Philosophical Question..

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Philosophically, why? Why is there a limit? If they are running off of your property, they might end up at your mothers, or sisters another night and kill or rape them? Why do they have to be holding a knife? What if they know martial arts and can damage you for ever with a kick or hit to the face or spine?

I have just never understood the line of thinking that they have to have a weapon for them to be considered dangerous.

True story: When I was in high school we had a very good hockey team. One game this punk kept slashing me in my calf, right above my skate. Kept calling me a pussy and such trying to provoke me. Well, I had had enough, and we dropped our gloves and sticks. However, I took my helmet and whipped him across the face. I broke his jaw, eye socket and nose. While a helmet can be used as a weapon, he had one as well. What's to stop a dirty thief from hitting you across the face and causing permanent damage

Yeah it is called Manslaughter that's why.

It is part of the Legal System and always has been. It exists for crazy people that use excessive force.
 
Yeah it is called Manslaughter that's why.

It is part of the Legal System and always has been. It exists for crazy people that use excessive force.


We agree on why not to do it, but the original question was philosophically is it ok.
 
We agree on why not to do it, but the original question was philosophically is it ok.

Philosophically you're saying Manslaughter is never possible? That's unlikely.

So philosophically, you need to prove your case in court. Each case has mitigating circumstances, that even the Supreme Court says, one must take into account.
 
Somewhat related, but I didnt feel like making a new thread about this....

Yesterday morning some dude broke into my cousins house and was watching the TV and playing the piano. She was sleeping downstairs and called the cops and my other cousin Greg. Greg came over and knocked this dude out when he reached in his pocket. My family's all over the news, pretty funny stuff

http://www.katu.com/news/local/132883073.html
 
You come in my house You'll get capped in both knee caps....... both wrists...... both shoulders!
 
Wait, their back is to me? I wouldn't shoot them ... I would however come up behind them and wrap my forearm around their neck and choke them to death.
 
Somewhat related, but I didnt feel like making a new thread about this....

Yesterday morning some dude broke into my cousins house and was watching the TV and playing the piano. She was sleeping downstairs and called the cops and my other cousin Greg. Greg came over and knocked this dude out when he reached in his pocket. My family's all over the news, pretty funny stuff

http://www.katu.com/news/local/132883073.html

The family told KATU News the doormat in front of their house does not say 'welcome' on it. It does not say anything at all.

My only question is, what is the doormat hiding? I think it should be put on the stand when this comes to trial.

barfo
 
My only question is, what is the doormat hiding? I think it should be put on the stand when this comes to trial.

barfo

I usually wander into houses if I walk by them and the doormat says, welcome.

I haven't had a chance to talk to him yet, but I'm wondering if Greg punched him because he wanted to knock the dude out for being an idiot, or if the dude was really grabbing in his pocket.
 
Moral of the story: You mess with my family, you get knocked the fuck out!

NoPo, what, what?
 
Philosophically, I think that someone who illegally enters my house should have a reasonable expectation that I will kill them.
Ed O.

That's my thought. By the mere fact someone is entering my house they have signed a death warrant. I am being automatically placed in the role of defender and they the encroacher. I have to presume it's a life threatening situation and act accordingly. I'm going to shoot and be certain they are dead if I have to unload a clip into them. I believe I have a right to not have them come back on me in retaliation, so it's a death sentence for them.
 
That's my thought. By the mere fact someone is entering my house they have signed a death warrant. I am being automatically placed in the role of defender and they the encroacher. I have to presume it's a life threatening situation and act accordingly. I'm going to shoot and be certain they are dead if I have to unload a clip into them. I believe I have a right to not have them come back on me in retaliation, so it's a death sentence for them.

Breaking News!

Blazer Prophet kills 3 Trick or Treaters for ringing his doorbell.
 
Breaking News!

Blazer Prophet kills 3 Trick or Treaters for ringing his doorbell.

Well, he did say, "entering my house...".

So, I'll tell him Hi for you while visiting him in prison.
 
(Waiting for "that's how NoPo rolls, FAMS!")
 
That's my thought. By the mere fact someone is entering my house they have signed a death warrant. I am being automatically placed in the role of defender and they the encroacher. I have to presume it's a life threatening situation and act accordingly. I'm going to shoot and be certain they are dead if I have to unload a clip into them. I believe I have a right to not have them come back on me in retaliation, so it's a death sentence for them.

I have the same policy, but I have a 12 mile territorial limit around my house, which you enter at your own risk.

barfo
 
That's my thought. By the mere fact someone is entering my house they have signed a death warrant. I am being automatically placed in the role of defender and they the encroacher. I have to presume it's a life threatening situation and act accordingly. I'm going to shoot and be certain they are dead if I have to unload a clip into them. I believe I have a right to not have them come back on me in retaliation, so it's a death sentence for them.

The fact that you want to kill, not incapacitate, tells me you'll be serving a life sentence soon. :(
 

Of course her actions were reasonable.

Your scenario is COMPLETELY different. Your intruder did not bash the bedroom door in. Your intruder was not brandishing a weapon. Your intruder has their back to you.

I think most Grand Juries would indict you for a charge to stand trial in your fantasy scenario. It just isn't enough to justify killing, when you could easily be killing a relative/friend/known who let themselves in an unlocked door and was pawing through your papers looking for that pound cake recipie.

Or, how about you are a scumbag thrill kill freak who is ready for your first time. Lure someone to your house in a way you don't have any witnesses, get them inside - shoot them in the back. Tell police - "don't arrest me - somebody I don't know was in my house, therefor I am free to kill them at my convenience."

THAT is why a difficult bar is set in order to be in the clear for killing.
 
Of course her actions were reasonable.

Your scenario is COMPLETELY different. Your intruder did not bash the bedroom door in. Your intruder was not brandishing a weapon. Your intruder has their back to you....

True. Hence, why I prefaced my latest link with a "then there's..." :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top