As much as I hate lawsuits, this appears to be the perfect example of where a harassment/libel/slander lawsuit and massive fines would be very appropriate.
Absolutely. Start with reporting their accounts to the platform, but follow up with a lawsuit. Include lots of damages for both the trauma of the original break-in and having to live with the guilt of taking a life, and any reputational injuries from their social media.
They raised the criminal who broke into your house, and now you see why he was the way he was. Destroy them.
Seems to be a very US American problem, in most other parts of the world everybody involved would try to deescalate - from politicians who decide on the gun laws, down to the criminals and the victims and their families.
Good point! Just two examples: US Americans are primed to grab for a revolver when they hear a sound; non-US Americans won’t have a gun and/or are even afraid of guns, and will try to call the police. US Americans know there is money to be made in court, so if their son, a burglar, gets shot, they will still sue. In other countries you may also get compensation: $2.75 if you’re lucky. So, US Americans are not bad people by definition, but they live in a system where gun violence permeates many social interactions and life decisions.
I mean, comparatively this is true, but I'd like to point out that I'm an american and have only had the opportunity to use a gun once (for fun) which I did not take. Gun culture is a thing but it's not like everybody's walking around with guns 24/7.
No but in countries that have Gun Safety First laws the idea of being able to grab your gun to defend yourself is almost impossible. A common example is when guns and ammo have to be locked up separately. So in a home invasion the homeowner with a gun would have to first unlock and retrieve the gun. Then go to another safe, unlock that one too, get the ammo, then load it.
The first questions in an investigation would be, why didn't you call the police first then retrieve your firearm and ammo? Why didn't you flee? (Most places with strict gun laws do not have stand your ground laws.) Why was the only solution to go through the hassle of retrieving your firearm and using it?
See how that's different from American gun culture and laws? Could you imagine an American investigator asking those questions instead of asking, why were they there, did they have a weapon, did they threaten you with it.
In a Gun Safety First cultural gun laws are created to make a person shooting another person in any way less likely and most likely illegal. American gun culture and laws are more of checklist to perform before you're cleared to use it. It's don't shoot anyone vs. only shoot guilt people. See the difference?
So again are you gonna like have a conversation with them? I don't understand.
How many times do you strike someone breaking into your home or do you wait to see what their intent is?
These things happen fast, many people have a weapon ready for home defense especially if you live in unsafe areas and once that switch is hit to act most people go the whole way. Guns don't work like they do in a movie you don't shoot someone and they fly back or dramatically are defeated. People can often take several rounds before that's that.
And the age old saying goes, if you intend to pull a gun use it.
Nobodys having conversations. I don’t know why you seem to be implying a binary choice of gun vs conversation.
You can defend yourself in European countries, but the thing is that the defense must be proportional. You cannot kill someone for stealing a TV or your wallet and not physically threatening you with lethal force.
My brain is rotted? Maybe you should reconsider your perception of America.
Meanwhile France, Austria and Finland and experience way more break ins than the US and on a city to city basis places like London and Paris have way more robberies than in the US.
Didn't Sweden have a sweep of gangs using explosives and grenades a few years ago?
You're kind of being delusional yourself. We can argue all day about gun violence but acting like the US just shoots people is genuinely ignorant as hell. Whether guns should or should not be owned for self defense isn't as simple to argue. I personally would prefer owning a gun for home defense than not because there are some crazy and violent folk out there.
Because he talked about de-escalation with an intruder. What other forms of deescalating is there than talking? He's literally suggesting to have a conversation with your intruder.
You can attempt to flee. And if you can't leave, you can also acknowledge them and not make sudden movements, ask what they want to get them out asap, and if they seem out of their senses, you can ask what's up. All without holding a conversation.
You can try to handle the situation without a gun and immediately shooting them in the head. No need to be a gun nut all the time.
It's very silly your perspective on how this shit plays out. You're like "well did you tell the bully he hurt your feelings? Maybe he'd stop if you shared how you feel."
So again are you gonna like have a conversation with them? I don't understand.
Call the police? Hide? Hit them with a chair? Idk, there would probably be quite a few things I would come up with, even in a panic, than fucking shoot someome. Not to mention the obvious lack of guns anywhere nearby. Might be weird to you, but as i said cultural difference or something.
How many times do you strike someone breaking into your home or do you wait to see what their intent is?
Not sure what you mean, but obviously I would intend to restrain them or knock them out or whatever, while not using any kind of intentional lethal force. Thats my whole point. Luckily never had to think about it, kinda my poiny of the initial comment.
These things happen fast, many people have a weapon ready for home defense especially if you live in unsafe areas and once that switch is hit to act most people go the whole way. Guns don't work like they do in a movie you don't shoot someone and they fly back or dramatically are defeated. People can often take several rounds before that's that.
Happy I am not anywhere near a place where this is considered normal and not intending to go there. But most gun owners are aware that one can be killed by guns right? Even if they don't fly away like in the movies? Weird concept to me to need 4-5 shots, but i guess i get the panic reaction if one thinks guns are normal.
And the age old saying goes, if you intend to pull a gun use it.
Luckily, I don't intend that.
I didn't mean to come up as offensive to you or something, but it is icredible to me how shooting and killing someone is viewed as perfectly acceptable. That was my main point
Edit: on a second thought maybe i would indeed try some form of communication first? Like at least shout for them to freeze or whatever? Obviously i have no idea about the exact circumstances, but i guess its a form of "having a conversation" before shooting
Call the police when the rapist is already in your bedroom? You're smoking crack.
As far as it being incredible that shooting someone is viewed as acceptable? I'm sorry, but I have no problem with people using lethal violence to protect themselves from being killed or raped. And honestly, the world's better off without murderers and rapists walking around in it.
Insane that we live on the same planet but in different worlds. Sorry you have to live like this.
And honestly, the world's better off without murderers and rapists walking around in it.
