WTF? A criminal home invader isn’t entitled to a fair fight according to Marquis of Queensbury rules. If you invade my home, I’m going to do what I can to make sure the fight is as unfair in my favor as possible.
That will be determined by the follow-up investigation – which should resolve any reasonable doubt by erring on the side of the homeowner (since it’s the criminal home invader’s fault that the situation occurred in the first place).
He doesn’t cease to be a viable threat simply because I’m holding a baseball bat. I may have to pop him one; I’ll pop him as many as it takes to stop him being a viable threat. I won’t be proud of it; neither will I lose any sleep.
No, I shouldn’t continue after he’s down. But up until this post you seemed to be trying to put across some sort of a fair fight ethos that was just ridiculous. Nobody ever said breaking and entering was a risk-free career path.
No, I didn’t, didn’t come anywhere near that. My position was exaggerated to an absurdity, and then I was expected to defend the absurdity. Mamma didn’t raise no fools. There’s no quote in any of my posts that you can point to as saying I demand a “fair fight” for the home invader, some of you guys are making shit up and self-righteously attacking your own straw man. If this sort of rhetorical masturbation is what floats your boat, have at it. Don’t mean shit to a tree.
Oh come now, elucidator.
It is not possible to exagerate this to absurdity; it’s already there.
Beating up on somebody who cannot defend themselves is the act of a moral retard. I stand by that, and if you don’t like it, you can go pound burdocks.
That’s fine - I agree with your first sentence. Disabling an intruder in your home is not the moral equivilant of beating up on somebody who cannot defend themselves, and if you think it is, you may go pound sand.
Have you actually read my posts about this?
What I said was that I adhere to a philosophy that property is not worth killing for and I still have all my stuff. I explicitly said that I am not adverse to administering an ass-kicking or calling the cops.
I think some of the people in this thread are misunderstanding pacifism as it is pertains to the hippie ethic espoused by 'lucy and myself. It basically boils down to this: Don’t hurt anybody any more than you have to. It is not an enjoinder to become a Buddhist monk and never offer any resistance to any assault, but it is an attempt (ideologically at least) to limit the use of force to what is appropriate for self-defense, to quell the impulse for violence as vengence rather than defense and to draw a line as to when lethal violence is justified.
You guys should probably also be advised that 'lucy’s use of the phrase “aggressive violence” has a specific meaning. It doesn’t mean any violence but violence which is non-defensive.
Breaking into someone’s house to steal from them or rape/kill them is the act of a person who deserves to get the living crap beaten out of them. I stand by that, and if you don’t like it, you can go suck an egg.
Once an intruder is no longer able to hurt you any more infliction of violence is non-defensive and crosses the line into assault. You have the right to defend yourself and your home but you don’t have the right to exact physical vengence once any potential threat has been neutralized. I’m not talking about ideology here. I’m talking about the law.
And I agree with that. No problem. 100% percent. shrug perhaps I’m misinterpreting elucidator’s stance.
Exactly. elucidator betrays his own stupidity whenever he actually posts his thoughts for us all to see. It’s clear to anybody that his beliefs are complely insane, even by the commie, pinko standards of the SDMB. 
He doesn’t want to retract them, probably because he won’t admit to being wrong about anything. So he then proceeds to backpeddle and weasle out of his foolish statements by insisting that we are all mis-understanding or mis-representing them.
Well, we’re not. He’s already done it twice in this thread and it’s plain for everyone to see exactly what he’s doing.
The good news is that after an episode like this he usually retreats to his usual sniping of his patented snarky, purdy-talk posts for a while. As long as he devotes all of his effort into mocking others with such wit and skill, he doesn’t have to expose his own thoughts and ideas. That way, most of the time at least, he can’t be exposed for the absolute nutjob that he is.
Yeah, pretty much, we have devolved into a stance of agressive agreement:
“Certs a candy mint!”
“WTF!? Any moron knows that Certs is a candy mint!”
“Fuck you! Certs is a candy mint, you dolt!”
Awwww. Isn’t that just the cutest thing you ever did see?
I think you guys are just talking past each other. I don’t hear anyone saying that it’s not o.k. to defend yourself. I think everyone agrees on that.
I think what’s a little disturbing is not that certain posters say they would hurt or kill someone else to defend themselves, but that they seem to revel in that fact.
I wouldn’t “revel,” but if the-push-comes-the-shove*, I wouldn’t bat an eye.
To prevent some jackass from misconstuing my words into something I didn’t say: I would never shoot someone simply for pushing or shoving me, unless I had that person under the gun for a legitimate self-defense purpose as allowed by law, and responding to Simple Assault with lethal force is generally frowned upon by law enforcement and criminal courts just about everywhere.
Just read that 8 people died during home invasions in my country last year (16.5 million). A few hundred were wounded. We don’t have guns (well, 2% of households). It’s a miracle.
Proud has nothing to do with it. He was in my place. He was helping himself to my things. He was damn lucky I didn’t beat him even worse. My message did get through though, nobody ever saw him again. I work for my money, and I save for the things I want, so anyone who wants to take a shortcut at my expense will pay. Nobody forced the sonofabitch to be where he didn’t belong, taking things he didn’t own. What was I supposed to do? Offer him milk and cookies? He was lucky I didn’t kill him. Someone else might have.
Point 1:
I could have chosen OTHER things - At the time I had the following:
Marlin 336C .30-30 rifle
Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 Magnum
Ruger Single Six .22LR
Remington 870 Wingmaster 20 gauge
Stevens double barrel 12 gauge
Ruger Model 3 5.56mm
Would you prefer that I had used one fo the above? I chose the least deadly item I had - a bat.
Point 2:
He had ripped me off before and been spotted by neighbors doing it. The police had done nothing. My “spies and informants” around the neighborhood had told me he’d been bragging about the haul and talking about getting the rest of my property. So, there was the intent to keep going until nothing was left - not a one time thing at all.
Point 3:
I caught him in the act, redhanded.
So, he again is damn lucky to be alive. I think the fact that I didn’t kill him showed remarkable restraint on my part. He had already stated he was going to keep it up until I was cleaned out.
No hurt no foul? Bullshit.
My violence is evil? Oooooh exciting! You are so full of shit I can smell it from here. It’s OK to be a sneak and a thief. It’s no OK to want to protect your home and your property? Bullshit.