Should you be allowed to defend yourself from a thief?
A man's home is his castle.
Side Score: 29
|
 |
No.
Side Score: 11
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
What a poorly worded question. A more fitting question would be "should you be allowed to protect yourself from a thief"? I would never "attack" a thief. Should said thief be in the process of proving a threat to myself or any of those who live in my home...it will not be an attack. It will be an extermination. Said thief will never be an issue to another family should said thief pick my home as their first attempt. Then again if said thief is impervious to 00 buckshot, said thief may become your problem? Side: A man's home is his castle.
1
point
So this is the great Terminator of which I've heard so much about. If an individual violates my right to keep and maintain my property free of trespass, then I can do what is necessary to protect the inviolability of said property. However, I would not use lethal force, despite my belief that such out of necessity must be allowed. My person, or the persons of my family or friends or of any individual who happens to have valid reason and invitation to be within the confines of my property, may be protected through the use of lethal force, by I do not view the property as being of greater importance than the trespasser. Side: A man's home is his castle.
|
Try to think of this sensibly. If it were one of your children who was hanging out with the wrong people and got involved in burgaling a house (*note how i'm not saying pointing a gun or a knife at anyone) then would you be so keen for the homeowner to blow a whole through your kid? No. Unless you've got serious problems and therefore shouldn't be allowed out of a mental institute, you would feel a sense of injustice, unfairness and anger towards that narrow minded homeowner. Everyone can make mistakes. Granted if you can defend yourself through exerting force to detain or scare the burglar away then that's ideal, but why be unintelligent enough to value materialistic things over human life? The comment about not being able to replace a man's life has been the only intelligent comment so far. Clearly you are allowed to defend yourself from a thief, hence self-defence; you can use 'reasonable force'. Yes, the men in the story about finding the leader and beating the crap out of him have the right to feel that angry, but his punishment should be dealt with by the police and by taking the law into their own hand, they are not using self-defence but instead attacking the man. Can you attack anyone on the street. You aren't allowed to attack anyone that has done you wrong, no matter how you feel about them (otherwise referees would be being attacked all the time because of decisions that go against certain teams). The amount of ignorance on this website is amazing...a Nazi symbol as a display picture just says it all about that ignorant idiot. Grow up. Side: No.
So you act as if breaking into someones home is an unconcious decision produced by ones environment so it is just OK to steal. That is a totally flawed argument, because it is a concious decision. They are making a concious decision to invade someone's propety and they are paying the consequence by being shot. Side: A man's home is his castle.
Try to find where I made that point in my argument. I think if you read it over again you'll realise that your dispute hasn't attacked what i said just made another statement. Again, imagine if that was your kid. They break into a home because of who they are hanging around with. They're killed for one mistake. Conscious decisions can also be the result of a confused mind. If the state doesn't have the death penalty, why should a citizen be able to administer it? Out of curiousty therefore, how is my argument 'totally flawed'? Side: No.
0
points
I think you should be able to defend your territory, hell I have some katanas on display to unsheathe at a moments notice. BUT, I don't think that gun-crazy yokels should be able to invite guests over, and fill the dinner table with buckshot and claim they were being robbed during dinner. There's a fine line and morons got pretty good at crossing it. Maybe someone in a suit comes to your door because their car broke down. In a world that o.k.s "defending your property" a douchebag could kill that person just because the war was over and they didn't plug someone in ages and claim "Ah thought hee wes one-a them theer mob taps lookin to cos a rukus". There's never a simple answer when one side going overboard can cause death. (In this case going too far either way can result in death). The solution is preparation. Have a high voltage wire or something placed where it doesn't bother your family, but a burglar will get dropped. You could even have a big door painted gold and trapped to heaven with axes and shotguns home-alone style. The answer isn't to give every potential moron a liscence to kill. Get creative with your house of death. It's fun oh, terminator, the story went, guy comes home to find his family at knife-point, he does what they say and they tie him up. He gets loose and him and his neighbor scare them off. They find the leader in the backyard and beat the SHIT out of him. Like brain damage kind of shit. They get arrested, he gets years, burglar gets a pardon, and starts robbing fresh out of the hospital. Take that any way you want to :) Side: No.
1
point
My statement didn't warrant a downvote, plus I assume since you only took one sentence from multiple paragraphs of text you take no issue with anything else I've said. Why would you jump to the conclusion that by "gun-crazy yokel" that I was referring to anyone willing to excersise their rights as an american citizen? Have you been called a "gun-crazy yokel" and from then on assumed no person in the world can be gun-crazy? Lower your crossbow davie crocket, the only insinuation I would ever make would be after you take multiple sentences personally in which case I would start to think there's a reason for it to offend you. I was referring to exaclty who I mentioned. Gun crazy yokels. Are you one? No? Didn't think so. Sit down. Side: No.
it depends on how physical you want to get with the thief. Restraining him from taking your flatscreen, or if you're worried for your family is one thing. But, taking out a shotgun and blowing a hole through is gut is wayyy out of line. You can buy a new tv, but can you replace a man's life? Side: No.
2
points
Why would anyone want to replace the asshole's life? Why give him a chance to avoid going to jail? Why pay to keep him in jail? He's of no use to society. Why keep him around? OK, I rarely do this but... I"m down voting you. Mainly because I'm old, have lots of points (so I can afford to lose one), and because I don't give a damn ;) Side: A man's home is his castle.
1
point
No, no, no, no, and no. If someone has decided to break into your house, they are making a concious attempt to trespass and deface YOUR HARD-EARNED PROPERTY! You have every right to "blow a whole in his gut" with a shotgun or whatever else you want to use. If someone broke into my house, there'll be hell to pay for them. Side: A man's home is his castle.
|
