circumstances and thought the guy was a threat to my children, I’d of gone batshit crazy violent.