Well no. I mean even socialism doesn't tolerate theft with the idea of public ownership. It's not an acceptable form of earning money by people who have empathy or sympathy, which should be everyone... especially liberals. We've got those in spades.

Felony Murder.

Maybe. It depends on the context of the Castle Doctrine, considering it was the occupant who committed the homicide. Either way, the death penalty would be difficult to apply in this case because of the lack of intent.

Are we referring to the "death penalty" administered on Bubba Joe's living room carpet or by the system afterwards?

Update- local pd said that while investigation is ongoing, the shooter acted within his rights, and it is unlikely that any charges will be filed- score one for the good guys.....

while it was the occupant who fired the shot that killed assailant number one, assailant number two was a perpetrator of the crime and is legally responsible for a death during a felony crime. This could be charged capital murder.

Could be. But if the courts are reasonable, they won't seek capital murder on someone without malicious intent on the life of the dead party. And I would support this. I don't see the justice in state-sponsored homicide of a felon involved in a robbery gone wrong, where he didn't have any direct hand in the killing, nor would he want it. This is where the court should show a divide between a modern approach to felony murder in contrast to its ancient roots. I believe the Eighth Amendment might offer help with that.

Maybe it's been said, and maybe it hasn't. What sucks about killing someone in self defence is that you have killed someone. Now, the good part about it is that you are alive, but you have the rest of your life to deal with having brought someone to their end. Now it may well be you can satisfy yourself with "he needed killing", and that's fine, but I think most people who don't kill for a living will find it a bit more difficult than that.

The only extent to which I want to jump into the choice of weapon discussion is to say that it is remarkably easy to do lethal damage with bare hands, and If I have to kill someone, I'd prefer to do it that way. My hands don't go through walls unless I put them there. Course, you have to be within closing distance, but unless a firearm is already drawn, that's about 18'.

No socialism is about the state stealing from its citizens :thumbsup:

You can't tax citizen vrs citizen theft so they don't want any part of it ;)

That would be quite amusing.

Try to burgle a house, your accomplice gets shot and killed by owner, you get the death penalty for his death.

Whoah, careful there. Buddhists are capable of great acts of violence and war.

Like I said... most buddhists. No one's perfect. Not even Richard Gere.

Hahahaa, love the quip about Richard Gere. However, if you insist on saying most Buddhists, then I would say most Christians as well. But really, I am just trying to throw some balance out here in case people erringly think Buddhists are peaceful and non-violent.

I should point out that Buddhism has never declared war and that statistically a Buddhist is the last person who's likely to kill you. Unless you're a hamster. Then you're fucked.

Do something, Gere.

Yeah, at least get some duct tape. (I'll slink back to Nonsense now.)

This is why... well, so many things.

The idea of someone committing a minor property crime getting the death penalty amuses you?

What can be said about such a statement?

This is what happens when the "I'm allright, Jack" culture goes to the extreme I guess...

It sure as hell amuses me. Commit a home invasion, get a faceful of buckshot. Whoa, hey! I guess they didn't see that one coming.

Oh that's bound to happen at some point. It's been, what, three months now?

I like the logic here. Real world consequences make me really happy.

the main paper put on the front page recently a story of two more citizens who were attacked and fought back- one had a drunk, stoned guy try to kick down his door- the victim beat the shit out of him, and when he tried to get up and fight the cops when they got there, they tazed him.... the second was a woman mugged in the lot of a local restraunt- she started fighting with her attacker- said attacker ran off and was arrested nearby- I like the idea of citizens fighting back against criminals- seems like a happier world when a victim becomes a victor...

Matter of proportion, though. Robbery thwarted may be worth jail time or a permanenet limp, but when you kill a man (to borrow a phase from Eastwood) you take away everything he is and everything he was ever gonna be. Castle Doctrine is all fine and well, and I do hope that it will have a deterrant effect, but unless you're in immanent danger of loss of life, or have a reason to suspect that you might be, then killing is probably an overreaction.

Not saying I wouldn't be inclined to overreact to the guy who broke into my house and didn't show his hands when I bent his knee backwards, but there you have it.

