CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:70
Arguments:71
Total Votes:70
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Should most criminal home invasion killings be considered self defense (62)

Debate Creator

DBCooper(2194) pic



Should most criminal home invasion killings be considered self defense

Democrats don't like guns but should a criminal that invades your home not die by the bullet ?


Is protecting your home and your family considered self defense when one is armed ?
Add New Argument

Well, it sure beats the hell out of saying, I say my good man, would you mind awfully putting my property back where you found it and leaving quietly? Otherwise you'll jolly well get my temper up and I'll give you a sock on the jaw.

Of course the filth should be shot to hell.

Once the filth ''breaks and enters'' they should lose all rights and take what's coming to them.

Furthermore, the local authorities should be responsible for meeting the cost of any incidental damage to the homeowner's property, such as cleaning the filth's blood of the fabric of the house as well as any other damage caused by the gunshot.

Most? How about all. A man's home is his castle; no entry without permission.

1 point

Hell yeah all criminals need to be shot that break into a home.

JustIgnoreMe(4290) Clarified
2 points

What if you don't see any gun, they have a their hands full with your tv and they are about to walk out the back door?

Should it still be legal to shoot them?

DBCooper(2194) Disputed
1 point

Should it be legal to shoot criminals ? Well of course it is. You got a problem with that ?

1 point

This is the problem I have with a lot of self-righteous gun owner's. A TV is just property, insurance will cover it. If someone breaks into my house I will pull my gun on them, tell them to leave and not give a rats ass if they take my TV and go. If they decide they want to come at my family? Then they will be on the ground with new holes in them but that's only if they are stupid enough to advance. The ONLY time it's self-defense is when they come after you. Self-defense doesn't apply to purchased goods, it applies to you and your family.

1 point

Should most criminal home invasion killings be considered self defense

Yes

Democrats don't like guns but should a criminal that invades your home not die by the bullet ?

Well, hopefully he doesn't die, and gets arrested, realizes his actions were wrong, and rehabilitates without hurting anyone. But, if he does get shot the person who defended their home shouldn't be punished.

Is protecting your home and your family considered self defense when one is armed ?

I think so even if the intruder wasn't armed.

Too bad this debate was posted by a massive troll.

DBCooper(2194) Disputed
1 point

So a armed home owner can fill a home invader full of holes.

2 points

Yes, but that is a bad idea usually. Unless you have earplugs in and eye protection you might hurt yourself or cause permanent hearing loss. You would want to fill the invader with the least number of holes to get him to stop. Plus, bullets travel through human bodies, so you are going to cause more damage to your home with every extra hole.

DBCooper(2194) Disputed
1 point

Unarmed intruders should be shot ? Interesting coming from a Democrat such as yourself.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

I am still not a Democrat, dipshit.

You have supported gun control, Obama, and liberalism. You have also admitted to being a Democrat many many times. You really shouldn't be calling anyone else a Democrat as an insult.

1 point

Should most criminal home invasion killings be considered self defense?

Yes

Democrats don't like guns but should a criminal that invades your home not die by the bullet ?

If the person invading your house is armed and you feel great fear or death then yes. Unless you have a way to withdraw to safety without harming anyone and to protect yourself then use that instead.

Is protecting your home and your family considered self defense when one is armed?

Yes because if you don't shoot them, they'll shoot you.

JustIgnoreMe(4290) Clarified
1 point

for clarification - do you think it should be legal to shoot the intruder if they don't have a gun (and you don't have a way to withdraw)?

Lol. And then they say atheists are the ones with no morality. Christians can't wait to kill. They fantasize about it. They think one infraction of the law gives them permission to realize those sadistic fantasies. Yes, I would imagine than most killings of home invaders should be considered self defense, at least legally. That doesn't make it moral. It is only moral if one has no other option. Right wingers are likely to think that shooting someone in the back while they run away is self defense, if they committed a crime or are non-white.

Blaze33(3) Disputed
1 point

The debate was not about religion, so stop posting half stupid/half troll comments

nobodyknows(745) Disputed
1 point

For Republicans, everything is about religion. If a republican says "should" he means "God commands."

1 point

First, you need to realize that under the law, the crime of "home invasion" is different than that of burglary. Home invasion means that the perps entered the residence when the home owners and the family were at home. This not need be the case, and usually in fact is not, in the crime of burglary.

Also, as far as using lethal force on somebody who illegally enters your home, the laws that condone this use of deadly force--called Castle Laws--differ from state to state.

So...you do not have the undisputed legal right to kill somebody just for entering your house. Even the Castle Laws stipulate that you need to have a legitimate reason to believe that your life or that of your family is endangered.

So as far as the Debate Question goes, I would say that home invasion killings MIGHT be rightfully considered to be self-defense. Or, they may not. There could be some scenarios where the home owner who kills somebody, say, someone unarmed, or who entered the home out of a sincere mistake, could and should be guilty of murder.

The laws of killing others do not automatically "go away" totally inside of your own dwelling. To think they do is to engage in redneck squidbilly thinking. Some of those idiots are more dangerous than some of the alleged criminals who enter another person's residence.

Last time a guy came into my house illegally I didn;t use a gun, btw. I just beat the shit out of him with a big-ass Mag-Light. LOL

SS

JustIgnoreMe(4290) Clarified
1 point

Even the Castle Laws stipulate that you need to have a legitimate reason to believe that your life or that of your family is endangered.

Some states start with this presumption and a prosecutor would have to prove otherwise - e.g. Florida.

DBCooper(2194) Disputed
1 point

You are quite the dummy on the Castle Law but that is not at all surprising.

DBCooper(2194) Disputed
1 point

Home invasion is not burglary ? What planet are you from there Democrat ? You Democrats do love you some criminals do you not !

JustIgnoreMe(4290) Clarified
1 point

All home invasions are burglaries - not all burglaries are home invasions.

1 point

It should definitely be named self-defense in any case. Should the intruder be below 18 or unarmed. They should either put down your property or pay the price. Should the be shot after the piece property is put down, maybe some light punishment but no felonies or lawsuits should be allowed. The person who invaded your home should be held accountable and only them.

1 point

I don't believe that anyone who invades a home is deserving of death, but the fear that such an invasion can cause certainly justifies the death of the invader in the event that the homeowner shoots and kills them.

Personally though, I'd sooner lock my doors and prevent an invasion rather than live with the memory of shooting someone to death, even if it is justified.