Defense of Home

POSTED BY: StillFlyin
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 07:32
VIEWED: 10548
PAGE 4 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

ANTHONYT

Sunday, May 7, 2006 5:03 PM

Quote:
"Saying "they started it" is playground stuff, you choose the level and ferocity of your own response and if that's too strong and unwarranted in the situation then you should be held accountable."

I am not a martial artist. I don't know if my opponent is. If someone hits me more than once, I'm going to assume they mean me grievous injury.

I'm not a boxer. I wasn't in the military. How about the other guy? He obviously felt competant enough to attack me. So what am I going to do in my defense?

I am going to punch. Kick. Bite. Claw out his eyes. Break his knees. Rip out his scrotum. Crush his windpipe.

Not because I want to kill him. Rather, because I want him to stop hurting me. And so I will employ every attack I can think of until he stops.

While I will not be thinking, "Break his neck" I think that might happen as I struggle to survive. As might any other of myriad injuries.

This isn't playground stuff. I don't go around inciting people to beat me up. If they do, their motives are dark. My response will be frenzied and desperate.

I can't be sorry and I won't apologize for any injury someone may incur when they decide to cause me harm. They should leave me the f*ck alone and let me live in peace.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, May 7, 2006 5:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Saying "they started it" is playground stuff, you choose the level and ferocity of your own response and if that's too strong and unwarranted in the situation then you should be held accountable.

There’s a difference between holding someone accountable for excessive force and persecuting the victim. If a criminal made the choice to break into a house, then that is a choice he made. The homeowner should be given the benefit of the doubt, not the criminal, and a person should not be required by law to cower in his own house.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FREDGIBLET

Sunday, May 7, 2006 6:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
The guy probably shouldn't have shot the kid in the back, but if the kid hadn't been robbing his house...

And if he hadn't decided to shoot people in the back he wouldn't of gone to prison .

True. And if the kid hadn't robbed his house the kid would be alive AND the guy would not be in jail, everyone wins.

Quote:
Robbing a house hardly warrants a death sentence, a prison term perhaps, but not a death sentence.

True, but if the kid runs the cops may not catch him and he gets away free to do it again. Given the choice between freedom or the death penalty for a criminal I would choose the death penalty. If the homeowner had a reliable way of subduing the burglar then he should have done that, otherwise...

Quote:
Quote:
Just trying to understand here, you are saying that the people should run away from their home because a burglar was there?

If the choice is shoot people in the back or run away then yeah.

When people pickup a weapon in these situations most often you find that the weapon is used against them. If you don't want to get hurt the best thing to do is make you presence known and ensure the intruder has a clear exit path.

It's just like cornering an animal, they'll try to flee and if your between them and freedom they'll flee through you.

So you would not move to protect your belongings if someone was robbing your house? You would say that you were there and then step out of the way and let them leave with whatever they wanted? What was your address again? Do you have a big TV? A fast computer? Expensive jewelry? I'll be right over.

I do agree with the cornered animal thing, but once again if someone comes into my home uninvited, to take my stuff and\or threaten my life, violence should be expected to ensue.

Honestly even if I could subdue the invader and keep them until police arrived I have little faith in our justice system doing their job. I have seen far to many cases where obviously guilty people go free because of technicalities\racism charges (O.J.?)\sympathy card (his is an alcoholic), to trust the judicial system to give them a fair sentence.

Quote:
I've practiced various martial arts since the age of five, I'm well aware that if someone hits me I don't get to break their neck.

What if they are trying to kill you? Do you get to defend yourelf then? Isn't that the main point behind taking martial art classes?

Quote:
Point is it doesn't matter whether your weapons are your hands or a Glock 9mm, lethal force is always the last resort and only used when it's you or them and you don't have the opportunity to escape.

Disagree, I don't want to find out that I can't run faster than bullet the hard way, and I surely do not want to find out who is faster, me or the guy with the knife. I agree that lethal force should not be the first resort, kneecaps are good too, but I can't agree with it being the last resort. in a confrontation there are too many variables to risk going through all the other possible actions before useing force to defend yourself/your house/your family.

