HellforLeather
Member
yes, because most thieves announce their intentions when they break into your house.......
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Morally, are there limits to self-defense?
- Thread starter 4 is a cutie
- Start date
yes, because most thieves announce their intentions when they break into your house.......
Dreams-Visions
Member
problem, of course, is that often times these sorts of shootings happen as the criminal is fleeing/leaving and no longer poses any actual immediate threat. The shootings end up coming out of spite/anger/principle rather than any actual threat.
People seem to assume that if someone breaks into your home they are there primarily to murder/rape your loved ones. I would bet that in like 99.5% of the cases they are just desperate people trying to steal your tv for a quick buck. In a lot of cases you are just going to make matters worse by intervening.
I will preface this by giving a bit of background on me. I am a gun owner, I do conceal carry when Im not in the house, my family has a long tradition of military and police service and I myself have served, and I do believe some of our gun laws need to be overhauled.
Now that thats out of the way, I personally hate how stand your ground laws are currently built in most states including mine of Florida(soon to be Texas). When I say that I hate our stand your ground laws what I mean is the way they are written. So lets say someone breaks into my house and has a weapon(not a firearm) or tries to mug me or my wife( once again no firearm). In the state of Florida I am protected in using deadly force in that instance, however if my shot does not kill the person assaulting my I can be found liable for different criminal charges as well as opening myself up to civil suits.
Now I would never want to kill someone even in self defense as I dont believe I could handle knowing I ended someone elses life unless I knew it was a me or them situation. So morally that would be my limit, however the state of Florida has different ideas on that which I greatly hate, if I can end a hostile situation by wounding my attacker so they can remain alive and be brought to justice I would much rather that be the option. Unfortunately anyone who has ever taken a CCW class down here in Florida knows that if you dont tell the cops you were in fear of your life and you didnt not shoot to kill there will be issues with it.
Now that thats out of the way, I personally hate how stand your ground laws are currently built in most states including mine of Florida(soon to be Texas). When I say that I hate our stand your ground laws what I mean is the way they are written. So lets say someone breaks into my house and has a weapon(not a firearm) or tries to mug me or my wife( once again no firearm). In the state of Florida I am protected in using deadly force in that instance, however if my shot does not kill the person assaulting my I can be found liable for different criminal charges as well as opening myself up to civil suits.
Now I would never want to kill someone even in self defense as I dont believe I could handle knowing I ended someone elses life unless I knew it was a me or them situation. So morally that would be my limit, however the state of Florida has different ideas on that which I greatly hate, if I can end a hostile situation by wounding my attacker so they can remain alive and be brought to justice I would much rather that be the option. Unfortunately anyone who has ever taken a CCW class down here in Florida knows that if you dont tell the cops you were in fear of your life and you didnt not shoot to kill there will be issues with it.
Latvian Hitman
Member
Someone breaking into my house at night is getting shot. Sorry. I have a family to protect and I'm not taking chances fumbling around in the dark with regard to # of intruders or how well armed they may or may not be.
Pretty much all other situations I would look to use the least amount of force necessary to get myself out of the situation altogether.
Pretty much all other situations I would look to use the least amount of force necessary to get myself out of the situation altogether.
I always believe in the duty to retreat within reason. That is, running away/getting away is far and away the number one self defense technique that can be employed, and other options should only come when there is no possibility of retreat (when defending someone who cannot run away, or when in your home).
Also, proportionality. You don't get to pull a gun on someone who is fighting you with their fists unless the attack is so severe it poses a threat to your life. Similarly, if someone robs you and is running away, you cannot retaliate and be protected by self defense laws.
Also, proportionality. You don't get to pull a gun on someone who is fighting you with their fists unless the attack is so severe it poses a threat to your life. Similarly, if someone robs you and is running away, you cannot retaliate and be protected by self defense laws.
Rumblebones
Banned
Yes. The response to a threat has to be proportionate, otherwise it's not self-defence.
In this country burglars usually take a shit on your bed so tbf I'd probably kick the fuck out of them but be wary of hitting their abdomen.
Why else would they be there, other than to take my stuff? Thats why Id take my gun, break the window and get the fuck out.
SolidSnakex
Member
Desperate is the key word there. People will do some pretty horrible things when they're desperate.
ClosingADoor
Member
Be a bit proportional of course. Someone shoving you doesn't deserve a bullet in the face right away.
But if you are an actual danger to me, I'll act like my life is depending on it. Don't take a risk that the other guy will somehow stop before inflicting serious damage or death.
