This should go down in the annals of the SDMB history. Another classic meme is born.
Hey, if you want to look like a moron for thinking that it’s controversial to say that you can read another man’s body language then go ahead. I’ll laugh at you every time you try to use it that way.
I’m going to react to the fact that a person broke into my house in the middle of the night. the fact that they are in my home intent on criminal action is a tell enough. I’m not going to worry about any subtle body language in the heat of the moment unless the jerk puts his hands up and lies down flat on the floor.
Some would argue that if you break into my house at 0230 and I bust your head open with a hammer your injury or death is your responsibility. I didn’t make anyone break in. I am responsible for my home and family and property, not any injuries a burglar incurs. If I have a taser and taser him and he has a heart attack should I feel bad? Fuckhead should have stayed outta my house.
Dude, that is one of the funniest things I’ve read today.
Well if someone were heading for the door with a TiVo, I probably wouldn’t shoot them in the back. That’s just me.
That’s all well and good in theory, but you still have to live with the fact that you killed someone. If you can then good for you. I think that I probably could actually, but I’d avoid it if I could. It’s not about how you ‘should’ feel, it’s about how you ‘will’ feel. There isn’t going to be any, ‘they’, in your head telling you how you should feel about having taken a man’s life.
Well if someone’s behind sticking through yuor door as they bolt with your TiVo is unclear to you, by all means blast 'em.
Your animal analogies leave me deeply confused. What if the cobra is headed toward the bathroom? How about a dingo making a run for the rec room? …A giraffe in the kitchen? 
I’d never trust my life to a taser in this sort of situation. They’re extremely short range, you only get one shot, and you might not fully incapacitate the intruder anyway. If somebody breaks into my home, they’re going to have a pleasant meeting with Mr. Remington 12-Gauge. Their only option that doesn’t involve being on the receiving end of a load or three of 00 buckshot is to clearly and unambiguously demonstrate that they are not a threat. The best way for them to do this is to already be outside the house and running like hell before I ever get them in my sights, because at that point I’m not going to take any chances if they make any sudden movements.
Of course I would never hurt somebody if I knew he meant no harm; if I could somehow know that all he wanted was to make off with my TiVo (which would be odd since I don’t remember buying a TiVo :dubious:), then he’s welcome to it. I’d much rather lose the TiVo than kill somebody (and anyway, I might accidentally shoot the TiVo as well, and then I’d sure feel silly). The problem is that I cannot know his intent, and the only sample of his behavior from which I can judge indicates that he is a criminal with no qualms about victimizing people in their home, while they are present and in a very vulnerable state.
As Scumpup and others have been saying, someone who violates the security of another person’s home has already demonstrated that he is a serious threat; the burden is entirely on him to show that he’s not. If a guy is breaking into people’s homes but has no desire or intent to harm, he’s in the wrong business.
I think gonzomax raises a fair point though. I really don’t know if I’m capable of shooting another human being, even to save my life, and I won’t know unless I’m one day put in a position where it’s necessary. I certainly hope that I am capable of doing what I feel is right and justified, but at the same time I hope I never have to find out.
I am aware, though, that in a sense I am already at a disadvantage: the criminals in our society are the ones who have already demonstrated that they don’t really care about other people, and are willing to victimize them for selfish gain. I have strong inhibitions about hurting other people that too many criminals don’t have, and it’s only a question of whether my duty to protect myself and those around me will conquer those inhibitions should it ever come down to that rueful test.
Yes, there are. Unfortunately for the burglar all of them that look like sudden movements are going to have an unhappy result. One very subtle …tell that I would definitely look for is lying down on the floor with hands clearly visible saying “please don’t shoot me.” In that sort of situation I don’t care so much about the intruder’s body language as I do about the intruder’s immediate and unambiguous compliance. Anything else has to be taken as a deadly threat.