Quote:
Saying "they started it" is playground stuff...

Nevertheless, it is true. Have you ever heard the saying "don't do the crime if you can't do the time"? If you commit a crime, IMHO you are saying that you are ready to accept any consequences of that crime. If someone commits a crime against me then they must be prepared for the consequences, right now I am living on five acres in the country and I have a tractor with a backhoe.

Quote:
you choose the level and ferocity of your own response and if that's too strong and unwarranted in the situation then you should be held accountable.

Agree completely. However, the standards of excessive force should take the circumstance into account. In your example the homeowner probably should not have shot the kid in the back, but if the kid d

FREDGIBLET

Sunday, May 7, 2006 6:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I can't be sorry and I won't apologize for any injury someone may incur when they decide to cause me harm. They should leave me the f*ck alone and let me live in peace.

Agree completely. But ripping out the scrotum? Damn man thats harsh

SEVENPERCENT

Sunday, May 7, 2006 6:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Claw out his eyes. Break his knees. Rip out his scrotum. Crush his windpipe.

Not because I want to kill him.

I've been reading this thread with some interest, and I think the problem is that people are actually arguing two separate issues, which is a major problem in how the particular law is written.

The first issue seems cut and dried, and (though loath to say it) I agree with Finn. Someone breaks into your house or puts you into a situation in which they absolutely, 100% mean to cause loss of you or your family's life (gun drawn, knife out, gas can in hand, etc.), then the appropriate response is the use of lethal force to defend yourself.

BUT - And here's why I highlighted AnthonyT's quote -

The second issue is more problematic. What do you do in a situation in which the attacker's goal is not to end your life? Being threatened is not an excuse for the use of lethal force. I'm sorry, someone hitting you a couple times is not an excuse to "crush their windpipe," or shoot to kill, as the Fla. law seems to allow.

Someone has a bad day, thinks you spit on his car, keyed it, eyed his girl, whatever, and takes a swing; the idea I get from AnthonyT and others in this thread is that if you have a gun, it's acceptable to use lethal or near-lethal force in a situation in which the odds are your life is not in danger because you feel threatened? That's ridiculous.

Two guys have a traffic accident, one gets out of his car with fists raised and yelling, it's acceptable to "defend yourself" with a gun (or a thumb to the eyesocket) instead of walking away? Bullshit. That's why the law/issue is problematic - There's no absolute line of what constitues a dangerous threat. It seems to me that the first option should always be leaving the problem unless unable to do so. The impression I'm getting from this board is that you should only leave after you've made them a corpse. Am I getting the incorrect impression? AnthonyT?

{EDITED TO ADD - And I realize that the law in question from the initial post just applies to home invasion, but I believe- IIRC - that there is another Fla. statute involving the "retreat issue" in public, which is more what my 2nd point addresses}

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, May 7, 2006 6:49 PM

When you choose to put yourself in a dangerous, and somewhat unknown situation, you are responsible for yourself. The person you choose to rob, in their house or outside of it, can't know what you have in mind, or how far you'll go to get what you want. They might fight you or not, they may kill you or kiss you (if they ain't mentally right, of course).
You can also jump off a cliff, or enter a lion cage unprotected; but to expect everything to end up nice for you is unreasonable.

No matter how angry I ever get at anyone out there, I have never thrown the first punch, even when I knew they were gonna. If you ain't that civilized, don't expect a civilized response to your, er, un-civilized-ness...
...you know what I'm sayin'...

I got words Chrisisall
they just ain't flowing...

FREDGIBLET

Sunday, May 7, 2006 7:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
I've been reading this thread with some interest, and I think the problem is that people are actually arguing two separate issues, which is a major problem in how the particular law is written.

I see what you mean and agree.

Quote:
The first issue seems cut and dried, and (though loath to say it) I agree with Finn. Someone breaks into your house or puts you into a situation in which they absolutely, 100% mean to cause loss of you or your family's life (gun drawn, knife out, gas can in hand, etc.), then the appropriate response is the use of lethal force to defend yourself.