But if you are an actual danger to me, I'll act like my life is depending on it. Don't take a risk that the other guy will somehow stop before inflicting serious damage or death.
BrassDragon
Member
Violence should be the only viable option to end an imminent threat (principle of subsidiarity) and you should only use the minimal amount of force required to end the threat (principle of proportionality).
Transgressing against proportionality in pursuit of safety is forgivable under highly chaotic or emotional circumstances but you should cooperate with the questioning and testing of this principle when your retaliation seems excessive to neutral parties or the law.
Transgressing against proportionality in pursuit of safety is forgivable under highly chaotic or emotional circumstances but you should cooperate with the questioning and testing of this principle when your retaliation seems excessive to neutral parties or the law.
Yes, including firing back when confronted.
I mainly used the word desperate because no professional robber would break into a house with people in it.
Forsaken82
Member
I feel like the question isn't "are their limits to self defense" but rather should there be limits when your life or the life of a loved one is threatened.
A lot of people defend the idea that you should be able to kill someone for stepping on your private property because you have warnings all over the place, but killing that man is a lot different from killing a man who waved a gun in your face. If you kill a man for egging your house, you deserve life in prison... if you kill a man for attempting to set your house on fire while your family is inside... I think you can easily argue the justification.
But at the same time... I don't advocate murder in any degree.
A lot of people defend the idea that you should be able to kill someone for stepping on your private property because you have warnings all over the place, but killing that man is a lot different from killing a man who waved a gun in your face. If you kill a man for egging your house, you deserve life in prison... if you kill a man for attempting to set your house on fire while your family is inside... I think you can easily argue the justification.
But at the same time... I don't advocate murder in any degree.
99.5% of the time you're probably right. But what about the time that on the next road over to mine 3 dudes broke into a house, rounded up the family at gunpoint, tied them up, loaded up all the goods into the car...
...then decided they'd come back and rape the 15 year old daughter? Real story.
You have no idea what a home intruder will do. You just can't assume the best when it could cost you or your family their lives or get a loved one raped. If someone breaks into your house your life is at threat. I would try to escape rather than fight, but at that point I feel like almost any amount of self-defence is appropriate.
Silvergun-Blue
Member
I think human decency should apply here, the moment it becomes revenge as opposed to defence then you've crossed the line. I've noticed some people seem to have the attitude that the moment you've been wronged, you then have carte blance to take your justice.
I mean, I'm sure we've all seen social media posts from some gun owners saying stuff like "somebody better not mess with me or I will defend myself" like they're almost wishing somebody would just so they can justify shooting them.
I mean, I'm sure we've all seen social media posts from some gun owners saying stuff like "somebody better not mess with me or I will defend myself" like they're almost wishing somebody would just so they can justify shooting them.
This. There is no moral limit in self defence in proportion to the threat but there are moral limits that define what is disproportionate.
Easy example you slap my face moderately hard because whatever and I blow your head off in return with a shotgun. This s dissprortiontate response and morally I'm in the wrong for using it.
Bill R Boggess
Member
I can't speak for others but I'm not going to shoot somebody in the back as they are running away, even if they have my possessions in their arms.
That's not guilt I'd care to live with.
Bill R Boggess
Member
Really?
So I'm supposed to let them break into my home and take whatever they want?
Yeah, no.
I'm not saying that requires I kill them but I have no intention of allowing anyone to violate my home and literally do nothing in response.
If that's how you choose to handle it power to you but I'm not okay with letting people take and damage my home and possessions while I stand by and do nothing. (Unless of course the situation is clearly untenable, i.e., somebody is clearly armed, etc.)
SolidSnakex
Member
Sure they may fire back, but ultimately you're in a situation where you've got to make a split second decision. The only one that knows why they're there is the person/s who broke into your house. You don't know if they're there to rob, kill, or rape. But the only thing certain is that they have bad intentions since you don't just accidentally break into someones house.
It seems like people are also thinking of this in ideal situations. What about those with families in different rooms throughout a house? Are they expected to somehow get all of those people out of the house without burglars noticing? That seems unrealistic. Now it's obviously up to each individual in how they handle a situation like that. But I really find it hard to fault someone that defends themselves/family against someone who broke into their house.
ClosingADoor
Member
It really depends on the situation. I live alone, so if someone breaks in and I can get out unnoticed and call the cops. I do that. Not risking my life here for a laptop and Xbox. If I can't and they are in the room and see me, I think I'll fight. I don't know what is going to happen. Don't know for sure, luckily it has never happened.
