User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 90

  1. #41
    Black Magic Buzzard Kra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    This isn't tragic. Society benefits from this. There's one less worthless human breathing.
    Political wording on my part. I actually agree with you.
    Function Activity:
    Ni > Te > Ti = Fi > Ne > Si = Fe > Se

  2. #42
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Laws differ from state to state.

    Although I'm not familiar with Maryland Law, the primary issue in this case (if this matter is pursued by the state), is most likely whether the Defendant (sword wielding student) had a legally justifiable reason to use deadly force against the trespassing burglar. The Court will be centrally focused on the mens rea (what was in the head) of the Defendant at the time of the incident. If a reasonable person would have (in similar circumstances) believed the Plaintiff (burglar) posed a imminent threat to their life, the use of deadly force would most likely be justified in the eyes of the Court.


    That being said, I am of the opinion that career criminals understand the hazards of their chosen profession. The fact is, that somewhere around 80 million americans own firearms, and that many jurisdictions in the US have the castle doctrine. A burglar stands a statistically significant chance of encountering a home owner, who is legally authorized to use deadly force in response to the invasion. Assuming that the criminal understands this and continues to rob people anyway, it logically follows that there is consent from the burglar to utilize deadly force in the encounter. This consent of course is implied and not expressly given, but it exists non the less.

    This is why I agree with the use of deadly force by private citizens in response to home invasions. In a free country, where the reality is that LEO's most often arrive at the scene to late to do anything about the crime, the people (having no other defense) must be allowed to defend their constitutionally protected rights to life, liberty, and property.

  3. #43
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    I don't really care for lethal force in general, and have a certain level of respect for professional thieves (not random thugs like this guy, professional ones are very rare and almost never caught).

    That being said, however, I don't see a problem here. With the fact that it was an intruder INSIDE their home, that therefore implies that the intruder very likely has a weapon and may use lethal force themselves. This assumption MUST be made, because if yeu stop to check, yeu're probably already dead. Furthermore, just because the guy *HAS* a sword, doesn't mean he's heavily proficcient with it, and considering the sword type in question, he needs a fair amount of swinging room to actually make any descent use of it for accuracy. Even *IF* he was skilled in its' use, trying to use it in confined quarters like that with finesse would not likely be possible. Add in fear, adrenaline rush, and other factors, and it's pretty heavily weighted that trying to strike a dibilitating, non-lethal blow is very unlikely to start with.

    Add in that, if the intruder LIVED, they could claim they were leaving already and surrendered, in which case a dibilitating blow would lead just as quickly to the same conclusion; a trial. In this case, the intruder can't be used as a witness to claim they gave up, however, so as annoying as it is... the legal system actually supports and PREFERS the murder of another, even if it wasn't neccesary. As stupid as that is.

    Of course, the guy was just out of jail for theft... he obviously wasn't good at it as he was caught AT LEAST twice now, and he obviously wasn't learning from his mistakes. He would've kept doing so likely until the end of his days. Oh wait, he DID do so to the end of his days.

    I'm all for reform and using prisons to reform rather than punish... but... there are some people who will never be 'corrected', no matter how long they stay in a correctional facility.

  4. #44
    Wild Card Atomic Fiend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    873 sx/so
    Socionics
    SLE Ti
    Posts
    7,164

    Default

    Burglars had taken two laptops and a Sony PlayStation from the students' home Monday, Guglielmi said.
    I would've killed him too.

  5. #45
    Senior Member dga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    360

    Default

    if my home was broken into on the same day that someone breaks into it again, i think i would be pretty edgy, too. it's shittty that someone died, but let the kid go. i really doubt he would be swinging a sword at anyone on the street. chalk it up to choosing the wrong mark

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Some time ago, I read a report about a road rage incident in which a guy holding a crowbar was killed when the enraged attacker took it from him and used it. Being overly concerned for an aggressor's well being could quickly become a fatal mistake.

  7. #47
    Senior Member Nonsensical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4
    Posts
    4,010

    Default

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Oh man. Reading the title was enough to get me hysterical. Bravo, bravo!
    Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?

  8. #48
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Some time ago, I read a report about a road rage incident in which a guy holding a crowbar was killed when the enraged attacker took it from him and used it. Being overly concerned for an aggressor's well being could quickly become a fatal mistake.
    Exactly. What concerns me is that a lot of people here think its morally justifiable to kill someone as long as they're a bad guy. Saying that society is better off without that burgler is positively Victorian. This is the 21st century - society's undesirables have the same basic rights as the rest of us. And this sort of situation starts a slippery slope.