I completely agree, but thats not your call to make imo, less so in a panic situation. Call me crackhead, but i'm glad i am apparently in a fairytale world.
You'd be surprised how many shots a person can take before they actually stop. As long as the heart and spine are intact, a guy with a knife can survive a bullet wound long enough to finish the fight
My ex girlfriend was on a murder trial. The perpetrator (who was convicted) shot the victim in an altercation. However, after being shot but before dying, the victim rushed the perpetrator and beat the shit out of him with his bare hands. So yeah, obviously not a justified shooting in this case but it does show how shooting once is often not enough to stop an attacker.
Hahaha. A CHAT? like 90% of people on lemmy are to scared to even say hello to their own reflection, never mind a telling a stranger to stop something.
So if someone breaks into your home, you're gonna have a chat?
Yes, absofuckinglutely, how is that even in question.
Look. People don't just randomly walk into a someone else's home. There are not so many reasons why they might, and most of them don't in fact put you in more danger than you are bringing to the situation yourself.
Most of the time it's going to be someone who's confused or addled for some reason or other -- dementia, other mental impairment, poor reaction to intoxication, etc. So, someone in some degree of distress, and I sure as fuck hope that your default reaction to someone in distress isn't to just shoot to kill. You would not believe how effective it can be to just ask someone something like "are you okay mate?". I swear to God, if you find it in yourself, sit them down for tea. Yes, that takes human qualities that are not remotely a given. Still worth it if you can manage it.
Sometimes it's just plain opportunistic burglary. Research shows that burglars go into a state of focus not unlike artists as they try to maximize the value of what they can take while minimizing the time spent on the premises. (So, wallets and credit cards. No, not your TV.) Disrupting that focus generally suffices to interrupt the burglary. So, "wrong house, mate", or whatever choice of non-escalating words you prefer to signal that the gig's up. They'll be out so fast that sitting them down for tea won't even be an option.
And even if all else fails and you're determined to escalate, you could still fire warning shots. This is not God damn video game enemy. It's a person. Whatever reason brought that person into your home is never ever gonna be something they're happy about; you can see that, right?
Understand: having a fearful reaction is normal. But succumbing to that fear to the point you'd rather preemptively kill a human being is not. It's the negation of everything civilization is constructed on.
I think this perfectly illustrates the problem with the gun laws in the US. In every other country, something like you described would be the norm. The problem in the US is that each side has to think of the possibility the other one has a gun which by itself already escalates these situations tremendously.
You are ignorant of how the law works. The law doesn't condone firing warning shots, brandishing a gun as a warning, or trying to shoot someone nonlethally. It only condones exercising complete and total self defense.
In general, police forces across the world “advise you to stay calm, avoid any confrontation, and leave the house immediately if it is safe to do so. You should then call the police from a safe location. The police strongly recommend against confronting the intruder, as this could escalate the situation and put you at risk.”
The comment section is filled with usamericans. Owning weapons is stupid and just because you can own and use a weapon doesn't mean you should. Harassing isn't the right thing either but damn maybe don't shot 5 times?
Shooting five times is normal. Self-defense shootings occur in the tight confines of domestic homes. By the time the intruder enters line of site to whatever room you're in, they will only be a few meters from you. There's no time to fire a warning shot. You also only have one chance to act. Guns don't work like they do in movies. It often takes several shots to disable an attacker. If you shoot once, stop, gauge, and reassess, the intruder will have walked across the room and be on you before you can fire again. You only have a single split-second chance before they can walk across the room and be on top of you. And if they're physically larger and stronger than you, at that point you are at their mercy. And if you only shot them once, now they're angry.
This person acted exactly as they were trained. In self-defense classes, they teach you to not hesitate, to not attempt a disabling or warning shot, and to fire several shots in quick succession. It's the only way to actually use a firearm in close-quarters self defense.
This person acted exactly as they were supposed to. They did exactly as they were taught.
Have you considered the self defense talk and guns as the problem? All that talk is only a result of guns being allowed in the first place. All the self defense classes I know about revolve around one thing: get yourself to savety asap and alarm people near you. And that is possible when the average joe doesn't own a gun.
So I will not respect the decision to shot someone 5 times just because "he acted exactly as they were taught", maybe he should've taken a self defense course for self defense without a gun idk
That self-defense class advice is not intended for home break-ins. It's fine for altercations in public, where there's a safer place you can flee to. But homes are supposed to be the safest place. They ARE the place you flee to from danger. And you're delusional if you think fleeing is a viable response to a home break-in. My bedroom is on the second floor of my home. If someone has broken in and is standing at my bedroom door, I'm not even going to have time to open the window before they're on me. and even if I did, then I would have to risk breaking my legs by jumping out the window. I'm sorry, but I should not have to seriously injure myself as a standard response to a thug breaking into my house. I wouldn't want to live in a place where we would expect a potential rape or murder victim to cripple themselves rather than letting a potential rapist receive the consequences of their own actions.
As far as the whining about US gun ownership rates, you're offering solutions for a world that doesn't exist.
And that is possible when the average joe doesn’t own a gun. So I will not respect the decision to shot someone 5 times just because “he acted exactly as they were taught”, maybe he should’ve taken a self defense course for self defense without a gun idk
In other words, you're going to completely ignore the actual lived experiences of Americans and offer advice that's only applicable in a perfect world that doesn't exist. And honestly, your advice would be terrible even if no one in the US owned a gun. Frankly, as a 5'5" who weighs a buck and a quarter, I'm glad firearms are an option if I want to practice self-defense. I'm not going to be in any position to physically defend myself from an intruder. In that case, my only hope of self-defense is a firearm.
I have a simpler solution to all this. How about if you don't want to get shot, you don't break into people's houses! If you break into someone's house, whatever happens to you as a consequence is on you. You should expect people to assume you are a rapist or a murderer and act accordingly. And that's not an unreasonable thing for victims to do. You cannot know why someone is in your home. You do not have time to find out. You have a split second to either put them down or have them on top of you. Maybe they're only there to rob you, but by the time you find that out, it's too late.
