The job of big dogs is to bark, growl, run around and be so intimidating that no sane person would dare enter. If the burgler does choose to come inside, the dogs have failed.
> I don't like burglars, but a death penalty without trial is a bit much. And what about accidents and misunderstandings?
I'm tired of this trope, repeated several times in this, that is used to excuse people breaking into houses.
Anyone breaking into a house while people are in it are not burglars, they're attackers.
It's perfectly okay to defend your family with lethal force.
Criminals breaking into the car in the driveway? No point in lethal force. Collect from the insurance.
Criminals breaking into the house your kids are sleeping in? No amount of insurance is going to replace them, so it is stupid to wait and see if the criminals will direct lethal force towards your kids before defending yourself.
I repeat, it is stupid to rely on the goodwill of attackers in your home to not harm your children!.
But you could say the same thing about random people in the street that you don't like the look of: it's stupid to wait and see if they're going to murder your kids, so the best thing to do is murder them first.
And no, someone who breaks into a house with the intention of burgling is not an attacker, they're a burglar, regardless of whether other people are in the house. Someone who breaks into a house with the intention of attacking people is an attacker.
> But you could say the same thing about random people in the street that you don't like the look of: it's stupid to wait and see if they're going to murder your kids, so the best thing to do is murder them first.
No, you couldn't, because they did not use force to get into the space of your children.
> And no, someone who breaks into a house with the intention of burgling is not an attacker, they're a burglar, regardless of whether other people are in the house.
If they wanted to burgle they'd come when there was no one home. The fact that they came specifically when people are there is because they don't care about doing damage to the people (in which case, yes, they are attackers), or they came specifically for the people.
Really, if a burglar wants something, there's tons of opportunities when the house is empty.
> Someone who breaks into a house with the intention of attacking people is an attacker.
You only find out about their intention after they have done the damage (or lack thereof).
The only clear indication you have of their intent is that they deliberately waited until the people were home.
I am saying it is stupid to wait until after someone has killed your child to defend that child, especially when that person intentionally waits for people to be home.
It's hard to feel sympathy for attackers who wait for children to be home before they break in. If they didn't want to be dealt with as attackers, they should break in when no one is home.
> I am saying it is stupid to wait until after someone has killed your child to defend that child, especially when that person intentionally waits for people to be home.
But if you just preemptively murder anyone you want, you'll never know whether they were going to kill your child or not, and you'll think you're always right.
> But if you just preemptively murder anyone you want, you'll never know whether they were going to kill your child or not, and you'll think you're always right.
Who said that I want to preemptively murder random people?
I'm only preemptively hurting attackers. If people don't want to be dealt with as attackers, they should not attack.
After all, if they're only there to take your stuff, they can do so when you're not home.
Your logic that people who attack you should be left alone is, quite frankly, weird.
Let me introduce you to my mom's former landlord when I was a kid. Former rodeo cowboy who got into drugs. He broke into a house to steal shit to sell and when the homeowner came downstairs to investigate and the former landlord proceeded to smash in the homeowner's face with a ball-pin hammer to the point dental records could not be used to id the body. This guy had no history of violence. I'm sure the victim's wife would have preferred the cowboy being shot dead and keeping her loved one.
Those are obviously bad and efforts should be made to reduce them.
However, it's important to recognize the small proportion of events that started as a burglary and evolved into something much worse. With this in mind, it stands to reason that burglaries are no ordinary encounters, and that the criteria for lethal force in that situation ought to be relaxed relative to e.g. walking down a crowded street at high-noon.
Even in America, I don't know anyone who honestly thinks that shooting a burglar is prima facie proportionate. The claim is usually more sophisticated, and has two parts:
1. Pointing a gun at someone who has unlawfully entered one's home is a proportionate response.
2. One cannot rightly expect the home-owner to prioritize the trespasser's safety over his own, even in ambiguous situations.
It's a tough line to draw. Personally, if someone has already demonstrated that they're willing to commit a felony (burglary), then I'm in fear for my life and the lives of my family. I get why some states don't consider that a justification for use of deadly force, but I also get why some states do.
Having the right to defend yourself from home invaders with deadly force is a right that has existed long before the laws of man were codified. Hell, it’s a right even animals recognize.
I would assume people are tired of seeing this qualifier in every other HN thread? "It might be bad in the U.S., but in the rest of the world...." Especially when it is verifiably false. [0]
Of the ten most populous countries in the world, only China (2.114) and Indonesia (1.783) have lower peace indexes than the United States (2.337). Of the next ten, only four have lower indexes. In other words, two thirds of the twenty most populous countries in the world (of which the U.S. is third) are more violent than the United STates. Unless by the "rest of the world" we're going to ignore most of the people?
My interpretation was that "the rest of the world" is meant to refer to "the rest of the countries in the world" not "the rest of the people in the world".
To say that the US has a worse peace index than the rest of the countries in the world is still hyperbole, but it's not so far off the truth.
The US has the 129th best peace index of 163 countries, right after Egypt, Zimbabwe, and Azerbaijan.
> My interpretation was that "the rest of the world" is meant to refer to "the rest of the countries in the world" not "the rest of the people in the world".
Even by that measure it is false. The only continents less violent than the one the United States resides are Europe, Oceania and Antarctica. The United States isn't even the most violent country in its own continent, that would be Mexico.
So really the unnecessary qualifier should be: "Well it might be bad in the U.S., but in Europe, Oceania and Antarctica..."
I wrote "countries", not "continents". I also have not claimed that the US is the most violent country.
By the metric you've presented as a yard stick for violence (Peace Index), there are only 33 countries which are worse off than the US.
Sure, those 33 countries mean the US has a worse peace index than ~80% of countries, not 100%. I concur that (based on this metric alone) the US is not the #1 most violent country.
Having said that: being worse than 80% of countries on any metric, in my opinion, is easily enough to be able to say "worse than the rest of the world" and have a reasonable expectation for that to be understood as hyperbole.