    In NZ there was a case about a year or 2 ago where a guy stabbed a 14 year old kid to death who had been tagging on his fence. He was an ordinary guy that had had to deal with a lot of tagging in the past. He was justifiably angry and frustrated about it all but completely lost it when he saw this kid tagging his fence. Afterwards, he seemed to genuinely regret what he did and did admit he got carried away in the moment. When he was charged with murder, a lot of people started supporting him, saying he was right to what he did, that the kid deserved it. This horrified me. Where does it end? Can we do anything we like as long we are 'protecting our property'? Is it fine for me to go around killing people that piss me off?

    Getting back to the Baltimore case: yes, the guy may have been defending his life but he put himself in harm's way in the first place. He could have done any number of things to deal with the situation that wouldn't have resulted in him killing the guy. Is it really more desirable that someone be killed as long as his property is safe? OK, he may even agree that in hindsight he took the wrong action. And yes, he might have gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, but last time I checked, killing someone without entirely meaning to is still murder. Regret is useless here. The guy is dead. If he is found to have acted unnecessarily and/or with undue force than he should be prosecuted - pure and simple.

  9. #49
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    Exactly. What concerns me is that a lot of people here think its morally justifiable to kill someone as long as they're a bad guy. Saying that society is better off without that burgler is positively Victorian. This is the 21st century - society's undesirables have the same basic rights as the rest of us. And this sort of situation starts a slippery slope.

    In NZ there was a case about a year or 2 ago where a guy stabbed a 14 year old kid to death who had been tagging on his fence. He was an ordinary guy that had had to deal with a lot of tagging in the past. He was justifiably angry and frustrated about it all but completely lost it when he saw this kid tagging his fence. Afterwards, he seemed to genuinely regret what he did and did admit he got carried away in the moment. When he was charged with murder, a lot of people started supporting him, saying he was right to what he did, that the kid deserved it. This horrified me. Where does it end? Can we do anything we like as long we are 'protecting our property'? Is it fine for me to go around killing people that piss me off?

    Getting back to the Baltimore case: yes, the guy may have been defending his life but he put himself in harm's way in the first place. He could have done any number of things to deal with the situation that wouldn't have resulted in him killing the guy. Is it really more desirable that someone be killed as long as his property is safe? OK, he may even agree that in hindsight he took the wrong action. And yes, he might have gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, but last time I checked, killing someone without entirely meaning to is still murder. Regret is useless here. The guy is dead. If he is found to have acted unnecessarily and/or with undue force than he should be prosecuted - pure and simple.

    There is a major difference between tagging someone's house and burglarizing it. That example is not analogous to this situation at all.

    As to "society being better off without the burglar," that argument doesn't carry water, either. However, we as citizens have the right to defend our persons and our property with force. There is no duty to retreat in that situation.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  10. #50
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    There is a major difference between tagging someone's house and burglarizing it. That example is not analogous to this situation at all.
    Acutally, in many ways it is: defence of property, previous incidence(s) of a similiar nature happening to the attacker (hence, a degree of frustration involved), an intention to stop/apprehend the offender (I didn't make this part clear, apologies), a history of similiar behaviour in the offender, and justification of the act by the public because the offender was 'bad' and 'deserved it'. But mainly this was to demonstrate a slippery slope of killing in defence of property and its moral implications. I meant to look at this from the big picture.

    As to "society being better off without the burglar," that argument doesn't carry water, either. However, we as citizens have the right to defend our persons and our property with force. There is no duty to retreat in that situation.
    I do believe in the right to protect your property. And I am well aware of what it is like to be burgled watching my friends go through it and the crap job the police did in dealing with it.

    But I'm saying, in perspective, can there really be any comparison between one person's right to protect their property and another's right to life. Is the thought of losing your TV really that significant when you consider the strong possibility that you could end up killing someone (or getting yourself killed) in the protection of it? And lets face it the guy went to confront the burgler in the garage (which was away from the house - the house might not have been targeted at all). There was no need to defend himself until he put himself in that position.

    Let me get this straight, if he was attacked and had to kill the guy to stop him, fair enough. I don't agree with his actions but I don't think he should be held accountable. I'm talking about the moral issue here - not just with his actions but the way the public responds. I think incidences like these can have a negative effect on how other people behave in similar circumstances in the future. It can lead to people blatantly disregarding the law to take delusional self-righteous actions.

Similar Threads

  1. Six Oregon occupiers arrested, one person killed in confrontation with police
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-26-2016, 10:54 PM
  2. [SP] Any SP art students? Do you struggle with it?
    By SwimmerGal97 in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-16-2015, 04:49 AM
  3. Beauty Queen Kills Home Invader With Pink Gun
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 03-31-2011, 05:00 AM
  4. Bush apparently now OK with Mercury for Children
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-22-2007, 12:59 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO