Answering questions with questions? Me no likey...
Oh, I'm sorry that simple questions make your positions look so insane, but that's because they are.
Should someone die for trespassing?
No one should ever die for any reason. I'd like people to stop dying from jumping off of bridges, but our bodies are not immortal and they will frequently die from sufficient application of force - like the force exerted by the ground against your accelerated body, or by the necessary and legal force a homeowner had the right to use to lawfully remove you from a place you broke into and entered.
If the intentions are unknown and their capabilities are unknown, then it logically follows that the physical risk is unknown too.
No, because unknown intentions and capability are inherently risky. The risk is not unknown at all.
Draw your gun, stop the intruder in their tracks and call the cops...why not that? Why shoot?
I couldn't say. That's a judgement that only the person in that exact situation can make. We can't make it in the hypothetical. Shooting may be the right thing to do. It may be the wrong thing to do. A resident has the right to use force to repel an intruder. Whether they
must use force is a question only they can decide.
Also, how are you at risk with a trespasser?
Because there's a trespasser putting me and other residents at risk.
Do you not understand the concept of "risk"?
In that scenario no one is at risk, there's just been an innocent mistake.
There is abundant risk, because someone is engaged in an illegal act in someone else's residence, which puts the residents at risk. Drunk persons, because of their impaired judgement, present a physical risk to those around them. That's why so many people are injured in proximity to bars.
So... Should someone die for trespassing?
Should they? Nobody should ever die for any reason. Will they? It's a strong possibility, because people are not immortal.
But your agrument is that it IS.
That's not my argument at all, and I challenge you to find even a single statement where I've said anything of the kind.
you then proceed to fire at them which made YOU the judge, jury and executioner.
Not at all. They've not been apprehended, tried, and executed; they've died as the result of the application of force meant to bring a risky situation - that
they instigated - to a safe and immediate end for the benefit of the legal residents of that home.
Semantics...
Semantics is the study of meaning, so if you mean to say that what I mean and what you mean are two different things, then yes I completely agree.
A quick and safe end is, stopping the intuder from advancing on you, locking yourself in your room and calling the cops.
But objectively that's neither quick - you have to wait for the police; safe - he broke into your house, he could just as easily break into your room, and the strongest doors in a home are the exterior ones; or an end - he's
still there, engaged in a crime right in your living room. You haven't brought the situation to a close at all.
What you're advocating is taking the law into your own hands, letting untrained and inexperienced civilians be judge, jury and executioner.
I'm not and have never advocated that position. And the law is quite clear - residents of a home have the right to use force to expel unwanted intruders. And that's the sensible position - lawful residents of a home shouldn't be the ones expected to bear the physical risks and consequences of another's illegal activity. People who engage in crimes are the ones who should bear those risks, not anybody else.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2