Armchair body language reading is all well and good, but in a life threatening situation, it’s time for the lizard brain to take over, and it doesn’t particularly care about giving an existential threat the benefit of the doubt as to whether a particular stance or movement indicates submission or is merely a preparation for a sudden attack. No, the lizard brain is more about breaking out the chompy-chompy on anything perceived as a danger.
A guy breaks into my house at night.
I think he is “telling” me—shoot my sorry ass off! With all the adrenalin in my system, I would probably oblige his “tell”.
Well for me life is about overcoming the initial reactions of the Lizard Brain without sacrificing one’s ability to react promptly to a situation. It’s a martial arts thing. I’m not saying I am some master or that I wouldn’t act differently, but this thread is about examining the moral issues. Moral issues generally revolve around how we are able to control that lizard brain.
Sometimes I see a girl in a short little skirt, and my lizard brain says, FUCK THAT NOW!!! but millions of years of conditioning have given me a modicum of control over that impulse.
Did you or did you not notice the phrase after the part you bolded? I enlarged it so you can see it easier.
Given the way human bodies are constructed it is MUCH harder to threaten someone standing behind you rather than in front. Now, if the guy is facing away from you, bent over an explosive device with intent to set it off - YES, then you can shoot him in the back but that is NOT the normal or usual scenario. If you shoot someone in the back you have to come up with a plausible scenario in which this person was threatening you despite facing away from you. Seriously, is the guy throwing crap at you backward over his shoulder? Pointing the barrel of a gun at you while facing the opposite direction?
Shooting people in the back is bad because it’s damn hard to make a case that someone facing away from you is a threat. It’s not impossible, but damn unlikely.
This shouldn’t require a statute to comprehend, just common sense.
I agree that it’s a tell, and as I said, you should be on the right side of the law. If you can live with it, then ok. I hope you can. Like someone pointed out about his NRA friend who crushed the guy’s hand with the butt of a rifle rather than shoot him, that guy reacted and made a choice in a short span of time.
And gun pro folks are given hell for being “macho”:rolleyes:
Yeah, but that’s not what he said. He said that stealing from him is reason enough to kill someone. In my opinion, an unarmed intruder who has not made a move to harm the residents of the home should not be dealt with by gunfire. If someone chooses to use “intrusion” as the sole justification for shooting someone, they are risking making a very bad, irreversible mistake.
I can reasonably read body language well. In fact, I’ve been trained to do so.
The box cutter story doesn’t mean too much in this situation. I saw a guy that seemed like he wanted to mug me one night in Baltimore. He saw that I saw him. He followed me for a bit and I was alone until I ducked into an all night store. I waited for a good 20 minutes and then came out and went home. See. I read the tells. But thats not the same thing as waking up in the middle of the night with some guy in your house.
Now this same guy, if he broke into my house I’m not going to worry about his “tells”. I’m going to assume he doesn’t want to go to jail so his only recourse is to harm me or run. either way, my probable next action is to incapacitate him in some way. If I have a pistol and he doesn’t immediately surrender, he’s done. If I have a knife, or a morningstar mace (yes, I do own a real mace and a a real flail) and he doesn’t surrender immediately he’s getting the business end.
Maybe in your world criminals that break into people’s home at night are reasonable people that will just leave if you read their “tells” but in mine they’re potentially dangerous morons who shouldn’t be in my fucking house. I’d hate to be the guy in the hospital with the cops saying* “Sir, you had a weapon…how did the intruder overpower you and stab you in the kidneys?”* and all I can say is “Well, I misread his tells.”…
I’d rather be the guy saying “I didn’t mean to kill him, officer, but he moved aggressively and I had to bash his head in. Sucks to be him, huh?”.
