On Fighting Force With Force
Fri, 2004-12-10 02:12
#1
On Fighting Force With Force
I must admit, I would be the first person to react violently towards someone breaking and entering my home. But isn't there a possibility that by officially 'tolerating' use of potentially fatal force against an intruder we are in effect, providing a burglar with their own (warped) justification for arming themselves.
Aren't we, by making publicity of, and advocating force with force, inviting a new and potentially lethal intruder into our homes?
ely whitley
no we're not, we're legislating for the 90 percent of unarmed but still dangerous burglars that are confronted and resort to violence as a way of avoiding capture, or, enter a house with the intent to cause harm, again usually armed with no more than a knife.
the idea that burglars will now carry on breaking in but now take an AK47 is silly, most are just desperate scumbags with nothing to lose and a hair trigger in a panic situation.
If you confront them they will lash out, if they win you end up injured and robbed, if you win they end up claiming unreasonable force and smiling all the way to the bank while YOU have to face a jury for defending your home when some piece of shit decided to break into it and take your belongings.
I know it's an old cliche but if anyone breaks into my house then they leave their rights in the street and I will assume the worst of them and act accordingly.
pity the fool?
mississippi
I'm with you, Ian, in spades.
Karl Wiggins
Ely, you're amongst friends here. Anybody who decides to break into my house has made a choice. When considering that choice he must obviously have taken into account that the occupants also have a choice, and that that choice may be to defend their belongings and their family with violence. Bearing this in mind, if he still chooses to go ahead then he takes on board everything that goes along with that decision. He can hardly cry "Victim" if he gets hurt.
If someone breaks into my home then my duty to my family is to 'disable' them as rapidly and as efficiently as possible. I would have no time to ask myself soul-searching questions as to their age or state of mind. At all costs I must prevent them reaching and possibly harming my family.
It's their choice, not mine. They could just as easily choose to walk on past my house, and in that case we have no quarrel. Their choice.
(As I finish this post, I can now hear the "But you also have a duty to your family to stay out of gaol, Karl" arguments being typed).