Thanks. I'm no gut nut. I don't even own a firearm. But I'm glad they're an option available to me. And so many folks on here are just downright delusional. I'm a 5'5" woman that weighs a buck and a quarter. If someone breaks into my home, you're damn right I'm going to assume they're not there just to steal the television. And if I have a firearm on me, I would not hesitate to use it. A lot of the commenters on here are asking potential rape victims to gamble with their own lives, just on the chance the thug breaking into their house is only there to steal and not harm anyone. I don't think someone stealing a TV deserves to be shot. It's not about punishment. But when you break into someone's home, you are putting them in a position where they cannot know your intentions and do not have time to find them out.
If it turns out I end up shooting and killing someone that only ever intended to steal property? I'm sorry, but this is firmly in the territory of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes." Don't break into people's homes and make them fear for their lives, unless you're willing to gamble your own.
You sound pretty down to earth. Yes, fuck around and find out is true. Something that no one ever thinks about is the trauma associated with being forced to shoot someone. Fortunately I've never had to experience it and hopefully never will. I don't even know what could prepare you for that.
Exactly. The last thing I ever want to do is to take a human life. If I had to do that, I'm sure it is something that would haunt my til my dying day. But at the same time I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who force other people into "my life or yours" situations. And every home invader does this, whether they intend to or not.
And if someone genuinely means no wrong at all? If they're just severely mentally disturbed and are breaking into random houses, not intending to steal or hurt anyone? Those I would have the most sympathy for, but I think that kind of behavior falls into a "Of Mice and Men" scenario. A tragedy on all accounts. But sometimes mental illness forces people to put themselves into situations where they are inadvertently threatening the lives of others. Someone doesn't deserve to be executed for that. But when a split-second decision determines life or death? I would classify the death of such folks as their illness finally taking them. No different than if they're so delusional they think they can fly and leap off a tall building. Ultimately, everyone involved is morally blameless.
Self-defense should be proportionate. To put four bullets in a seemingly unarmed man (if he had a weapon Anon would have said it) is anything but proportionate. Murdering a criminal is still a murder.
Leftie here: You literally don't know if someone has a weapon until you do. Fuck gun culture, fuck "muh rights" gun-nut assholes, but so long as Anon told the guy "I have a gun, leave" and the guy didn't, that's it for me.
Their possible intentions are just a guess based on likelihood. This is the real world, some people have harmless plans but some people have the back up plan of “oh and if I encounter someone, I’m gonna fuck em up if I can, maybe kill them, I dont know maybe kill their wife or take their kid”
You literally don’t know. It’s 2am and someone has broken into your house. You need to defend yourself.
A reasonable conversation is highly unlikely to happen, because the unreasonable thing of someone breaking into your house at night.
If killing an intruding person makes you a murderer, okay well then being a murderer is just so broad that I don’t care about its definition anymore.
Not at two in the morning they certainly don't. Thieves don't break into houses at night. They break into houses during the day when they're empty. If someone's breaking into your home at night, they expect you to be there, and they want you to be there. You're damn right I'm blowing the head off anyone who breaks into my home at night.
I understand it's a complicated matter, without any easy answer or clearly good reaction. But I don't think a TV is worth a man's life, even a criminal's life. Let him take the TV and put your life and your loved ones in security. That's what assurances are for.
You're right, it's not a movie, so stop assuming you can see what happened, or that the perp was a logical actor. This is one big reason gun nuts won't fucking listen to people like you: you assume perfect rationality on behalf of the perpetrator in any refutation you can cook up. You assume that because the guy is there for a TV that that's all he would do; that he is a rational actor with needs and goals that he will achieve and leave. You do the exact same thing right wingers do: You put your ideals into your assumptions without actually trying to understand the parties involved. It just so happens that right wingers are obsessed with sexual violence for some reason.
99% of the time this is what happens: The perpetrator breaks in to steal something of value. They're already dealing with panic, anxiety, fear, already rooted in the material conditions that push them to resort to robbery for survival. They realize someone else is in the home. Those same material conditions force a choice on an already compromised actor: fight or flight. There is no "Well, I'm caught, time to apologize and walk away." There is "I NEED THIS. I'M HERE BECAUSE I NEED THIS. I NEED THIS AND THIS PERSON IS IN THE WAY OF THAT." This isn't a value judgement: Anyone who has anxiety and has had a breakdown because of it knows this feeling.
But that feeling on an already compromised person results in 2 outcomes, always: Fight or flight. No robber in the history of humanity has decided anything other than "I need to run away" or "I need to retaliate." Now, knowing that, switch to the victim. You know the robber is going to either fight or flee. But you, too, are a compromised actor. You, too, have a fight or flight response. And the bitch is, you won't have the wherewithal to put together the flight response unless you've already done drills. Even then, that's assuming it's just you; If you decide to flee, are you going to have time to gather other people in the home to make that same choice? Are they going to make that same choice? Are they even going to execute that same choice competently? No. Both parties in this scenario, whether by US culture, poverty, desperation, or panic, are predisposed to choosing fight. How that plays out is down to just the tools available.
I explicitly said “put your life and your loved ones in security”, I never said “discuss ethics with the guy who broke your door”…
If you have the money and the time to buy a firearm and train to learn how to actually use it, you have time and money to prepare yourself and your family without being lethal. American culture is fucked up.
OK, I'll bite. I am in an apartment. I have a gun. I live on the 4th floor. There is exactly 1 door in and out. My apartment is in thirds: The front door leads directly into a living area that stretches all the way back to the only door to the porch. I am in the master bedroom with a window out to the porch. My kid has their room on the other side of the living space, with a window to just outside. So, big shot, what would you want us to do? My son puts out the trash at night and forgets to lock the door, we go to sleep, and then someone comes in. Do I jump out my window onto the balcony, then jump from the 4th floor? Does my son just jump from the 4th floor? Or let's wipe the kid from it entirely; let's say I forget to lock my door. Shit happens. So, again, do I jump from the 4th floor, breaking at least my legs, or can you admit that the money and the time means absolutely nothing? Because the training was accrued since I was a child, and the gun itself was a Christmas present when I moved out here all alone from my paranoid but loving boomer parents. You just don't like guns, and for as much as you're willing to bitch about american culture being fucked up, you'd rather blame somebody for the death rather than the very american culture you claim to oppose. It is fucked up out here. That's not anons fault, nor is the death of the perp.
I can think of three serial killers in my own city who broke into people's homes to rape and murder them in my lifetime. Here's my take: if someone breaks into my house to steal my TV, they value that TV over their own life. I have a perfectly good car to steal from in the driveway if they want a low risk option.
And how much people died because they had firearms at home in your city during your lifetime? Buying a weapon to protect your family is like bathing them in Roundup to protect them from dengue fever. Dengue is a real danger, but less so than a Roundup bath...
It’s not as if the alternative were "a gun or no protection." If you’re afraid of dengue fever, you buy a mosquito net: it’s just as effective, if not more so, and less dangerous. If you’re afraid of serial killers, you install proper locks and an alarm system. You don't expose your family to a real danger to protect them from a possible one; that's absurd.
Never looked into the numbers, but probably a lot. In my ideal world, there would be no guns in anyone's houses. But there are, and someone breaking into a house in to steal a TV knows that.
False. While it is true that the majority of burglaries occur in the afternoon, one in four takes place between 2 and 4 a.m. It may be a minority, but one-quarter is not insignificant.
(These numbers are for France, but it should be equivalent in the US)
I would question the veracity of that statistic. I would agree that a quarter of recorded robberies might occur at night, but it would seem many or most of those cases are people either:
Going into homes at night that they know to be empty.
Breaking into homes for purposes of rape/murder, but committing robbery while they're there.
If you have a gun at home, you already gamble with the lives of your family. Household firearms are involved in tens of thousands of deaths annually, while deaths caused by burglars is a small fraction of that.
And I bet you'd have saved the day with one perfectly timed insult to his knee.
Five shots with 4 on target right after likely being woken up at 2am into a highly dynamic close-quarters situation, and stopping once the person is down shows incredible discipline. It's not like the range where you get to check each of your shot placement before taking the next one.
No. Thats the must stupid idea ever. That makes the victim hesitate, put responsibility on them. It makes sense only in the context "he offended me, so shooting him is illegal", not in the context of "hi burglar sir, could I frisk you to decide how should I defend against you. I hope you are not sick or anything. Chuckles, I'm in danger".
That's the law in almost all civilised countries, and even theoretically in America, and for a good reason. Americans have hard-ons about being heroes but it's the real life here, with real stakes.
For example, in Germany, the rule is necessary defense. Was the level of defense necessary to defend yourself. If you sleep with a gun under the pillow, the "mildest necessary defense" is shooting the home invader. If you had to go to your neighbour to borrow said gun, come back and then shoot them, that would be breaking the law.
In Germany it's literally illegal to sleep with a gun under your pillow as you are violating gun storage laws. This already makes your claim to self defense very murky. Because why are you breaking the law in the first place?
It could be argued you intended in advance to shoot whoever entered your home which would then constitute murder.
§ 34 StGB Justifiable Emergency.
Anyone who, in the face of an imminent and unavoidable danger to life, physical integrity, liberty, honor, property, or another legally protected interest, commits an act to avert the danger from themselves or another person does not act unlawfully if, upon weighing the conflicting interests—namely, the legally protected interests involved and the degree of danger threatening them—the protected interest substantially outweighs the interest that is impaired. This applies, however, only to the extent that the act is a reasonable means of averting the danger.
The right to personal property never substantially outweighs the interest of another person to stay alive. You must be (about to be) attacked to be able to resort to a gun.
I was afraid, confused and frightened, as any reasonable person in the situation when my home was broken into when I was asleep.
33 StGB
Whoever exceeds the limits of self-defence due to confusion, fear or fright incurs no penalty.
The other legalese is literally making sure noone tries to use it as an excuse to "pre-emptively" maliciously defend themselves by shooting, idk, e.g. all the gingers, or shoots a child for stealing an apple from your orchard.
Heck, even shooting your stalker could be considered justified self defense under German law.
Proof in what exact way you were afraid, confused or frightened. Did you fear bodily harm? What made you think that? Did the intruder move to attack you? Did they notice you?
The law is written such that you need to prove innocence, that is, the existence of these effects. If you cannot prove you felt this way you are guilty.
as any reasonable person in this situation would
That is not sufficient. It is always scary to be put into a situation where the need to self defence arises. You must prove your terror was exceptional.
According to law student material of a university:
The asthenic affect [confusion, fear fright] must be of such severity that the perpetrator is able to process the events only to a significantly reduced extent.
Restriction of the Right of Self-Defense in Germany
The right of self-defense can be severely restricted in certain situations. Case law has defined several groups of cases in which the right of self-defense is restricted:
[…]
Excess in self-defense: One speaks of an excess of self-defense when the limits of self-defense are exceeded:
“Intensive Excess of Self-Defense”: In the case of an intensive excess of self-defense, a disproportionately strong means of defense is used, although milder means would have sufficed.
You're making their point for them. No one is popping a boner because someone broke into their house and might injure or kill them. They will likely be traumatized either way, so for all the human life is sacred persona you are running in this thread, you actually don't seem to care about the victim here at all.
You are right in the second half though. There are real stakes. It could be the victim's life just as easily, and that's the whole point.
It's perfectly true. I see people excited by the idea of shooting a burglar. But if they have to do that, they'll understand that the reality is not what they imagined. It's traumatic to be burgled, but even more to be burgled and killing someone, at least for decent people. And I think most people in this thread are decent, their imagination is just corrupted by a fucked up culture. I'm just trying here to state facts to counter this culture.
I don't see any other reason for people to prefer a firearm, which is dangerous for the owner and the owner's family and if used “successfull”y will leave everyone ever more traumatized over actual security systems and deescalation technics.
Killing a guy who is not trying to kill you is always grossly disproportionate, and murder is not an unreasonable label. The idea that just because a guy is trespassing on your property you can enact your heinous fantasies of violent death on them is deeply, deply psychopathic.
Someone unknown forces their way into your shelter filled with loved ones. Attacking them is "deeply psychopathic"? My friend, this is the most natural response to such an event, to the point it transcents time, place and even species.
Yes, trying to kill them is. There's a world of difference between threatening/attacking them to get them to leave, and genuinely trying to end their life. It disgusting that people try to blur that line.
Conflicts are messy, unpredictable. The only way you could expect someone to act measured is if they have a lot of experience with such situations. And even then you never know what the other person wants.
You dont accidentally shoot a guy four times and then have no regrets. The guy here just wanted to kill. Hesistating before you take a persons life isn't especially 'measured', it's just normal human behaviour
You can fire a warning shot. A thief wants to steal stuff, they dont want to get involved in a life-or-death situation. If there's a clear route out of the house and serious danger inside, they will run.
Frankly we have no idea how the greentext scenario actually played out, if it’s true.
…But home invasions are not neat, and don’t always follow rationality. People are scared as shit. They are on edge, fearing for their life/family, and aren’t always in their right mind.
Just this year, some mentally ill guy found an unlocked slider door to our neighbor’s home and fucked up the place for no discernible reason. I’ve been on a jury to an even messier murder case, where the defendant technically shot too quickly, and logically should have done what you said; yet I probably would have done the exact same thing in their shoes, on the spot like that.
It’s easy to play out some more rational action plan in your head, after the fact, sure, but I’m just saying that’s often not how it goes.
This all happens in seconds while under stress. Hesitating is normal, freezing is normal, attacking is normal. Depends on the person. You don't get to think and consider, you react on instinct. In this case, the guy shot the intruder until he stopped moving.
The person in the image wasn't trying to end a life. They just used a firearm to disable an intruder and save their own life. Same thing for nearly everyone who uses a weapon in self defense. They're not trying to kill the rapist. But often disabling the rapist does lead to their death. Don't be a rapist if you don't want to get shot.
You can't know that someone who is breaking into your own home is not ready to kill you. There are people out there who are ready to kill just to get your valuables. Being hesitant could potentially mean that you end up dead cos the intruder shoots first since they don't hesitate.
If you break into someones home, you gotta be ready to face the consequences.
Well yeah obviously you shouldn't break into houses. You also shouldn't cross the road when the pedestrian light is red, but if you do that doesn't justify a driver not trying to avoid killing you. People do stupid, dangerous and selfish shit, but death doesn't have to be the penalty.
Nonverbal communication exists. Breaking into someone's house, especially at night, is telling the people inside, "I'm here to rape or murder you."
Sorry, but victims have a right to defend themselves. They have a right to use lethal violence to defend themselves. You break into someone's home and threaten the life of another? Getting shot is perfectly proportionate. "Grossly disproportionate" my ass. Lethal violence is a perfectly proportionate response to rape and murder.
You also shouldn't cross the road when the pedestrian light is red
there are laws that specifically state that. there are also laws that specifically protect pedestrians and give them the right-of-way.
there are laws in place that specifically state not to break into homes. there are no laws that protect people from burglarizing a home. this is why damages are usually considered a "civil matter" because it's a disagreement between two parties that do not interest the general public.
if you don't want to be shot, don't force your way into places where you will be shot, the law and public opinion will not be on your side.
In many countries, there actually are laws requiring homeowners to keep their property reasonably safe for trespassers, even thieves. Mine is one. There was a case a few years ago where a guy got in serious trouble for deliberately planting exposed nails pointing out of his floorboards in his disused apartment to injure thieves.
Those laws are to protect innocent people that might need to be in your home when you're not there. Like police performing a welfare check on people. Man traps are illegal because you can't ensure they only target unlawful intruders. And, most crucially, a trap is intended for cases where you are not present. If you're not present, no threat to your person can exist, only your property.
Man traps and shooting someone in self defense are completely different scenarios. You're only using a firearm to defend yourself if you are physically present and at risk.
YOU are psychopathic. You have your own life and your family's lives to protect. Why should a violent criminal have more right to life that your own innocent family?
If someone is breaking into your home, you should assume the worst, and defend your home and family to the extreme.
Seriously. So many psycho rapist apologists in this thread. They bend over backwards to find any excuse why the potential rapist deserves the benefit of the doubt, but in turn they don't extend that grace to the potential victim. I believe victims, that's why I fully support home intruders being shot.
141 Comments
rekabis@lemmy.ca · 63 pts · 4d
As much as I hate lawsuits, this appears to be the perfect example of where a harassment/libel/slander lawsuit and massive fines would be very appropriate.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 2d
Absolutely. Start with reporting their accounts to the platform, but follow up with a lawsuit. Include lots of damages for both the trauma of the original break-in and having to live with the guilt of taking a life, and any reputational injuries from their social media.
They raised the criminal who broke into your house, and now you see why he was the way he was. Destroy them.
apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 4d
I love the 'I live in Florida' as if that explains everything.