Agree.

Quote:
BUT - And here's why I highlighted AnthonyT's quote -

The second issue is more problematic. What do you do in a situation in which the attacker's goal is not to end your life? Being threatened is not an excuse for the use of lethal force. I'm sorry, someone hitting you a couple times is not an excuse to "crush their windpipe," or shoot to kill, as the Fla. law seems to allow.

Someone has a bad day, thinks you spit on his car, keyed it, eyed his girl, whatever, and takes a swing; the idea I get from AnthonyT and others in this thread is that if you have a gun, it's acceptable to use lethal or near-lethal force in a situation in which the odds are your life is not in danger because you feel threatened? That's ridiculous.

I see your point and I agree, the problem is how do you know?

Quote:
Two guys have a traffic accident, one gets out of his car with fists raised and yelling, it's acceptable to "defend yourself" with a gun (or a thumb to the eyesocket) instead of walking away? Bullshit. That's why the law/issue is problematic - There's no absolute line of what constitues a dangerous threat. It seems to me that the first option should always be leaving the problem unless unable to do so. The impression I'm getting from this board is that you should only leave after you've made them a corpse. Am I getting the incorrect impression? AnthonyT?

I am sorry if I gave the impression that lethal force should be used everywhere. I agree that leaving should be high on the option list in many situations. But if the guy pulls a gun or a knife, that changes the landscape a little. A fistfight is no reason to kill someone unless it is escalating, but if your life stands a good chance of being in danger I feel that running should not be required, but should only be an option (perhaps legaly preferred).

CITIZEN

Sunday, May 7, 2006 8:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
There’s a difference between holding someone accountable for excessive force and persecuting the victim.

Yes, that's my point thank you.

Quote:
If a criminal made the choice to break into a house, then that is a choice he made.

Are you happy with the concept that someone can be executed for burglary without trial?

Quote:
The homeowner should be given the benefit of the doubt, not the criminal, and a person should not be required by law to cower in his own house.

I never said the criminal should be given the benefit of the doubt. As I said 'reasonable force' is a concept I'm well acquainted with because I've been taught techniques that can be used to kill since before I was doing finger painting.

Seriously if someone breaks into your home to kill you then use whatever force necessary up to and including lethal to stop them. If however they entered your house to steal your VCR I have a hard time understanding how anyone can justify killing them.

To protect a VCR? It must be a really good one; does it make coffee for you in the morning and everything?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

CITIZEN

Sunday, May 7, 2006 9:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I am not a martial artist. I don't know if my opponent is. If someone hits me more than once, I'm going to assume they mean me grievous injury.

I'm not a boxer. I wasn't in the military. How about the other guy? He obviously felt competant enough to attack me. So what am I going to do in my defense?

I am going to punch. Kick. Bite. Claw out his eyes. Break his knees. Rip out his scrotum. Crush his windpipe.

Not because I want to kill him. Rather, because I want him to stop hurting me. And so I will employ every attack I can think of until he stops.

While I will not be thinking, "Break his neck" I think that might happen as I struggle to survive. As might any other of myriad injuries.

This isn't playground stuff. I don't go around inciting people to beat me up. If they do, their motives are dark. My response will be frenzied and desperate.

I can't be sorry and I won't apologize for any injury someone may incur when they decide to cause me harm. They should leave me the f*ck alone and let me live in peace.

You see we're talking completely different things here. When I said 'breaks someone's neck' I was talking about a purposeful action. For instance they could lead in with your standard shoulder punch from their right arm. I block that with an inside block, lead in with a palm strike to their face and then step in and take their head in my hands and break their neck.

It's an incredibly easy move to execute and now my opponents dead. All they did was try and hit me, and I killed them, a complete over reaction. Your talking about a violent mutual engagement where someone else happened to start it.

That was what I meant about playground stuff, the "he started it miss" argument. He may have thrown the first punch but that doesn't give you the automatic right to murder them.

