Summations Only

You said:

quote:

---

And yet you've been shown in this very thread that trained police officers can't do it {make good shooting decisions} reliably, in broad daylight.

---

Back a little further:

quote:

---

My point here is that the average castle-defender isn't able to make good shooting decisions in the best of conditions,...

---

What are you basing this on?That some cops have made mistakes? We're talking about a situation where we are both in the house and I've announced that I'm there with a gun and he is not leaving.I'm justified in shooting him.

Then why did you say "personally"? Why make it sound like you're talking about preferring to risk your life rather than kill someone, when what you really meant was that you'd rather risk my life than kill someone, which is quite a different matter? Yes, you did. Did you, or did you not say:

quote:

---

Adopting a "better him than me" philosophy just lowers us to the criminals' level.

---

Note the direction of movement - down. Don't you have to start above someone in order to be lowered down to where they are? You're talking about innocent residents "taking responsibility" and suffering the consequences for the actions of criminals. That's an insane standard of ethics. That can't be a tactical consideration when your safety is at risk.

Yes, it is. Completely irrelevant to whether or not he's a threat. You really have no idea how to think tactically, do you, Ringo? "He can't be a threat - look, his shoes are brown!"

Ultimately, it would seem so (unless it was willful or wanton misconduct), but that isn't really what it is.I wouldn't be "killing" them. I'd be shooting at them in defense of myself and property. But yes, they might end up dying as a result. No, but it isn't the death penalty. The death penaly is a punishment for a convicted crime. This is me defending myself and, presumably, someone ending up dead. Well I'd vote to put you in jail for making that vote But seriously, it wouldn't be me killing someone for stealing a microwave in the first place. It'd be me defending myself and someone ending up dead.

Cops do make mistakes which cost human lives. Homeowners, with less training, are likely to make even more mistakes which cost human lives. For that reason. homeowners should be under equal or greater constraints than cops when using force. I'd say no. "Not leaving" is not a threat. You have the option of calling the police.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Yes, he does write that. Now, can you show me some place where he's written that misdemeanor theft of microwaves should be a capital crime? Who else's beliefs should CS be required to rely on, if he and the criminal threat are the only two people in the situation? Who else's head is he supposed to think with? Who else's judgement should he be required to exercise beyond his own? Yours and Ringo's don't seem to be doing him much good.

It's a crime, which puts the residents at physical risk. That makes it a threat. How will that bring the situation to a safer and more immediate resolution than the use of force, right now?

Because that is the input that society will get from me, my personal opinion. I'd rather risk my own life than kill somebody else's and I'd also rather that society as a whole discourage killing people over perceived risks. Of course not. I'm talking about level of behaviour. Better or worse behaviour in one isolated incident doesn't imply better or worse person. A lot of people live their lives that way every day. If you want to think we're insane, fill your boots. Can be and is, every single day.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Now you're just comically backpeddling. No, it cannot ever be, by definition of a "tactical situation."

Sorry, I'm not an American and I guess I don't have the same level of timidity. As far as I'm concerned, it isn't a threat unless it's an actual threat. I don't care if it's "more immediate". It's safer by my definition if everybody walks out alive.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Right back atcha. No real argument, so you run away.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

That's precisely and stupidly backwards. It's precisely because civilians don't have access to the same resources, training, and advantages that police officers that they are afforded a wider latitude for the reasonable use of force.Similarly, a gun owner (whose weapon only seriously harms or kills) is afforded a wider degree of latitude for the use of force than a student of the martial arts or a man holding a taser, because he does not enjoy the benefits of incapacitive training or a weapon that can take down without killing.Police should be under far, far greater restriction in the use of force because they're trained to overcome the natural human resistance to using force on another person. (That's the "training" you guys seem to think would make them less likely to shoot an innocent person, but what they're actually trained for is to make them more likely to shoot a dangerous person. Police aren't trained in anything at all that would make them less likely to open fire in Oni's "inadvertent retard burglar who suddenly wants a hug" scenario.)

Again, I agree with all of that. But if you find someone in your home, you don't know if they are there to commit a crime, you have not established that they have broken in, you have not determined if you are in any physical danger.Again, you may simply have stubbled onto a mistake of someone walking into the wrong house, a retarded person who got loss from their care-taker, someone on medication who is delusional and doesn't know where they are... etc, etc, etc. There are exceptions. Not at all. Jehovah's witness trespass all the time, kids trespass all the time. No physical risk at all.Trespassing alone doesn't put you at risk physically. Well then by your standards anything puts you at physical risk. Agreed, but someone trespassing doesn't automatically mean they are a criminal, I gave you just a few situations where they weren't.Again technically you are right that the act of trespassing is a crime. But, unless that crime is worthy of killing someone, which you have agreed it is not, then there is no need for further deadly force until something more is established about the trespasser. Not at all, unless you blindly determine that. But if the trespasser is a child, or an elderly person, or retarded person, or a delusional person that simply doesn't know where they are, you are not in any physical danger and or risk of death.So not every single trespasser puts you at risk of death, it should be determined first what's going on. Not all states have the Castle Doctrine.- Oni

But it is an actual threat. Breaking and entering is a threat. Felony burglary is a threat.It's defined so under the laws of both the US and Canada, and it's the reason why people who have experienced a home invasion burglary - even if they weren't there - are so profoundly affected by the experience. It's because they were actually threatened by it.It's not a matter of the size of your balls, Ringo, though I'm sure you're swinging a pair of clankers the way you so bravely pledge to put other people's lives in danger. It's a matter of how you have no idea at all about how to arrive at decisions and judge outcomes in dangerous, tactical situations. Because the part of your brain that does tactical assessment is broken. For people with functioning minds, quicker is safer, because you're not safe until it's over.

That's why they present a physical danger to me. None of those situations would obviate the very real danger of having an unwanted stranger breaking the law in your home. Not inside my home they don't, and if they did that would present a physical risk to me. No, of course not. If they trespass in my neighbor's pool or on the other side of town, what possible danger could I be in?It's when they trespass inside my home, with me there, that they present a physical risk. And it's not fair that I should be the one expected to bear the burden of that risk. They're the one who should be, and will be, because I have the right to use appropriate force to expel unwanted criminals from my home. And by your standards nothing does. What's the risk, after all, of someone pointing a loaded gun at you? Why, nothing at all - it's not like there's a bullet coming out! No crime is worthy of killing anyone for. I'm opposed to the death penalty, remember? But people in their homes have a right to use force to protect themselves and other residents from the risk of harm introduced by those who chose to put them at risk. Why do you think you couldn't be harmed by a child, a mentally retarded person, a delusional person, or an elderly person? All these kinds of people can and have committed crimes, up to and including rape and murder. Indeed the mentally handicapped are more likely, not less, to be in your house to commit a crime than an abled person. Delusional people are frequently dangerous to themselves and others because they can't be relied upon to exercise appropriate judgement. Every state in the United States allows private citizens to use appropriate force to protect themselves from harm.