Correct me if I'm stupid, but that's the whole intent of the Castle Doctrine legislation and the whole home invasion issue: DON'T DO IT. DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT. YOU MIGHT DIE. Why do we feel like people that violate the rights of others to such a huge degree need such outlandish protections from the rather natural consequences of this type of crime? I'm all for the "guilty until proven innocent" bit in court, but if somebody I don't know just smashed my garage window and is in my living room holding something that could be a lethal weapon... I figure his rights just evaporated until the circumstances change. I won't go down stairs with guns blazing but I won't feel any remorse for killing him should I have to shoot. Nobody shoots a gun to wound an attacker. A firearm is a lethal weapon and should be treated and used as such. If I have to shoot somebody? They're going to die. Do I like this? Not at all. Am I okay with this in self-defense? Certainly.

Remember now: With everything in the legal world (and life in general), these Castle Doctrines have to be applied to the least common denominator of those who would have to use them. Most women and the elderly aren't inclined to wrestle young male intruders. It's cool to be all bravado-balls and talk about home invasions where you'll Jackie Chan some guy in the dark... but let's be realistic here. American Gladiators we are not. You and I aren't the only type of person on the planet... combative males. Home invading bad guys would be wise to target the single moms and lonely grandmas of the world and the law has to work for the defense option that these type of people can exercise...


Don't get me wrong: I really do believe in the supreme value of human life. I don't want to hurt anybody. I also believe, however, said value fluctuates based on choices.

Lots of good points there.

I understand completely that castle doctrine is intended to have a deterrant effect, and I suspect that the primary results of castle doctrine, after a couple of well publicized court cases, will be to 1) Increase the number of firearms in private homes, and 2) lower the instances of buglary and home invasion. The secondary results are going to be 1) a spike in accidental shootings in the home as people who have absolutely no idea how to use a gun or keep one well or safely come into frequent contact with them (Which, incidentally, I am fine with - ignorance of one's limitations is Darwin's favorite trait), and 2) and increase in the deadliness of burglaries and home invasions. If you might get shot, then there's no reason not to kill everyone in the house and then take all their stuff, oh, and the girl's cute, so we might as well have some fun before we shoot her - that sort of thing. That's the kind of unintended consequence that could bite you in the ass. And there is at least one more that I don't feel like putting the brainpower into finding.

Now, don't get me wrong; I am all in favor of castle doctrine. I just prefer to look at it from all sides.

If I come across as internet tough guy, by the way, it is in the nature of making sure that I have the right mind set to be a 10 cent Jackie Chan if the occasion arises. If you don't think about what do do ahead of time, then you have to think about it when there is no time.

Point taken about the least common denominator, though. Small women and little old people. And there's unintended consequence #3 - consider the armed with Alzheimers. The folks who make a drive through produce marked with the biggest hand cannon available. You want from amusing? Consider - burglar breaks in. Granny Hudgins with her brand spanking new Ruger Super Blackhawk 44 magnum lifts and fires, killing the burglar, but because of bone loss the kickback takes off both her hands and knocks the gun into her chest cracking her sternum and killing her. Now that's comedy. (I know, she probably wouldn't be able to lift, let alone aim, but I'm shooting for absurd here.)

On the whole, though, you are very much right.

TopHat:

No, no, no. I don't think you're a tough-talking internet hot-air ninja. I have the utmost respect for you based on the attitudes you've shown in your posts. Hell, I wouldn't want to fight you and I'd fight just about anybody. :D

Yeah, I'm definitely try to see all the sides to home defense. What a mess. I think it's a positive move though considering how many guns are out there and the increasing boldness of criminals because they know there are easy pickings and minimal consequences.

Hmm, I don't see the number of firearms increasing all that much. A few maybe. Very few previous non-gun owners would go out and buy a gun based on some piece of legislation. Those of us that already own firearms "got that blue steel fever" and probably have a couple around the house. States that have a castle doctrine already host the gun nuts of the US who are more likely to cap an intruder than residents of other states anyway.

I concur that accidental shootings will increase based on the number of guns in homes, but not necessarily due to this kinda of legislation. Simple math, really. Give a bunch of scared people firearms and no training? Whoops. I wish there was a way to mandate training without it being another gummint restriction to individual ownership. People don't learn about their new stuff before they use it and they get hurt. This goes for vehicles, power tools, appliances, and firearms.