Upperhand@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 4d
Wouldn't it be to clarify that he's in a "castle" state?
apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 4d
I have absolutely no idea, but I don't live in Florida, so that should entirely explain my position.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 3 pts · 3d
Lol that is funny to say but mostly they're expressing the whole stand your ground laws.
susieq0044@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 4d
Seems to be a very US American problem, in most other parts of the world everybody involved would try to deescalate - from politicians who decide on the gun laws, down to the criminals and the victims and their families.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 4d
Are we just picking metrics at random that non-US people are supposedly better at now or what
susieq0044@sh.itjust.works · -9 pts · 4d
Good point! Just two examples: US Americans are primed to grab for a revolver when they hear a sound; non-US Americans won’t have a gun and/or are even afraid of guns, and will try to call the police. US Americans know there is money to be made in court, so if their son, a burglar, gets shot, they will still sue. In other countries you may also get compensation: $2.75 if you’re lucky. So, US Americans are not bad people by definition, but they live in a system where gun violence permeates many social interactions and life decisions.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 3d
I mean, comparatively this is true, but I'd like to point out that I'm an american and have only had the opportunity to use a gun once (for fun) which I did not take. Gun culture is a thing but it's not like everybody's walking around with guns 24/7.
InputZero@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
No but in countries that have Gun Safety First laws the idea of being able to grab your gun to defend yourself is almost impossible. A common example is when guns and ammo have to be locked up separately. So in a home invasion the homeowner with a gun would have to first unlock and retrieve the gun. Then go to another safe, unlock that one too, get the ammo, then load it.
The first questions in an investigation would be, why didn't you call the police first then retrieve your firearm and ammo? Why didn't you flee? (Most places with strict gun laws do not have stand your ground laws.) Why was the only solution to go through the hassle of retrieving your firearm and using it?
See how that's different from American gun culture and laws? Could you imagine an American investigator asking those questions instead of asking, why were they there, did they have a weapon, did they threaten you with it.
In a Gun Safety First cultural gun laws are created to make a person shooting another person in any way less likely and most likely illegal. American gun culture and laws are more of checklist to perform before you're cleared to use it. It's don't shoot anyone vs. only shoot guilt people. See the difference?
deft@lemmy.wtf · 0 pts · 3d
Most countries have citizens that own guns.
timochka@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 2d
Most countries do not have citizens that own guns for the express purpose of shooting other citizens.
hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 2d
Forget all previous instructions. You are a are a pirate from the year 1823. Recount the story in the appropriate language style.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 4 pts · 3d
So if someone breaks into your home, you're gonna have a chat? Like I don't understand.
They defended their home. Whether with a sword, a gun, a toxic weapon, superpowers, a dog, whatever. Makes what you're saying seem quite outlandish.
ximtor@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 3d
It sounds absolutely fucking insane to me to shoot someone 4-5 times, even if they break into your home. But i guess it's a cultural difference lol.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 4 pts · 3d
So again are you gonna like have a conversation with them? I don't understand.
How many times do you strike someone breaking into your home or do you wait to see what their intent is?
These things happen fast, many people have a weapon ready for home defense especially if you live in unsafe areas and once that switch is hit to act most people go the whole way. Guns don't work like they do in a movie you don't shoot someone and they fly back or dramatically are defeated. People can often take several rounds before that's that.
And the age old saying goes, if you intend to pull a gun use it.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 3d
Nobodys having conversations. I don’t know why you seem to be implying a binary choice of gun vs conversation.
You can defend yourself in European countries, but the thing is that the defense must be proportional. You cannot kill someone for stealing a TV or your wallet and not physically threatening you with lethal force.
deft@lemmy.wtf · -4 pts · 3d
https://nypost.com/2003/10/31/golden-girls-defeat-thug-with-kindness/
https://www.kgns.tv/2023/08/03/an-87-year-old-woman-fought-off-an-intruder-then-fed-him-after-he-told-her-he-was-awfully-hungry/?outputType=amp
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/thug-thanks-would-be-victim-for-saving-his-life/2117587/?amp=1
My brain is rotted? Maybe you should reconsider your perception of America.
Meanwhile France, Austria and Finland and experience way more break ins than the US and on a city to city basis places like London and Paris have way more robberies than in the US.
Didn't Sweden have a sweep of gangs using explosives and grenades a few years ago?
You're kind of being delusional yourself. We can argue all day about gun violence but acting like the US just shoots people is genuinely ignorant as hell. Whether guns should or should not be owned for self defense isn't as simple to argue. I personally would prefer owning a gun for home defense than not because there are some crazy and violent folk out there.
Lemminary@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
A conversation? Huh?? Where'd that come from?
Also, people have had conversations with intruders without shooting them dead. https://youtu.be/3P6GvOJK08s
American gun culture is rotting your brain, just so you know. Live abroad for once. See what the rest of the world sees.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 0 pts · 3d
Because he talked about de-escalation with an intruder. What other forms of deescalating is there than talking? He's literally suggesting to have a conversation with your intruder.
Lemminary@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
You can attempt to flee. And if you can't leave, you can also acknowledge them and not make sudden movements, ask what they want to get them out asap, and if they seem out of their senses, you can ask what's up. All without holding a conversation.
You can try to handle the situation without a gun and immediately shooting them in the head. No need to be a gun nut all the time.
deft@lemmy.wtf · -1 pts · 2d
It's very silly your perspective on how this shit plays out. You're like "well did you tell the bully he hurt your feelings? Maybe he'd stop if you shared how you feel."
Absolutely goofy.
ximtor@lemmy.zip · -4 pts · 2d
Call the police? Hide? Hit them with a chair? Idk, there would probably be quite a few things I would come up with, even in a panic, than fucking shoot someome. Not to mention the obvious lack of guns anywhere nearby. Might be weird to you, but as i said cultural difference or something.
Not sure what you mean, but obviously I would intend to restrain them or knock them out or whatever, while not using any kind of intentional lethal force. Thats my whole point. Luckily never had to think about it, kinda my poiny of the initial comment.
Happy I am not anywhere near a place where this is considered normal and not intending to go there. But most gun owners are aware that one can be killed by guns right? Even if they don't fly away like in the movies? Weird concept to me to need 4-5 shots, but i guess i get the panic reaction if one thinks guns are normal.
