It's not about a death sentence, but about staying alive yourself. If a stranger's inside of your home, there is a significant chance they're going to murder or grievously harm you or others in your house. I think this is true whether or not you're in a country where guns are commonplace.
Even if their goal was purely to steal something, things progress very quickly in chaotic situations like those; especially when their state of mind could be affected by drugs or mental illness. And you have no idea what their goals actually were or are.
Milliseconds matter, so there isn't really a better way to handle that situation, in my opinion. It'd be nice if there existed non-lethal weapons which could incapacitate as effectively as lethal ones, but they don't seem to exist yet.
If it were a death sentence, then you'd be allowed to shoot someone in the back after they've exited the house and are running away. And obviously you aren't; that'd be murder.
> If a stranger's inside of your home, there is a significant chance they're going to murder or grievously harm you or others in your house.
Why would you assume this? Do you have any studies that back this up? My default assumption, way more logical I'd say, would be that they want to steal stuff. Stealing is logical and rational, under some circumstances. Attacking someone (so putting yourself at risk as the attacker) or killing someone (again, putting yourself at risk immediately and after) are not rational.
Why would you assume that they want to kill or harm you? I'd say that I have Occam's razor on my side with this one. Stealing stuff makes waaaay more sense and again, can be quite logical in many circumstances.
This person is already doing something irrational, you can't expect them to do the most rational thing once they find someone inside. If they were inside just to steal, they would have a plan if they find they are not alone. Now GP's situation had someone staring at them in their kitchen. So the assumed thief has not run away yet. Why would you assume best intentions? Why is it irrational/illogical to attempt to defend yourself at this point?
Occam's razor involves rationalizing based on the fewest assumptions. The thing is, I do not feel at liberty to make any assumptions at all about the stranger in my house. There is no sense in tolerating intrusion and I will act with haste and lethal force if there is no other relevant context. If the intruder makes an effort to explain themselves, though, I'll listen for any reason to understand what's going on and de-escalate
There are too many variables and too many possibilities which could end in you and/or your loved ones dying.
Of course it's not in their rational interest to kill anyone, but what if they're suddenly surprised by a homeowner armed with a baseball bat while they have a gun? They're probably going to shoot and kill the homeowner.
And there is a significant chance they're not in any sort of rational state of mind at that time.
So even if they don't want to kill or harm anyone, they easily may end up doing so due to the circumstances. And then there's the added possibility that they want to steal but would also not turn down the opportunity to sexually assault someone while they're there. And then also the additional possibility that they do intend to harm or kill people while there. That's far too great a risk to treat it as anything but a lethal threat.
> Even if their goal was purely to steal something, things progress very quickly in chaotic situations like those
You are perpetuating that danger. Now the would-be thief knows you will attack him if you see him, so he has to be ready to shoot you. By powertrippig and "protecting" your home, you are making a banal situation more dangerous for everyone, including yourself.
If you didn't have a gun you might do the more logical thing. Calm the intruder down, and run away.
And giving in to intruders isn't training them to fearlessly rob? Don't understand how removing any impediment to stealing, can help the situation.
Its hard for some to imagine standing up for themselves. They fantasize about retreat; rational conversations with thieves; happy outcomes when one has already broken all social constraints.
Finally, by definition, an intruder who's shot on sight isn't going to know, later, that you're going to shoot them. They'll not be robbing anybody, later.
What do you think happens when someone just wants to steal your stuff and runs into property owners in the process?
1/4 of the time when a person is present for their burglary they are assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered.
If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family.
Decreasing the risk of breaking into people's homes incentivizes human trash to convert your valuables to drugs and put your family at risk in the process. Even junkies can grasp that housebreaking is dangerous which is why they try to at least avoid people most times.
I agree with you that lethal force is the only reasonable option in that situation, but a human doesn't become "garbage" simply because they fall victim to addiction to a substance which causes them such suffering during withdrawal that they feel like they have no other choice but to try to steal to end the withdrawal. If you were in that same situation after some friends got you hooked, you might steal something to stop the pain, too.
In my opinion, providing legal drugs and rehabilitation to addicts, free of charge, would significantly reduce these kinds of thefts and break-ins, in addition to a lot of other huge societal benefits. The system works by only allowing the addict to consume the drug under supervision; they can't take anything outside of the clinic. It seems to work very well in some European countries.
Sorry, but I'm going to fall on the side of the law abiding citizen here.
If you can't know the intent (and you can't), then you must assume the worst intent and act accordingly. Anything else is naive.
Because I promise you one thing, I look up and see a stranger in my house, I'm attacking them immediately with no thought towards anything except protecting myself and everyone in the house. There will be no questions until it's over with.
If they were just looking to steal something for drugs, that can be sorted out once I've subdued them.
As stated in my first sentence, I agree with you. I think lethal force is the only reasonable option here.
I was just saying drug addicts aren't necessarily garbage. They face lethal force because they've broken into one's home; not because "they're garbage".
If you provide free drugs what's stopping the person from just using drugs until they eventually die? I don't think most such programs actually provide the drugs can you provide an example?