Scenarios:
Someone starts throwing punches; I put them on the floor, possibly knock them out, or lead in with a body or throat strike to wind them.

Then I run away.

Someone comes at me with a knife, I break their arm, drop them...

and then I run away.

Lethal force is the last resort, in all circumstances. If you can run away YOU DO. You don't stand your ground and fight, even if you have a machete or a gun in you pocket, you get away. If you can't do that by all means produce your weapon but you don't use it until such time as there is no other option. Not until pulling the trigger is the easiest option, until it's the only option.

This is a concept most animals can grasp. An animal near exclusively will only fight if cornered (unless it's hunting for food or protecting its young, which is a different thing altogether), so I expect that behaviour from humans no less.

You run away unless you have no choice. If you have no choice you fight but you only use lethal force if non-lethal force is absolutely not enough to defend your own life. Not your VCR or your computer, your LIFE.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

CITIZEN

Sunday, May 7, 2006 9:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fredgiblet:
True. And if the kid hadn't robbed his house the kid would be alive AND the guy would not be in jail, everyone wins.

Would you condone execution without trial for burglary?

Quote:
True, but if the kid runs the cops may not catch him and he gets away free to do it again. Given the choice between freedom or the death penalty for a criminal I would choose the death penalty. If the homeowner had a reliable way of subduing the burglar then he should have done that, otherwise...

Personally I don't think any crime warrants a death penalty. Even in an extreme Murder may warrant it, but burglary certainly not.

So I'd rather a criminal goes free than we start sanctioning violent vigilante action.

Quote:
So you would not move to protect your belongings if someone was robbing your house? You would say that you were there and then step out of the way and let them leave with whatever they wanted? What was your address again? Do you have a big TV? A fast computer? Expensive jewelry? I'll be right over.

Would I put my own personal well being below my possessions? No. For a start I have insurance.

Quote:
I do agree with the cornered animal thing, but once again if someone comes into my home uninvited, to take my stuff and\or threaten my life, violence should be expected to ensue.

If the choice is stand aside and let them run away or kill them when all they're trying to do is escape, I'd let them leave. That way I don't get hurt and no one has to go to court to explain why there is an unarmed corpse in their front room.

Quote:
Honestly even if I could subdue the invader and keep them until police arrived I have little faith in our justice system doing their job. I have seen far to many cases where obviously guilty people go free because of technicalities\racism charges (O.J.?)\sympathy card (his is an alcoholic), to trust the judicial system to give them a fair sentence.

So you do support execution for burglary without trial? I'm not trying to be facetious (well I am) but the failures of the court system are not an excuse for vigilantism nor murder.

Quote:
What if they are trying to kill you? Do you get to defend yourelf then? Isn't that the main point behind taking martial art classes?

My point all along is reasonable force in trying to defend your self. If someone attacks me, even if they are trying to kill me, I will seek to incapacitate them so that I can escape.

Lethal force is the last resort, in all situations.

Quote:
Disagree, I don't want to find out that I can't run faster than bullet the hard way, and I surely do not want to find out who is faster, me or the guy with the knife. I agree that lethal force should not be the first resort, kneecaps are good too, but I can't agree with it being the last resort. in a confrontation there are too many variables to risk going through all the other possible actions before useing force to defend yourself/your house/your family.

Most people have insurance. Things can be replaced, lives cannot. We can't resurrect the dead because they had life insurance, but we can replace a stolen VCR.

Now if someone's standing with their gun to your head, THEN firing your own weapon is a last resort. If however, you have a gun and they have a knife and they’re some distance away 'blowing them away' certainly is not the last resort. You should always try to run away first, if you come running down stairs pistol drawn then your going to have a confrontation, especially if they are armed as well. If you escape out the back door no one gets hurt, including YOU.

Quote:
Nevertheless, it is true. Have you ever heard the saying "don't do the crime if you can't do the time"? If you commit a crime, IMHO you are saying that you are ready to accept any consequences of that crime. If someone commits a crime against me then they must be prepared for the consequences, right now I am living on five acres in the country and I have a tractor with a

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME