OpinionIt's wrong to shoot someone because you don't agree with what they're doing.
      – Lee J Haywood, 2010-04-05 at 11:11:22   (30 comments)

On 2010-04-05 at 14:20:06, Thelevellers wrote...
I'm not quite sure what you mean with this? I agreed according to my interpretation, but you could say that you disagree with their desire to kill you, but that is a situation where it could be allowed...
On 2010-04-05 at 19:17:44, Lee J Haywood wrote...
It's more where I'm going than what I mean. What situations would it be okay to shoot someone, and when wouldn't it be okay? I think most people would accept self-defence is a clear time when shooting is morally justified. But what about other situations?
On 2010-04-05 at 19:24:37, Melchior wrote...
If shooting them prevents the loss of life of another, or likely loss of life. By likely I don't mean just possible - think suicide bomber rather than fleeing mugger. That's something I'd like to know - in America, do the police shoot fleeing criminals even if they aren't armed?
On 2010-04-06 at 16:26:43, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Melchior: It depends. If the fleeing criminal is driving a vehicle, and drives toward a person, group of persons, or a law officer, and the pursuing officers or the endangered citizens feel as though their life is threatened, they may use deadly force regardless if the fleeing criminal is armed with a weapon; the vehicle is considered a weapon. If the criminal is unarmed and is fleeing on foot, and no one is in danger, they are not allowed to use deadly force.
On 2010-04-06 at 16:28:22, DigitalBoss wrote...
If the person is doing something that threatens my life, or the life of family, friends, or innocent bystanders, it is not wrong, and I will send them to meet their maker.
On 2010-04-07 at 15:49:51, Thelevellers wrote...
Hehehe, never thought I'd see DB agreeing with all us lefty-liberal-commies on guns! :P
On 2010-04-07 at 22:33:09, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Okay, so far so good. What about if you don't know if someone is armed (but they probably aren't), they are involved in an illegal act and you want them to stop. Is it okay to shoot them then? Morally or otherwise?
On 2010-04-08 at 15:16:14, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: If the illegal act does not constitute a threat of bodily harm to you, or others, you cannot use deadly force. You can however, use force to arrest (citizen's arrest) the perpetrator and use force (only the amount of force needed) to detain for the authorities.
On 2010-04-08 at 15:51:57, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: I don't think that I agree with you on guns. Any idiot would know that it is wrong to shoot someone in the back when running away unarmed unless they threaten someone's life. Guns in the hands of anyone, police, citizen, or otherwise, should only be used for defense.
On 2010-04-08 at 19:37:21, Lee J Haywood wrote...
So you encounter a burglar in your house. They don't show any signs of being armed, although let's say they're bigger and stronger than you. You wouldn't just shoot them pre-emptively?
On 2010-04-08 at 20:07:24, BorgClown wrote...
Somewhere I read that the probability of being shot by a cop while escaping is directly proportional to the cop's mass.
On 2010-04-08 at 20:08:25, BorgClown wrote...
BTW, I'm unsure about this opinion, since it depends on context.
On 2010-04-09 at 11:23:32, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: If someone breaks into my house, they are dead, or at the least, seriously wounded. Weapon or no weapon. Let the jury sort it out.
On 2010-04-09 at 11:25:22, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: Do you believe everything you read?
On 2010-04-11 at 17:30:48, Lee J Haywood wrote...
As I expected you've gone from "guns in the hands of anyone, police, citizen, or otherwise, should only be used for defence" to "they are dead... let the jury sort it out". So basically your idea of self-defence in this case is simply to shoot someone and hope that they're seriously injured. As the topic title says, you disagree with the burglar's actions so you shoot them. Self-defence is pointing a gun at someone and giving them the chance to surrender, not shooting them and potentially taking their life just because you don't like the fact that they're intruding.
On 2010-04-12 at 13:16:52, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: If someone breaks into my home, all bets are off. I am threatened, and I will shoot. In my home, shooting a burglar is an act of self-defense. Hope they are unable to harm me or my family.
On 2010-04-12 at 13:25:24, DigitalBoss wrote...
What do you want me to say? That I will ask the guy if he is going to hurt me? Wait until he gets his weapon out? No matter what I actually end up doing, my message is that he will most definitely be shot. Do I want criminals in my neighborhood to think that I would not shoot? No. I want them to think that they WILL BE shot. Maybe they will think twice then, and leave me alone. Just like I believe ALL college campuses should have signs that say "At any time, any law-abiding citizen may be carrying a weapon on this campus". Even if no one does have one. Deterrence. I may not even own a gun, but I am sure not going to tell anyone that.
On 2010-04-12 at 13:37:03, Lee J Haywood wrote...
There are flaws in your assumptions. The so-called intruder may turn out to have a legitimate reason for their presence. They could be a member of the emergency services, a contractor/friend let in by another key-holder or perhaps a mentally ill individual who isn't fully aware of their actions. Even a burglar has rights, and whoever you end up shooting will be well within their rights to sue you for your callous disregard of their life. It's clear from this and your statements here and elsewhere that you're a self-centred and uncaring individual who has little regard for life in general, possessing only a thin veil of morality. You don't particularly care about about the well-being of other people or animals, outside of your immediate family, whether they be in another country or in your own neighbourhood. I'm certain that you're a product of the country you were raised in, and you fear that a burglar will be armed is a result of that. I'm also glad that I don't live in such a place.
On 2010-04-14 at 01:54:09, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: It was a joke, sheesh. Although it was proved that fat cops tend to shoot a fleeing suspect instead of pursuing, probably knowing they can't possibly keep up.
On 2010-04-14 at 02:03:44, BorgClown wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: In DB's defense, I saw a case where an armed robber forced his entry on a house at night and got seriously wounded by his intended victim, and the victim had to pay medical care and a pension to the robber. Even if the robber gets killed you could end up in jail for not putting yourself voluntarily at risk of death in order to justify the self-defense. That is unacceptable. As he says, if you sneak into someone's house, you should risk death. Knock the door, ring the bell, call the phone, throw something to break a window if you really want to be noticed, but leave the sneaking as a very last resort.
On 2010-04-14 at 02:11:49, BorgClown wrote...
Even if a mentally ill person sneaks into your house and gets killed, it should be a shared responsibility with the person's carer. That said, I don't have a gun or any kind of weapon in my house (besides kitchen utensils), but if I had one and caught an intruder off-guard, I'll request him to GTFO from a safe spot and fire a warning shot. Most burglars will make a quick escape as they have a strong dislike of non-easy jobs. And it's better to be questioned about why you fired a gunshot instead of why you killed someone (or worse, got wounded/killed by).
On 2010-04-14 at 02:30:25, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: I don't even own a gun (confession time), but if you ask me, especially in front of other people that may be undercover predators, I'm gonna say dead right there. Might as well make people think you got one.
On 2010-04-14 at 10:30:40, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Surely, then, you can see the joy of living in a country where you feel no need to claim to own a weapon to feel safe? All I need to do is not blag about my belongings, and keep the door locked and I feel safe. Or at least I did until I realised I need to invite a complete stranger to live with me to meet the rent :( But that is obviously a completely different issue...
On 2010-04-14 at 11:11:28, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: You have to lock your doors? I don't.
On 2010-04-14 at 12:46:29, Thelevellers wrote...
Yeah, well I live in a city somewhat notorious for chavvy-opportunist types, and can't afford to lose any of my stuff, so I reckon it's best to be paranoid. Also, surely if you leave your house empty you don't rely on the thought of a weapon (real or imagined) to put people off taking stuff? I'm not too fussed about locking up if I'm in and awake, it's just when I'm not around or asleep that I want to lock-up... And finally: I would rather feel I should lock my door than feel I need to own a weapon to be safe. Door locking avoids opportunist break-ins, and I don't really feel anything I own is worth mine, or anyone else's life, so wouldn't want to defend it to a huge extent.
On 2010-04-17 at 21:51:35, BorgClown wrote...
Not locking your doors is like leaving your keys on the car, why create the opportunity?
On 2010-04-22 at 20:18:05, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Right, if you don't lock your doors it's not because you don't need to but rather that you don't feel the need to. In practice no-one ever tries my door to see if it's unlocked - and I've even accidentally left it unlocked recently whilst I've been out with no negative consequences. But as an example of why I should keep it locked, if someone enters my house and takes my car keys my insurance company won't pay out for my stolen car because I didn't secure it properly.
On 2010-04-22 at 20:22:31, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: There's a big difference between risking death by sneaking into someone's house and someone intentionally killing you without giving you a chance. Police officers risk death just by doing their jobs, but that doesn't justify killing them for any reason. Burglars may be misguided, but they don't deserve to die for it - they're people too. If you say you'll kill them just because they're burgling (i.e. you don't agree with their choices/actions) then you essentially saying that you don't care about human life.
On 2010-04-29 at 02:55:34, BorgClown wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: I really care less for the life of someone who puts mine at risk, specially if it's maliciously. That stance is the spirit anyway, the rare instances where I have been forced to defend myself I've only subdued the other party, even if my life was at risk (the best one involves a machete and a Christian pastor, but It's a long story). Anyway, my point is that you should be well aware that intruding into my house means death risk, more so if you're doing it with ill intentions, so you'll only do it as a last resource, probably well armed as well. And even if I caught you, I'd give you a chance to identify and maybe explain yourself.
On 2010-04-29 at 14:23:37, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: If I am in a good mood, I may ask first. Woe is the one that catches me in a bad mood.