I'm all for Darwin's natural selection... but not to one of my friends. :( The dilemma.

Your point about the escalation of force used in such crimes is a noteworthy deduction. I don't see this as a particular problem in that the kind of person who already has the deviant mentality to invade a home and kill everybody in cold blood would end up committing such a crime anyway. Men and their balls, again. I'd rather have more guns in civvie hands... it increases the threat threshold necessary for the criminal to consider that type of crime an option.

Great points, man.

With violence, there is no happiness in victory; though there would be fewer victims.

I disagree. I have seen the morbid happiness in violent victory, Baraka.

Part "OH SNAP, I PWNED YOUR ASS WITH A MACHINE GUN," part the joy of still being alive.

Conflict is in our nature. We love it. The tools change, the rush doesn't.

Be careful of the words we choose.

We love our mothers; we don't love conflict. Euphoric excitability might be an outcome of conflict, maybe. It can be a sweet poison. Mowing people down with a machine gun and hugging one's mother are two completely different things, and should trigger completely different emotions.

Don't misread what I mean by "happiness." Happiness is not a warm gun.

Willrevil, Willravel's evil twin, has an answer for "You know what sucks about killing in self defense?"

You mean the words I choose? Hell, I meant it.

Love is a chemical reaction reward furnished by our ape brains when we do something good or when something fucks up inside and we think its good.

The chemical doesn't care if it is our mother or if we're butchering hookers.

What is human history without conflict? A lot of getting ready for conflict.

This doesn't apply to every individual in the human race, of course... and we've made a lot of progress with our world civilization network in the last few hundred years, but take away civilization and we go back to the law of the jungle, brother.

And you know what the law of the jungle is, right?

When you're in the trees, you gotta swing.

Don't make me unearth that god-awful term noble savage.

Our brains aren't dependant on iPods et al. Shakespeare didn't have a Blackberry, and he'd be considered a smelly street urchin by our standards.

What?

By world civilization I meant that women can read and people of different skin colors can interact without it involving racial slurs and Batman-like combat noises.

Wait... how did iPods and Blackberries enter into the human condition? I've never even used either, let alone owned either.

I argue the nobility, I recognize the savage.

Edited, sorry.

Not so much. I did not deny that there is pleasure in killing. But pleasure does not equal happiness. Pleasure is fleeting, happiness is lasting. Pleasure leads to delusion, happiness is eye-opening. One could find pleasure in anything. What does that say about pleasure?

I should probably clarify: By happiness, I refer to the condition as described by the Buddhist tradition, not the kind prescribed by a psychiatrist. Happiness isn't just the chemical reactions Crompsin mentions; it is a workable path based on understanding oneself and others, and seeing through delusion. It is a difficult thing to achieve. You can't get it by pulling a trigger. It takes hours, if not years.

This is why I warned Crompsin about the words we use. There can be no happiness in killing, though there might be relief, pride, or exhilaration (some feelings of which are harmful, ultimately). We are seldom unaffected by violence; it usually leaves lasting, damaging effects. Happiness can only arise out of violence with great work and understanding, part of which includes forgiving and understanding (and having compassion toward) those who sought to hurt us. The "stigma" you mention, Greg700, isn't artificial, it's as innate as the savage "natures" we enjoy referencing with so much confidence. We are not unintelligent animals. We are programmed with as much sociability (if not far more) as our capacity for great violence.

And, Crompsin, it would take far more than gender-based literacy and a silenced public for a society to be what I would call civilized. What I have written here should demonstrate that.

What sucks about killing in self-defense is that one has been drawn into a painful situation that will prove a challenge to recover from. And for those who do not see this probably have deep-seated issues that would make their path even more challenging, if they choose to walk it at all.

Does this mean that you think Payton Manning needs to be shot? :confused:

For the record, to tophat- if you were worried about the castle doctrine increasing the fuck it attitude of criminals- ie we might get shot so lets do horrible things- be aware that before it was enacted, a family here in town got invaded, and they cooperated- the mom of the house was raped, dad was pistol whipped to death- so the criminal element is already up on the whole murder and rape thing- violent crime has gone down here btw, since the first castle incident.......