I might regret the taking of a life for a little while but then ***the fucker shouldn’t have been in my house. ** *
If I got a gun for home defense it wouldn’t be a pistol, it would be a shotgun. They’re big, and thus visually intimidating, the sound of a pump-action is known and is threatening enough to scare at least some people off, and they don’t require extreme precision in aiming. On the downside, they can cause a LOT of damage beyond just the guy you’re shooting at, but drywall can be replaced. Seeing/hearing the gun before you actually fire might be enough to convince the Bad Guy of the error of his ways, and if throws his hands up, shouts “Don’t Shoot!” and is willing to cooperate until the police arrive I am perfectly happy not to pull the trigger.
On the other hand, last time the place I lived got to be dangerous enough gun ownership came up in family discussion we moved elsewhere. The problem, like our truck thief I mentioned earlier, is that bad things can still happen in nice neighborhoods. An area can have a low crime rate, no area has no crime rate.
See, MY probably next action would be to assume a defensive position, avoid a confrontation, and wait for the cops to arrive. That seems to me to be the safest course of action to protect myself and my family. I’m not sure why your first instinct is to confront someone who you admit is assumed to be extremely dangerous in an uncontrolled environment.
ETA: Broomstick: Exactly. Plus a shotgun would be less damaging outside of the home, so you don’t have to worry as much about accidentally killing the neighbor’s kid when the bullet goes through the bad guy and out a window. Plus, camping somewhere with a shotgun aimed around a corner = much better odds of hitting something. But of course, the bad guy might not come around the corner and then these folks don’t get to play vigilante justice.
Jolly Roger I’m not saying you take out your square, compasses and spyglass here. But if he’s like running out the door, then let him go. Like in Boyz in the Hood where Laurence Fishburne misses and Cuba Gooding says, “I wish you’d got him.”, Fishburne tells him not to ever think like that, that they don’t need another dead Brother.
If you think that he’s a threat, then go to town with that Morning Star. But if he’s clearly headed for the door, let him go. If he starts to turn toward you, definitely blast him.
I disagree. Violating the security of someone’s home is a very serious thing, and that overt act alone justifies the use of force to neutralize the invader unless they manage to clearly indicate that they are not a threat. Getting on the floor and surrendering with hands clearly visible is one way; running out the door and never looking back is another. The burden is solely theirs to attempt to do these things in a manner that is unambiguously non-threatening, which might be difficult given the situation. If you meet the guy face to face and he turns suddenly, is he turning to run, or grabbing a weapon? Bottom line, the only sure way he can avoid getting shot is to not break into someone’s house in the first place.
ETA:
Where does “vigilante justice” enter into this? I wish people would stop misusing that term.
Taking refuge and calling the police might in fact be a good choice; unfortunately it’s not an option if your home contains other human beings under your protection. But either way, a person should have no obligation to retreat from or inside their own home; if they want to face the intruder with force, that’s their choice.
It’s macho to want to control your impulses? I see it as the bare minimum of manhood. YMMV.
I truly believe some folks are watching too much TV and movies. The steely-eyed, unflappable, double-naught spy type of guy is one in a million.
Thats all I’m saying. If he bolts for the door he’s probably going to outrun me anyway. I’m good for distance not speed. If he does anything else that looks like he’s going to harm I’m going to assume he’s going to kill me and crack his skull. If I have a ranged weapon like a pistol I might shout “Stop or I’ll fire!”, (That actually works. I caught an unuathorized intruder on post after 911 not by firing but shouting that I would…and my orders said “No warning Shots”…so if they didn’t stop they would have been capped) but I might not shoot him in the back if he’s heading for the door. Keep in mind, as Scumpup said, there are places in my home that a burglar can’t get out of without coming towards me or a family member’s bedroom. IN that case the burglar should surrender because I would fire on him if he headed towards any of them.
I’m a soldier. I’m also a pretty nice guy, but I’m wired to react to threats in that way, partially by personal belief, partially by being trained to take out bad guys. Plus its my home. I’m not incvlined to let a burglar walk away with my stuff. By breaking in he’s created an untenable situation and become a threat. He’s a target now and if possible will be treated as one.
False dichotomy.