But let's say you have kids and their bedroom is upstairs. How do you know they are safe. So then you will sooner go out there and try to protect them. Or if you have a girlfriend or wife with you, and they get in the bedroom. I don't know what they are going to do, so you shoot if you have a gun.
LordRaptor
Member
Avoid rather than check,
check rather than hurt,
hurt rather than maim,
maim rather than kill.
seems pretty solid as a basis for protecting yourself while respecting life
check rather than hurt,
hurt rather than maim,
maim rather than kill.
seems pretty solid as a basis for protecting yourself while respecting life
appaws
Banned
I very much agree with this, which might surprise some of you knowing I am a big gun guy. Enough to end the threat to life or limb, and no more.
Also human life is of a infinitely greater value than material goods. So shooting a thief who is NOT A THREAT to your person is also morally wrong.
This, by the way, is what they should teach you in any proper firearm or concealed carry class.
lol this is so true, people seem to think committing a crime means you should be fucking killed, specially true when the perception of the people of crime is high.
People don't assume, people feel the danger, like if someone breaks into your house you won't stay in your room waiting for it to be over.
finalflame
Gold Member
I will absolutely pull the trigger, twist the knife, whatever it is I have to defend myself if I feel you are threatening my life.
Things, however? Nah, dude. Take my stuff and leave, but if you step towards me I'm unloading the clip.
Things, however? Nah, dude. Take my stuff and leave, but if you step towards me I'm unloading the clip.
Someone wants to draw fisticuffs in the street? Proportional, I can take some knocks and give some. Wouldn't go above what is needed to get out of the situation.
Someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night and is rummaging around downstairs? I'll call the police and wait near the top of the stairs.
Someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night and starts to try to ascend the stairs, they get a gun pointed at them and a warning.
If they try to advance after that, then they're getting shot. My wife is up there, and I won't see her threatened. I don't have kids, so the gun is easily reachable with a mag in close proximity.
....Having said that, there is almost ZERO chance that I will ever need to do that. We live in a quiet neighborhood on the edge of town...most people probably don't even know it exists, let alone would set it as a target for robbery. But...you can never be too careful.
Someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night and is rummaging around downstairs? I'll call the police and wait near the top of the stairs.
Someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night and starts to try to ascend the stairs, they get a gun pointed at them and a warning.
If they try to advance after that, then they're getting shot. My wife is up there, and I won't see her threatened. I don't have kids, so the gun is easily reachable with a mag in close proximity.
....Having said that, there is almost ZERO chance that I will ever need to do that. We live in a quiet neighborhood on the edge of town...most people probably don't even know it exists, let alone would set it as a target for robbery. But...you can never be too careful.
Agree with this.
Morally once you're safe anything you choose to do for revenge is not a grey area at all.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VthiiIhN3wg
Sort of a weird video to post. But moral particularism struck a chord with me and this is the video that introduced me to the concept.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VthiiIhN3wg
Sort of a weird video to post. But moral particularism struck a chord with me and this is the video that introduced me to the concept.
The Faceless Master
Member
stop once you have undisputed control of the situation?
I think lethal force is unwarranted unless you are reacting to lethal force, something cops in this country seem to have a hard time understanding. Using lethal force because you are assuming someone might use lethal force, or might have a gun, or even has a gun (but it isnt drawn/an imminent lethal threat) is murder, not self defense.
We cant have such lax gun laws in this country and then have the cops be all surprised and afraid of people having guns. Someone simply having a gun in this country is not grounds to fucking murder them. And then you run into I thought they had a gun. What? And? That gives you grounds to shoot them? No. Did you see a gun? No. Were they starting to point a gun at you, or anything else at you? No.
Ok thats murder. I dont understand why prosecutors and juries fail so hard at putting murdering cops in prison.
We cant have such lax gun laws in this country and then have the cops be all surprised and afraid of people having guns. Someone simply having a gun in this country is not grounds to fucking murder them. And then you run into I thought they had a gun. What? And? That gives you grounds to shoot them? No. Did you see a gun? No. Were they starting to point a gun at you, or anything else at you? No.
Ok thats murder. I dont understand why prosecutors and juries fail so hard at putting murdering cops in prison.
uncredited male
Member
Thieves usually break in during the day so that no one is home. If someone is breaking into your home knowing you are there, best of luck.
yanipheonu
Member
Nah man, gotta use my pocket nuke if someone tries to attack me. Only way to be sure.
Of course there are limits.