In all fairness, a lot of human beings suck.
I can attest to this.
But it still doesn’t feel good to kill them.
Just saying…
This.
You do realize that police tend to pretty much be just after the event investigation, right? Beat cops in a city might actually be able to respond in a couple of minutes but in general there is anything from a 10 minute to several hour response time? [I live in Ct, where we only have state level police in most communities, and the response time is literally a minimum of 1 hour in my case, and about 30 minutes for ambulance. Last time I called in for someone prowling my farm was just over an hour and the dispatcher knew that there was someone actively on my property as I was calling in.]
I’m sorry but I think this mentality is a problem. If it was me, I would first assess the situation. Even if he came through the door. To say that your immediate reaction is to shoot in this situation is a bit frightening.
But, on the other hand, it’s quite a tricky situation. I think the only time you should react with force is when there is a clear and present danger. The thing is if it gets to that point, it may already be too late. That’s why I think this issue is so damn complicated.
At what point will you step up to defend your rights? Will you stand aside while a thief empties your (uninsured) savings account of tens of thousands of dollars? Steals your retirement nest egg?
Are you willing to apply non-lethal force in defense of your property? Would you be willing to tase someone repeatedly to keep them on the ground until the cops arrive?
Not to get off on a tangent, but in this economy a lot of folks lost their nest egg and the police and authorities still haven’t done a damn thing about it, not to mention the actual victims. Always surprised me that their isn’t more outrage that the economy tanked and took good tax paying people down with it.
The assessment was made, you disagree with it. The fact you are frightened is good. Don’t break into people’s homes, and you have nothing to fear. Break into people’s homes, be afraid of getting shot.
If the person comes through the door, the situation is not tricky at all. The law in every state in the union has contemplated this exact scenario and has determined that someone forcibly entering your residence while you are home and where they have no right to be there presents a clear and present danger. Shooting them while you are in fear of your life or the life of another is perfectly legal and justified.
2 things:
First, the snarky tone of my post was directed at the sarcastic question in the OP. If he doesn’t want to make an effort, neither will I. If he thinks the cousin referenced in the story is ok with stealing simply because he doesn’t have a gun to defend his stuff, then its he, not the cousin, that’s an idiot and not worth debating.
Second, you should still call the police. Their inability to solve or stop every crime is no justification to not rely on them when the victim of a criminal act
But you say this full in the knowledge that you, or anyone else, does have a choice in the matter when it comes to shooting an intruder. For anyone to say they’ve set a rule that they will significantly escalate a situation and then imply they take no responsibility for the results seems disingenuous.
As an aside, Is it just me, or is far too little attention given to the question of what actually deters intruders? As DataX points out, it’s quite likely going to be more effort on your part to deal with having shot someone (even leaving emotions aside) than dealing with a lost leaf blower. The only real logic to having this kind of “rule” is to deter those who would otherwise break in, but I often hear people talking about what is “right” or “just”, often with a hint of satisfaction at the idea of shooting a “bad person”, with little reference to what they hope to gain from this policy.
Bozuit, I don’t know if there are actually studies out there showing whether the possibility of being shot is a deterrent, but as a homeowner with a gun, I assume any thief in his/her right mind would not burgle a house here in Texas. That’s why if I wake up to an intruder in the house, I would be more inclined to shoot first and ask questions later.
People who enter a Texas home, at night, for the purpose of stealing stuff, are likely drug-addled or so desperate their behavior towards the home’s inhabitants is unpredictable and a threat. That’s just an opinion. But, we have interesting laws here, and nearly everyone around here knows that Texas home + desire to steal even though inhabitants are likely to be in the home = possible shooting.
IME, most home thefts occur while people are at work or not in the house so the thief is not likely to encounter a person in the home during the theft.
Here is a paper on the subject. From the abstract:
I was getting ready to say this. Our locked, nondescript gun safe is hidden in the back of a closet, as people who proudly display guns in a cabinet are often the target of burglars. 27,000 hits for “guns stolen” on my Google news page. 2,610 for “leaf blower stolen”.
Nice excluded middle there. My only choices are “It’s perfectly OK for someone to steal my belongings” and “I need to have a gun to kill people who might be stealing my belongings?” Of course it’s not OK for someone to steal my belongings. But it’s way less OK for me to kill them for it. No state allows the death penalty (even with judicial checks and balances) for mere theft, but several seem OK with allowing random citizens to dispense it more or less with impunity.
It wouldn’t even occur to me to use deadly force to protect mere stuff – that’s borderline sociopathy in my opinion; a “punishment” vastly out of proportion to the crime.
Instead, I could:
- Buy better locks for my home
- Install an alarm system
- Buy insurance
- Pay taxes for police
So what if someone steals my stuff? Half the valuable stuff in the house has GPS tracking in it these days; the police would have it back in an hour. And if they didn’t, we’ll, that’s what insurance is for.
I’d probably be willing/able to kill to protect my life or loved one’s life, although even then I’m going to try and get us away, first. But true “home invasiosn” (breaking in with intent to kill the owners, rather than just “owner occupied” burglaries like the term tends to get used today) are vanishingly rare in most communities.
If I felt my life was in sufficient danger that a gun was actually warranted, the right action for me would be to move somewhere where that wasn’t true. Guns are a crapshoot – they’re as likely to harm their owners as others, and they make otherwise relatively safe situations decidedly less so.
It doesn’t matter the “worth” of the mugger. Is living with the guilt and trauma of killing him over trinkets “worth it”?
I actually fine this way of thinking to be silly. If someone decides to act outside of the law, then it goes both ways. If a druggy in the act of stealing another persons things gets killed, then I’m not seeing the problem.
Death as a penalty for stealing a leaf blower? I see a major problem with that, as does the US court system.
And that makes me sad.
Just yesterday I was talking to my brother about a large dent he has in the front bumper of his car. He said he once parked on a street in Trenton and, as he stood across the street, he saw a guy walking down the street with a sledgehammer wacking every car he passed.
I asked if he called the police and he said he didn’t have a cell phone on him at the time, but that even if he had, he wouldn’t have bothered. They would have just wasted his time with all sorts of questions and forms, and in the end would have done nothing.
Come to think of it, I myself was once mugged as a teenager, and I had pretty much the same attitude. The guy made off with about $1-$2 in change that I had in my pocket plus one of those cheapo $1-$2 plastic digital watches. But my mother wanted to call the police. They came down and wasted my time with all sorts of questions and forms, and in the end did nothing.
I don’t think people should kill other people for stealing leaf blowers. But if a guy ends up dead as a direct result of his attempt to victimize someone else, I don’t see it as a big deal at all. I think the world is better off without such people, and while I don’t think people - or society as a whole - should take it upon themselves to kill them, if they die in the process it’s no great loss.
Sort of like a Darwin Awards, only more so.
Makes me sad too. But if he makes his choice, that nothing more can be said about it.
Read the OP. What you say does not apply everywhere.