Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Apart from people who are crazy enough not to care, some types of crime actually require you to be at home for the intruders to pull it off - for example, if you have a safe and only you have the combination, or you're a bank manager and they want to hold your family hostage while you let them into the bank.
Those could be film scenarios, but they'd be much darker ones than Home Alone.
The last thing I'm gonna do is worry about the invader's comfort. Shoot, fight or flight response would probably kick in for lots of people, and the impulse when you're already home is probably to stand your ground. The invader's the one tainting the safe zone. They reap what they sew and I'll not be sympathetic to anyone coming into someone's property and destroying their peace of mind/safety/what have you.
I would try to not kill, of course, but the idea of not defending myself and the idea of being restrained into not using lethal force when they're probably willing to do so seems ridiculous.
I think it's also one of those things where even if the situation is such that attempts at non-violence are the most moral or smart decisions, it's best if the law doesn't punish a person for not doing so. Sort of like, I guess abortion could be a good analogy depending on your stance. There are cases where you might think it's immoral, but there are also cases where making it illegal could be extremely harmful to the woman, and some cases could involve grey areas the law wasn't able to predict. I think it's best not to involve the law and make your moral arguments outside of it if you want to change people's behavior.
Also, I thought a lot of home invaders would try entering when they figure you're asleep.
-sheathes sword-
If there's a dude in my house, my first instinct, if not to run, would be to grab the nearest gun (if I had one), or heavy/sharp object I could and defend myself. I'm not going to take the time to ask him why he's here, I'm going to do what I can not to die.
If I shoot someone who's in my house, and charging me with his fists, who's to say that he was actually attacking me, and not trying to leave when he saw me? No one else was there to witness. It wouldn't be fair to take such circumstantial things into consideration if there's no way to really prove what happened.
That said, there's a difference between shooting a dude who's in your house and shooting a dude who's trying to leave in the back.
GELZO
Y U SO NINJA
It's not always going to be anywhere near that clear cut, though.
Who's to say whether he dropped he dropped his weapons to run or lost his grip after he got shot? There's too much uncertainty in this kind of situation to justify potentially heavily punishing someone who acted to defend himself in the heat of the moment.
And Ica, DEAD PEOPLE TEND TO DROP WEAPONS. Besides that, you need to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. Without witnesses and in a case where it's reasonable to expect someone to fear for their life, that's going to be difficult.
It will always serve self-preservation to assume than anyone who comes at your with violent intent or under suspicious circumstances will fight to the best of their abilities. The issue with being gentle in a combat situation is that you're not using your violent potential while your adversary may do just that. Most people aren't trained in combat, so for most people, holding back is a mistake that will get you injured or killed.
While I consider restraining an assailant the morally superior option, it may not be practical, especially if they've got experience with violence. Three are three more practical options:
- Intimidation
- Injuring them so that they flee
- Killing
One issue that arises is that the distinction between the last two can be very thin. Like I mentioned above, you could be signing your own death certificate if you hold back. My advice would be to hit them hard and fast with an appropriate object somewhere soft and open. Don't worry about killing them or not killing them, and let combat be combat. That's just the nature of it. Everyone who willingly initiates violence should be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Most of you probably don't have much experience with violence, so you might not understand what it feels like to be the target of such for no legitimate reason. If you're ever there, you'll understand the fear and anger that violence causes on the receiving end. In other words, it's all well and good to theorise and discuss morality from safety and security, but it's another to be in the path of fists or weapons and have to actually fight. So just fight. Don't aim to kill, but don't aim to be merciful. Violence has a habit of spilling over the boundaries we set for ourselves, and those boundaries will cripple you anyway -- perhaps literally.