Fire: Worried? No. I am in favor of castle doctrine. I am not in favor of killing, but recognize that it may be necessary in certain circumstances. I also believe that one 1) should learn the capability to kill bare handed if at all possible, 2) do one's killing thus if possible, 3) take responsibility for killing, and 4) be prepared for serious psychological issues afterwards. I train in the hopes that having training will make me less likely to have to use it. (Which is wishful thinking of the superstitious variety. I know.)

Your argument, however was (and I mean this in the nicest way possible), spurious and weak. You're saying that an increase in a negative result is acceptable because that negative result has already come about. That is symptomatic of a misunderstanding of statistics and probability that leads to people mistaking anecdotes for broadly significant events. Makes for great political rhetoric, but is a null signal on any sort of policy level.

Personal responsibility is scary.

Michael Vick raped pitbulls?!

Too soon to tell if the castle doctrine is the direct indicator, isn't it? It will only affect those who do the home invasion thing, anyway. Most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows. The castle doctrine won't likely do anything for these people. Maybe we should just lock our daughters up in our towers.

Even with regicide, it often wasn't a foreign enemy; it was usually local adversaries, many of them family. So much for protective castles, even metaphoric ones.

lets put our daughters in defensive handgun and ccw classes, and let them learn kali instead- that is our plan anyway.....- and tophat, I would like to see the figures in a few years, as I really doubt that the CD is going to increase the violence level when its already through the roof.......

Not many women are ready to kill their boyfriends in any given situation. Many of them aren't even ready to report their crimes. And ccw and kali might prove next to useless when caught completely off guard by someone you trust.

I wouldn't say violent crime is through the roof, especially when you do a comparative study. ("Through the roof," at least, is a bit of an exaggeration.) I'm sure the CD will help with some crime, but only a small proportion of it.

I had an ex try to run me over with a Saturn (ew!) once. She was latina.

BAAM! Time will tell what kinds of home defense legislation are useful.

I may be a bit late in posting, but I think that you are forgetting the crackhead factor in this scenario. If the assailant was high on crack/PCP/meth/etc. you might find him a bit harder to subdue. You might even find that you can't without breaking his limbs to the point that he can't physically use them.

Personally, I would feel much safer using the Glock, hopefully it's chambered in something beginning in .4- and hopefully he doesn't get back up to attack my family. Again, the Taser is an option, but getting your hands on a Taser as a civilian might be difficult, and hopefully it acts as advertised.

Uh, hello? Will's a superhero.

...

Hmmm...

How many people in this thread have been in a situation where deadly force was necessary?

I smell a big fat goose egg.

Necessary for what?

Oh, I don't know... to keep you alive? :shy:

Probably no one. Necessary is an absolute word, and the universe is a big and sublime place.

I'm sure for those who have killed, violence was an efficient answer. But necessary?

I feel that necessity (in this case) is dictated by previous experience, current ability, and a realistic expectation of various options.

Least common denominator?

Necessary? No. Effective? Yes. In most situations, a firearm is simply risk mitigation in action. Least amount of me, most amount of target.

Ooo, QUICK! HORRIBLE COMPARISON:

We didn't need the A-bomb to end WW2 but I'm glad we used it.

I cannot disagree with reason. It's like hedging your bets.

It saddens me deeply that you think this about America's greatest wartime atrocity. This is a horrible comparison.

Crompsin and Baraka_Guru, I have to say I think the both of you have attained the goal of TFP in this thread. You two have so respectfully disagreed with one another--it's a beautiful thing.

I appreciate both of your posts in this thread immensely, and I've loved reading them too. Keep up the good work.

The irony is that I feel I completely agree with Baraka_Guru in my ideology. I didn't, don't, and will never want violence in my life. It is in practice that I have seen and done otherwise. It was necessary to keep others or myself alive. It was always so damned easy to figure out when it was made into "us versus them."

I do not like that part of the world, that part of humanity... that I have witnessed.

The kinda stuff that hurts my soul.

...

What the fuck do I know, anyway? :D I'm not a genius.

Even soldiers are philosophers--if they will let themselves be.

Violence is sometimes the easiest way for one to do what one thinks is right. It's when it gets out of hand, or when it is used as the first and only "choice," that we should be worried.

Violence should never be desirable.


Crompsie, you know more than what you give yourself credit for.