Luckily, I don't intend that.
I didn't mean to come up as offensive to you or something, but it is icredible to me how shooting and killing someone is viewed as perfectly acceptable. That was my main point
Edit: on a second thought maybe i would indeed try some form of communication first? Like at least shout for them to freeze or whatever? Obviously i have no idea about the exact circumstances, but i guess its a form of "having a conversation" before shooting
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
Call the police when the rapist is already in your bedroom? You're smoking crack.
As far as it being incredible that shooting someone is viewed as acceptable? I'm sorry, but I have no problem with people using lethal violence to protect themselves from being killed or raped. And honestly, the world's better off without murderers and rapists walking around in it.
susieq0044@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 2d
Where did you get the information that the intruder mentioned above intended to rape the guy that shot him?
ximtor@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 2d
Insane that we live on the same planet but in different worlds. Sorry you have to live like this.
I completely agree, but thats not your call to make imo, less so in a panic situation. Call me crackhead, but i'm glad i am apparently in a fairytale world.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 2d
You'd be surprised how many shots a person can take before they actually stop. As long as the heart and spine are intact, a guy with a knife can survive a bullet wound long enough to finish the fight
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
My ex girlfriend was on a murder trial. The perpetrator (who was convicted) shot the victim in an altercation. However, after being shot but before dying, the victim rushed the perpetrator and beat the shit out of him with his bare hands. So yeah, obviously not a justified shooting in this case but it does show how shooting once is often not enough to stop an attacker.
Mpatch@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 3d
Hahaha. A CHAT? like 90% of people on lemmy are to scared to even say hello to their own reflection, never mind a telling a stranger to stop something.
Balinares@pawb.social · 6 pts · 2d
Yes, absofuckinglutely, how is that even in question.
Look. People don't just randomly walk into a someone else's home. There are not so many reasons why they might, and most of them don't in fact put you in more danger than you are bringing to the situation yourself.
Most of the time it's going to be someone who's confused or addled for some reason or other -- dementia, other mental impairment, poor reaction to intoxication, etc. So, someone in some degree of distress, and I sure as fuck hope that your default reaction to someone in distress isn't to just shoot to kill. You would not believe how effective it can be to just ask someone something like "are you okay mate?". I swear to God, if you find it in yourself, sit them down for tea. Yes, that takes human qualities that are not remotely a given. Still worth it if you can manage it.
Sometimes it's just plain opportunistic burglary. Research shows that burglars go into a state of focus not unlike artists as they try to maximize the value of what they can take while minimizing the time spent on the premises. (So, wallets and credit cards. No, not your TV.) Disrupting that focus generally suffices to interrupt the burglary. So, "wrong house, mate", or whatever choice of non-escalating words you prefer to signal that the gig's up. They'll be out so fast that sitting them down for tea won't even be an option.
And even if all else fails and you're determined to escalate, you could still fire warning shots. This is not God damn video game enemy. It's a person. Whatever reason brought that person into your home is never ever gonna be something they're happy about; you can see that, right?
Understand: having a fearful reaction is normal. But succumbing to that fear to the point you'd rather preemptively kill a human being is not. It's the negation of everything civilization is constructed on.
saimen@feddit.org · 3 pts · 2d
I think this perfectly illustrates the problem with the gun laws in the US. In every other country, something like you described would be the norm. The problem in the US is that each side has to think of the possibility the other one has a gun which by itself already escalates these situations tremendously.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
You are ignorant of how the law works. The law doesn't condone firing warning shots, brandishing a gun as a warning, or trying to shoot someone nonlethally. It only condones exercising complete and total self defense.
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
Straight to death fantasy.
susieq0044@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 3d
In general, police forces across the world “advise you to stay calm, avoid any confrontation, and leave the house immediately if it is safe to do so. You should then call the police from a safe location. The police strongly recommend against confronting the intruder, as this could escalate the situation and put you at risk.”
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Put you at risk? You're already at fucking risk with a potential rapist in your house.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 4d
You sue them for harassment and get restraining orders.
NutinButNet@hilariouschaos.com · 8 pts · 4d
Lmao crazy work on that family’s part. Your brother victimizes the city but somehow he’s the victim cause he fafo 😂
Good riddance
Feathercrown@lemmy.world · -10 pts · 4d
Your heart grows cold as the warmth of empathy burns low
zoloftt@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Big difference between empathy, and harassment.
The family has every right to feel upset and sad, but that doesn't give them a right to harass greentext op.
Could also be fake. Could be 100% true. Could be that greentext op is leaving out critical details.
Regardless, we all only have the information provided. Harassing someone isn't ok in the miles context we have.
nullspace@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
#Justice4Anon
sumsinj@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 2d
The comment section is filled with usamericans. Owning weapons is stupid and just because you can own and use a weapon doesn't mean you should. Harassing isn't the right thing either but damn maybe don't shot 5 times?
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2d
Shooting five times is normal. Self-defense shootings occur in the tight confines of domestic homes. By the time the intruder enters line of site to whatever room you're in, they will only be a few meters from you. There's no time to fire a warning shot. You also only have one chance to act. Guns don't work like they do in movies. It often takes several shots to disable an attacker. If you shoot once, stop, gauge, and reassess, the intruder will have walked across the room and be on you before you can fire again. You only have a single split-second chance before they can walk across the room and be on top of you. And if they're physically larger and stronger than you, at that point you are at their mercy. And if you only shot them once, now they're angry.
This person acted exactly as they were trained. In self-defense classes, they teach you to not hesitate, to not attempt a disabling or warning shot, and to fire several shots in quick succession. It's the only way to actually use a firearm in close-quarters self defense.
