DDL on 24/2/2009 at 17:46
Wasn't "exactly that" essentially a central underpinning element to the cold war? ;)
Matthew on 24/2/2009 at 17:58
Quote Posted by Wormrat
How can people say this shit with a straight face.
It's the theory of escalation.
SD on 24/2/2009 at 17:59
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
I should probably add that my theoretical situations loosely based around the idea of a robber and someone living on their own, I wasn't taking families and children into account there.
Still though, how often do people break into houses to rape or murder the occupants? Fett even admits his fear of burglars is exacerbated by unrealistic portrayals in movies. I reckon it's safe to say that 999,999 times out of a million, intruders have nothing but property crime on their minds, and frankly, home insurance is a far cleaner way of dealing with that sort of thing than a deadly weapon.
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
There could even be (probably fairly unlikely) reasonable reasons for someone to be skulking around your home... maybe something like your daughter bringing home a boyfriend without you knowing about it.
That's not even particularly unlikely. My sister invited a friend back to our parents' house once as he was too wasted to get back to his own place. My mum was woken up about 4am by strange sounds outside her bedroom door, opening it to find a strange, semi-clothed chap urinating on the landing. It was fortunate for both of them that she had met this guy on one previous occasion and actually recognised him in the half-light else there could have been one hell of a shitstorm - though perhaps even more fortunate still that we don't live in a country where the immediate reaction to every perceived threat is to shoot first and ask questions later.
Matthew on 24/2/2009 at 18:10
Quote Posted by Wormrat
I can see how it's
trying to be, but when you start off by threatening someone with a gun,
the situation cannot be escalated any further.
Good point, I missed the first part.
Nameless Voice on 24/2/2009 at 18:17
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
I didn't know Jack Thompson was a member of TTLG...
Seriously man. wtf has this got to do with anything?
Not that much, I wasn't being completely serious.
Quote Posted by Wormrat
I can see how it's
trying to be, but when you start off by threatening someone with a gun,
the situation cannot be escalated any further.
It's still the theory of escalation, kind of.
I was trying to say that if one side or the other is carrying a gun, there's far less chance of someone being killed than if both have a gun. Just because the intruder has a gun doesn't mean they were planning to use it, but if you have one too, then they might be forced to.
No one has a gun: unlikely for anyone to be killed.
Either side has a gun: some chance of someone being killed, but can be avoided unless one side is trigger happy.
Both sides have a gun: high chance of someone being killed.
fett on 24/2/2009 at 18:41
Even if there's no gun, there's still a pretty good chance of the homeowner being injured, traumatized, etc. I'm not a very big guy, and wouldn't give myself a good chance in a fist fight in the dark. If it came down to it, I'd prefer to be the one holding the weapon, especially if my opponent has the balls to break into a house in the first place. If he's willing to do that, it's not a far stretch to imagine him going berserk and trying to injure me, or make it so I can't identify him in a police lineup.
I still can't help but detect some kind of concern or empathy for the criminal here. :confused:
Thirith on 24/2/2009 at 19:03
Quote Posted by fett
I still can't help but detect some kind of concern or empathy for the criminal here. :confused:
Well, personally I'd share that empathy or concern, although I admit that this might sound very different if I'd ever been in a situation such as the one we're describing. I do think that if there is a feasible alternative to killing a person, that alternative is preferable - although in any given situation we may not have the luxury of knowing whether the choice is feasible or whether it endangers ourselves and those we feel responsible for.
I do hope that
if you had a choice between incapacitating but not killing the criminal and putting a bullet in his head you'd still prefer the former option. Even if you didn't - if you felt that the guy had forfeited his life by his actions - I would imagine that you might understand why some people wouldn't feel the same.
Kolya on 24/2/2009 at 19:14
Whatever happened to good old self defense with a baseball bat? :idea:
fett on 24/2/2009 at 19:45
Quote Posted by Thirith
I do hope that
if you had a choice between incapacitating but not killing the criminal and putting a bullet in his head you'd still prefer the former option. Even if you didn't - if you felt that the guy had forfeited his life by his actions - I would imagine that you might understand why some people wouldn't feel the same.
I absolutely agree. It's always preferable to save a life than take it, but if there was any doubt and my family was in danger, I would do the natural thing. I don't think a housebreaker has automatically forfeited his life by his actions either, for the record. But I do think he has jeopardized it by entering into a situation in which he might be shot or eaten by my dog, and whether he had murderous intent or not shouldn't dictate my own actions in that case.
