By definition, the Tori Amos cover is the best existing version. I’d say “best POSSIBLE” version but I suppose it’s possible she might decide to make another cover.
Because it will get his ass killed. Later, if we knew what he was thinking, we might say, “Too bad he made that stupid fucking choice” but making stupid fucking choices when you have a gun pointed at you will get your ass killed. And it’s the fact that he might make an irrational choice that makes the shooting more justified. The fact that people do attack people in their own homes when the homeowner is carrying a gun makes it justified to shoot and kill someone who is coming toward you, especially if they are within grabbing range of a knife and are close enough to do you harm.
Basically you’re asking “Why isn’t he allowed to scare her with impunity?” And the answer is that you don’t get to go into other people’s houses and make them think you’re going to hurt them. Doing so will get your ass killed.
So, if you know that if someone pulled a gun on you you’d do something stupid? Better not get into that situation, because you will get your ass killed.
I agree. I’m disturbed by the responses that say you’re justified in shooting somebody as soon as you see them in your house. There are plenty of innocent explanations for that.
What moved me into the justified self-defense category was that Jodie offered the stranger a chance to surrender (by assuming a non-threatening position) and he didn’t take it.
Let’s back off this a little, though, and return to the question at hand, which is whether the shooter is morally justified.
What the man was justified in doing is not actually a relevant question. The shootee in the OP’s scenario might have acted rationally, or might have acted irrationally. He might have been there for nefarious reasons or might have been there for innocent reasons. It’s irrelevant from the perspective of the woman. The relevant question is was she reasonable in being afraid he would kill or seriously harm her?
In the OP as described, I believe she was totally reasonable to be afraid the man was imminently about to do her harm. That is the question at hand and is what matters.
But the question in the OP isn’t asking what HE is allowed to do. It is asking whatthe HOMEOWNER is allowed to do.
Given her situation, her use of deadly force is justified. We may later find out the man had a reason to act as he did… but that is certainly not what was apparent to the homeowner. She was presented with a situation in which she had a very reasonable belief that her life was imminently threatened. He was behaving in exactly the manner an intruder intending to hurt her would have behaved. It is very unfortunate indeed if that was not the case, but up to the moment she fired, the homeowner was perfectly reasonable in forming that conclusion.
No I’m not.
Thankfully I don’t live in a country where people carry guns in their handbags as a matter of course.
Did they invite them in by climbing through the kitchen window? And just where is the daughter if this is an invited guest?
Did you climb in through the kitchen window, and bring your own butcher knife? Were all the lights off except the one in the kitchen?
Me too. But I’m firmly in the “shoot the bastard” camp.
Innocent people with a gun pointed at them start a dialogue really quickly!
You said “He has a gun pointed at him, why is he not allowed to act irrational?”
Because he is scaring her. You don’t get to act irrationally when someone points a gun at you out of fear. Because you will be dead.
You described your own irrational reaction, which only increases the risk that the woman is facing.
My window is open right now, I still used the door to enter the room though.
And maybe the daughter is in her room, perfectly safe and getting something that concern the visitor she invited in? Who knows, the loaded OP certainly didn’t say and the mother hadn’t checked or even called out for her.
Look, I’m not trying to argue that the situation as described appears perfectly innocent, of course it looks pretty dodgy. I just found it a little strange that in a situation that could easily have an innocent explanation the unanimous verdict seemed to be “shoot first”.
She didn’t shoot first! You keep saying that, and it just isn’t fucking true. She gave him multiple opportunities to comply with her instructions, and he instead behaved in a threatening matter.
If the OP had been “She saw the stranger in her kitchen drinking milk from the carton, so she immediately pulled out her handgun and shot him 4 times”, I think many people would have a very different answer. I know I would.
Perhaps the daughter had, unbeknownst to the mother, joined a “Butcher Knife Collectors Club,” and was hosting the next club meeting in the kitchen. That could totally happen, right?
How is the OP loaded? It presents only the information Jodie has at the time of the shooting. Is not that fair?
You do the logical comments, sir. I do the wisecracks. Says so in the FAQ.
Well he certainly didn’t shoot first.
Maybe on the blu-ray re-release.
If you like. Whats your point?
This is what sticks in my head: I break into someone’s house through the kitchen window, go to the fridge and grab a tasty beverage; meanwhile, someone (probably the home-owner) comes in through the front door expecting nothing amiss. So, what is wrong with me, an intruder in a strange house, that I have not already heard the front door and reacted to it? If I am a burglar, or worse, I would like to think that I am alert to what is going on around me. And, well, turning on the kitchen light? Who does that? Burglars bring their own lights. Clearly there was something seriously wrong with this guy.
Of course its loaded. I think it would have been a far more interesting hypothetical had you not included the line:
Exactly, the guy is calmly taking a drink of milk and doesn’t seem that concerned that the homeowner has come home. Would that not suggest perhaps just a little that he might have a reason to be there? Not even just a little?
Blissfully unaware of how many times burglars have essentially “made themselves at home”? :dubious:
How would the hypo be more “interesting” if Jodie had acted BEFORE the guy was coming toward her?
I’m not one of the persons saying that Jodie would have been morally justified in shooting the guy as soon as she saw him. I believe in owning a gun myself, but I also believe in using violence as a last resort; I’d not have shot until there was a threat. But the guy’s refusal to follow clear and reasonable instructions along with his movement toward the knife all speak to his not being innocent. Not to mention that he’s in the only lighted room in a house not his own in the middle of the night.
If I’d really wanted to load the OP, I’d have included a detail like, oh, the guy saying “I don’t follow orders from women,” when Jodie told him to put his hands on his head, or his having blood on his hands, or Eime being bound to one of the kitchen chairs. But I didn’t, and not simply because I didn’t think of any of that until after I posted; I wanted to posit a situation that could be read both ways.