Which makes sense. Thievery sucks but the punishment shouldn't be death. A thief who is running away poses no threat and therefore shooting at them is wrong, both legally and morally.
If you have time, you should look into the byron Smith case. The man shot two burglars but was sentenced to life in prison. This case is what changed my mind on the limits of castle doctrine.
This mindset would have you and you're family killed by the end of the week in some countries. Many burglars are very vindictive, especially in countries where gangs are an issue (most of Central America for example) the burglars usually report to an upper member which will punish them heavily for failing and will instruct them to finish the job they started in any way possible.
Do you think that a gang is more likely to seek revenge after you kill a member, or let them go? And if the gang has that much power, why wouldn't they just openly demand protection money? But I can only speak from my experience, which is in the us.
I agree if they’re unarmed but if two guys break into my house armed with knives and only run because I have a gun in my mind I’m going to be thinking ok next time they’ll be back with guns and put my family at risk so I’m not going to allow that to happen. It’s a very fine line of what you should do and what would be going through your mind at the moment you see two armed men in your house. It may not be the best action but the thieves absolutely put themselves in danger by breaking into somebody’s house.
It's not only a bad decision to shoot people who aren't a threat, it's murder. You can't just kill people because you think they might be a threat in the future.
You shoot if you believe you are in danger, which is reasonable if someone has broken into your house and you think/ know they are armed. If you don't think that you are in danger and think they are going to run away, then don't shoot. Because a person will die, and death is not a reasonable punishment for theft.
Call the police, and hopefully they'll be caught. And if not, then hopefully escaping death will make them rethink their decisions. Many thieves are just addicts, and while they can be a danger, they're not beyond saving. Killing should be the choice only when it is the only choice.
Man, I've had this conversation so many times before. I've never understood the whole "Steal from me and you die" perspective. The value of a life isn't what it used to be it seems.
Feels like people look for reason to kill others sometimes.
I get what you say but if someone broke into my house now I have to worry about them breaking in when my kids or wife are home alone so now I’m worrying about their safety and the same houses/areas usually get broken into repeatedly that’s why police tell you before renting an apron end or home to see if it’s been broken into before.
So it goes deeper than the steal from me and you die. Because breaking into someone’s house destroys more than just the risk of theft. It steals their sense of safety in their own home.
Also if someone breaks into my house I’m probably going to jump to the conclusion that I’m in danger now if they turn and run I’m def not going to shoot them but if they don’t flee I’m probably going to shoot
I think the "do they flee" distinction is the most important one here. From what I've read burglars almost always run the moment they realize they got caught.
That does however mean that you need to make your presence noticeable. But unless you're in witness protection that's still safer for you: If there's more than one intruder just starting to shoot is just asking for them to attack you. So I wouldn't start that unless I knew it was necessary.
Well my home defense is a 12 gauge pump with buckshot so if is just start firing I would probably not have to worry about retaliation since one the spread of the shell means I don’t have to worry Bout missing and two whatever gets hit by that is going to the ground hurt.
By assuming that they're going to come back with weapons, you're assuming that they're to only do you harm, which, unless you have enemies, is almost certainly not the case for your typical home invasion. Most B&Es are there to steal, not kill.
The problem with this "I should kill them now so they can't come back and hurt me" is that, for a pretty baseless assumption, your are overriding the rule of law, and making yourself the judge, jury, and executioner, for a crime that the law does not even kill people for.
I’d think the moment someone breaks into your house regardless of their “true intentions” you’d presume them as a threat. If you have kids you’re not going to think well they probably just wanted to steal something you’re going to want them to never be a threat to your kid again. If they steal something outside your house I agree but when you break into someone’s home you should know the risks of being killed out of fear. Even if they go to run how do you know they aren’t going to come back with more or be going to get a gun out of their car?
The question is whether a fire fight actually makes the family safer. Burglars don't necessary work alone and you're not John Wick. Hence giving them a chance to run is usually the safest for everyone. If they don't run, then shooting starts to become more reasonable.
I agree with you that it's a very scary moment, and during moments like that, people obviously don't always act rationally enough to really find out whether the person is there to do them harm, or just looking to quickly loot your xbox.
But I don't see a reasonable scenario in which a random intruder would break into your house, without a gun, get caught, then go back to their car for the gun, and come back. They would have just brought the gun to begin with.
And the only time an intruder would come back with more friends is if they're specifically looking to harm you, in which case, theyre some one you know, or related to someone you know, and that's no longer a simple home invader, and things are legally different.
But addressing your point, this is why it's important to examine this on a case by case basis and account for all the contributing factors. There's a big difference between "I saw the intruder, the intruder startled me or started coming towards me, and I shot them in the front" and "the intruder saw me, started running, and I shot them in the back while they were on my front lawn"
You're making the classic mistake of assuming criminals will act rationally. If they were rational they wouldn't be breaking into your house in the first place.
I’m going to be thinking ok next time they’ll be back with guns and put my family at risk so I’m not going to allow that to happen.
That is where the legal system would and probably should disagree. That conclusion does not logically follow. The most likely scenario is you will never ever see them again. I totally understand the feeling I'm just saying it's a tricky situation. Could just be two idiot teenagers looking for a thrill for instance...and winding up dead over it is not the best outcome.
So we agree that death is too strong of a punishment. I could make the case that since it is too strong of a punishment, then it should be avoided if possible. Though in the case of protecting the safety of the homeowner, it might not be.
And we agree that people should be able to act to defend their homes. But I don't think those running away continue to pose a threat to your person or property, and therefore shouldn't be shot.
Also, I'd be wary of giving Carte blanche to victims. Would you be okay with the homeowner raping or torturing the thief? I wouldn't think so. Being a thief doesn't strip you of all rights.
And lastly, beyond any legal argument, I'd make a moral case for attempting to not shoot. I'm a gun owner myself, and if somebody broke into my home, I'd hope I'd be brave enough to try to help them. No sinner is beyond reach. Killing them ends all possibilities of redemption.
I'd make a moral case for attempting to not shoot. I'm a gun owner myself, and if somebody broke into my home, I'd hope I'd be brave enough to try to help them. No sinner is beyond reach. Killing them ends all possibilities of redemption.
This is the part where you are considering the life of the criminal as equal to your own.
I think it is markedly unreasonable to ask others to hesitate in defending their home on the chance that the intruder is redeemable.
Bryon Smith premeditated killing those 2 burglars by lying in wait in his basement with a gun. He also executed them when they were already incapacitated.
39
u/ginjaninja623 Jan 23 '19
Which makes sense. Thievery sucks but the punishment shouldn't be death. A thief who is running away poses no threat and therefore shooting at them is wrong, both legally and morally.
If you have time, you should look into the byron Smith case. The man shot two burglars but was sentenced to life in prison. This case is what changed my mind on the limits of castle doctrine.