Sorry buddy, but there around millions of people around the world that go through very painful withdraws and don't break into people houses. The withdraws don't make them bad people, the criminal neglect for others does.
Sure, but many of them feel they have to resort to stealing something, whether or not it's from a break-in. Of course break-ins and theft are extremely unethical; I'm just saying that the full circumstances should be considered, and they're not necessarily irredeemable human beings just because they're committing this crime.
A spree shooter killing innocent people in cold blood is garbage, and a terrorist blowing up a building is garbage, but a drug addict in awful pain due to terrible decisions acting purely on impulse to stymie the pain isn't garbage. They take their life in their hands if they break into someone's home, because that's how any break-in has to be treated, but that doesn't make them subhuman.
See, that's where we probably don't think the same way. I consider few people "human trash". Drug addicts I don't count as "human trash", they're just victims of an addiction and in need of help.
People who are not drug addicts and are just plain evil, those would be "human trash" in my eyes (think Mengele).
The words we choose to frame a situation are important. Your mindset comes from a very aggressive mindset, at least that's how it seems to me.
I know plenty of drug addicts that don't break into people's homes putting themselves and others at risk. Hurting other people to benefit yourself is exactly the type of person that is just asking to be categorized as 'human trash'.
Meta-lesson: Not only are some people complete and total garbage, utter tools that have nothing to contribute to society aside from constant regurgitation of a corporatized and hateful memecomplex, but you have responded to one; grandparent is human trash.
I have sympathy for people who made bad choices. I believe in helping them get better and make better ones in the future. I don't think the time is when their presence represents a threat to one's family.
I also regard violation of a family home as such a crime as to render the person difficult to redeem. The kind of people that make such choices aren't just high right now they are also bad unethical people.
The poster above made a conjecture that it was incorrect to assume one was in mortal danger from a robber and that shooting such a person was an overreaction.
I considered that. Actual stats say that 1/4 robbers that break in while individuals are home victimize the people therein and 39% had a weapon.
> In the original context, at the top of the thread, we are talking about whether it is reasonable to respond to police executing a no-knock warrant with deadly force
I don't think anyone suggested that it was reasonable to respond to the police executing a no knock warrant with bullets. In fact a massive downside of no knock warrants is that a police search may be mistaken for a home invasion.
In a home invasion one can in most places render your home safe by shooting an invader but in most places shooting the cops will result in a very long prison sentence. We segwayed into a discussion of what the right thing to do in the event of an actual intruder. Perhaps you didn't notice?
> you may presume that you have done something to convince them that you are worth the effort of going above and beyond what is otherwise reasonable, as most jurisdictions with no-knock warrants require a reason for the surprising entry.
You presume wrongly about the cause of no knock warrants. Most are for drugs. Most find no drugs. 10% in new york city actually involved kicking down the wrong door.
As opposed to much worse happening to you and your family. Someone willing to break into a home is not thinking clearly and willing to do much worse more than likely, that might even be their original intent: do much more harm.
> If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family.
Unless you miss, and take out your family member (or others) yourself.
Also, if you do take out someone in your house... they likely have relatives too. Who may become fairly interested in you and/or your family afterwards. Aka that "violence begets violence" thing. :/
You are confusing criminal punishment with self-defense. In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. As far as I know, even in states where there is no death penalty for any crime.
For example, "Manson Family" could not get death penalty for the murder of Sharon Tate and others because California banned death penalty at the time of their trial.
Would you really argue that, if they had means to kill the intruders, victims had no right to do so because whatever happened to them was not punishable by death?
> you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat
This varies by locale. In Texas, in a situation where the use of force is permitted, the use of deadly force is permitted to stop arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.
Most states permit the use of deadly force to protect against serious injury, not just a deadly threat.
Self-defense and defense of property are related, but not the same. The castle doctrine doesn't change the rules on self-defense; it permits similar use of force in non-self-defense scenarios.
Specific facts of each case will matter, but things that cause serious injury tend to get into the life-threatening realm.
I am not arguing how simple or complex it is. I am arguing against the claim that "you cannot kill a perpetrator who, most likely, was committing a crime, which does not warrant a death penalty". If you make such an argument you also must agree that in a state without death penalty you have no right to kill any perpetrator during any crime, which seems like an extremely ridiculous position to me.
Do you lock your doors and windows? In what scenario does someone who has bypassed your domicile's security at night have anything other than malicious intentions?
And you are willing to gamble the lives of yourself and your loved ones on the assumption that the intruders' only intentions are theft? Why? To protect the intruders' physical wellbeing?
I dislike the term 'bleeding heart liberal', but I think it applies here. There's a difference between 'love thy fellow man' and 'worry about the health of an intruder in your home at 3am'.
What if the intruder isn't perpetrating this "most likely" case of theft? The other possibilities aren't exactly great alternatives for the occupant. That seems like a very risky gamble to me.
An intruder most likely wants to steal your stuff, which hardly requires a death sentence, as you seem to want to offer.