If this is the case, then I hope this is an inspiration to all who read it. :) Thanks for the feedback, snowy.

....yowl!

HAHAH, Yowl.

Damn, I miss the 'box.

How did I miss this little gem?

It has nothing to do with the thread and yet makes perfect sense at the same time!

Was it one of those older Saturn's with the headlights like 8 inches apart in the front?

Why does she have to be Latina, huh?! Why can't she just be a female human!?

Were you going to kill her in self-defense with your martial arts skills?

Don't Saturn owners belong to a cult?

That might make more sense of this.

Can you fight cars with martial arts? I bet Jet Li could (or has).

Yes, yes... I've been taught the flying radiator sidekick by my master instructor.

Saturn owners do have a cult. The one close personal friend I have who owned a Saturn also was a Mac evangelist and a betamax owner. It's a character flaw.

Absolutely you can fight cars with martial arts. Martial arts will teach you to not be where the car is going.

Yep. One of those things that's only a few years old, but you can still get one for $15 and some beads on craigslist.
I've never met a white girl that acted like her before. Or a black girl. Or asian. Or Indian. Or Persian.
Nope. She thought I was shagging her sister. I wasn't.

The legal system considers the use of a firearm akin to chopping off someone's head with a sword. You're not going to get a more lenient view on things because you just stab some dude in the gut instead of slicing his jugular open. In either case you will, in all likelihood, be considered to be using "lethal force" to defend yourself, as you used a lethal tool to do so. So long as the object is sharp, fires a high-velocity projectile, or really fucking big and heavy (e.g. a sledgehammer) I think it's safe to say that even one shot/jab/slice will be legally considered lethal force.

Sweet! Disagreement. I feel like I've been here before.

I know very little about the murky Jello that is the law. I'm not a lawyer. Yet.

I'd go and reference my previous comments as a response, but I'm lazy.

...


Facts from earlier:

A: (Useful) guns are more lethal and require minimal effort to use. Point and click.
B: Swords are not instantly lethal (operator dependent) and require physical effort to wield, they also require intimate contact and some level of physical ability.

I'm not talking about end results, I'm not talking about "experts" using them... I'm talking about the initial stance during a confrontation. Can a sword kill a man from across a room? No. A gun will do it every time. Controlled pair.

Anybody can use a gun. The bullet from grandma's gun is the same hard-hitting lethal projectile as the one from a Green Beret's gun. Inner city kids and senior citizen rednecks throw the same blows with their .357s.

Guns bring near equality to the self-defense table through ease and range.

This may change the opinion of the court / jury in a home defense situation.

...

It's all opinion anyway. I'd consult "On Killing" by David Grossman if I was feeling all nitpicky, but I think this thread has really run a good course.

IMHO: Anybody that defends their house with a sword in the age of the Glock is a douchebag that deserves to be shot. Hell, haven't they seen that sword scene in that Indiana Jones flick? Get with it, people. Use a baseball bat, use a table leg, use a gun... don't try to be a ninja.

Unless you are a ninja and then just use your handy shuriken.

I think TFP just found a new tag line.

Amen, brother. Godsmack'd! For this thread I'm alive, for this thread I'm awake.

Yes, use of a sword would likely sway a jury, and probably against the sword-user. As you said, they are fucking antiquated. For someone to use something that seems so rare and archaic, they MUST have some vile ulterior intent, non?

Anyway, my original post about legal interpretation was from the point of view of legal folk (lawyers, judges) most likely. Though I could be slightly incorrect, as the legal system seems to have a hardon for demonizing firearms.

You're absolutely correct.

They demonize. They demonize everything and anything. Their job, ya know?

The difference in the gun / sword debate would be:

General End Result: DEAD BODY OF INTRUDER
How it got there:
A: Firearm. It was dark, I identified the intruder with a flashlight and shot twice.
B: Sword. It was dark, I identified the intruder with a flashlight and proceeded to exert barbaric force on them with a long, heavy blade until they died.

Which is more subtle? Which is more humane? Neither.

What do the masses generally believe? Your actual result.

Shown the crime scene photos, the gun looks more humane.

Once again... the sword is an intimate weapon and if there is one thing the uptight American yuppie can't stand... it is intimacy. The very idea of it.