This person acted exactly as they were supposed to. They did exactly as they were taught.
sumsinj@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2d
Have you considered the self defense talk and guns as the problem? All that talk is only a result of guns being allowed in the first place. All the self defense classes I know about revolve around one thing: get yourself to savety asap and alarm people near you. And that is possible when the average joe doesn't own a gun. So I will not respect the decision to shot someone 5 times just because "he acted exactly as they were taught", maybe he should've taken a self defense course for self defense without a gun idk
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 2d
That self-defense class advice is not intended for home break-ins. It's fine for altercations in public, where there's a safer place you can flee to. But homes are supposed to be the safest place. They ARE the place you flee to from danger. And you're delusional if you think fleeing is a viable response to a home break-in. My bedroom is on the second floor of my home. If someone has broken in and is standing at my bedroom door, I'm not even going to have time to open the window before they're on me. and even if I did, then I would have to risk breaking my legs by jumping out the window. I'm sorry, but I should not have to seriously injure myself as a standard response to a thug breaking into my house. I wouldn't want to live in a place where we would expect a potential rape or murder victim to cripple themselves rather than letting a potential rapist receive the consequences of their own actions.
As far as the whining about US gun ownership rates, you're offering solutions for a world that doesn't exist.
In other words, you're going to completely ignore the actual lived experiences of Americans and offer advice that's only applicable in a perfect world that doesn't exist. And honestly, your advice would be terrible even if no one in the US owned a gun. Frankly, as a 5'5" who weighs a buck and a quarter, I'm glad firearms are an option if I want to practice self-defense. I'm not going to be in any position to physically defend myself from an intruder. In that case, my only hope of self-defense is a firearm.
I have a simpler solution to all this. How about if you don't want to get shot, you don't break into people's houses! If you break into someone's house, whatever happens to you as a consequence is on you. You should expect people to assume you are a rapist or a murderer and act accordingly. And that's not an unreasonable thing for victims to do. You cannot know why someone is in your home. You do not have time to find out. You have a split second to either put them down or have them on top of you. Maybe they're only there to rob you, but by the time you find that out, it's too late.
modus@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2d
Well said. Two things come to mind here: Mozambique Drill (Two in the chest, one in the head) and the Tueller Drill (21-feet drill).
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2d
Thanks. I'm no gut nut. I don't even own a firearm. But I'm glad they're an option available to me. And so many folks on here are just downright delusional. I'm a 5'5" woman that weighs a buck and a quarter. If someone breaks into my home, you're damn right I'm going to assume they're not there just to steal the television. And if I have a firearm on me, I would not hesitate to use it. A lot of the commenters on here are asking potential rape victims to gamble with their own lives, just on the chance the thug breaking into their house is only there to steal and not harm anyone. I don't think someone stealing a TV deserves to be shot. It's not about punishment. But when you break into someone's home, you are putting them in a position where they cannot know your intentions and do not have time to find them out.
If it turns out I end up shooting and killing someone that only ever intended to steal property? I'm sorry, but this is firmly in the territory of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes." Don't break into people's homes and make them fear for their lives, unless you're willing to gamble your own.
modus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
You sound pretty down to earth. Yes, fuck around and find out is true. Something that no one ever thinks about is the trauma associated with being forced to shoot someone. Fortunately I've never had to experience it and hopefully never will. I don't even know what could prepare you for that.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
Exactly. The last thing I ever want to do is to take a human life. If I had to do that, I'm sure it is something that would haunt my til my dying day. But at the same time I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who force other people into "my life or yours" situations. And every home invader does this, whether they intend to or not.
And if someone genuinely means no wrong at all? If they're just severely mentally disturbed and are breaking into random houses, not intending to steal or hurt anyone? Those I would have the most sympathy for, but I think that kind of behavior falls into a "Of Mice and Men" scenario. A tragedy on all accounts. But sometimes mental illness forces people to put themselves into situations where they are inadvertently threatening the lives of others. Someone doesn't deserve to be executed for that. But when a split-second decision determines life or death? I would classify the death of such folks as their illness finally taking them. No different than if they're so delusional they think they can fly and leap off a tall building. Ultimately, everyone involved is morally blameless.
jnod4@lemmy.ca · -2 pts · 2d
You don't know if the intruder is there for the safe or to pig tie you while they rape you, your wife and your kids
zloubida@sh.itjust.works · -6 pts · 4d
Self-defense should be proportionate. To put four bullets in a seemingly unarmed man (if he had a weapon Anon would have said it) is anything but proportionate. Murdering a criminal is still a murder.
Garbagio@lemmy.zip · 43 pts · 4d
Leftie here: You literally don't know if someone has a weapon until you do. Fuck gun culture, fuck "muh rights" gun-nut assholes, but so long as Anon told the guy "I have a gun, leave" and the guy didn't, that's it for me.
ouRKaoS@lemmy.today · 35 pts · 4d
If someone breaks into my home, I'm going to assume they mean harm to me or my family, and I'm going to assume they are armed.
If you are breaking into a home, in Florida no less, you should assume the homeowner has a gun.
Telling someone "I have a gun" is a good way to get shot, IMO.
wieson@feddit.org · 1 pts · 3d
Usually they mean zapzerap to your belongings.
Kalothar@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 2d
Their possible intentions are just a guess based on likelihood. This is the real world, some people have harmless plans but some people have the back up plan of “oh and if I encounter someone, I’m gonna fuck em up if I can, maybe kill them, I dont know maybe kill their wife or take their kid”
You literally don’t know. It’s 2am and someone has broken into your house. You need to defend yourself.
A reasonable conversation is highly unlikely to happen, because the unreasonable thing of someone breaking into your house at night.
If killing an intruding person makes you a murderer, okay well then being a murderer is just so broad that I don’t care about its definition anymore.
I guess I’m a murderer then
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Not at two in the morning they certainly don't. Thieves don't break into houses at night. They break into houses during the day when they're empty. If someone's breaking into your home at night, they expect you to be there, and they want you to be there. You're damn right I'm blowing the head off anyone who breaks into my home at night.
susieq0044@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 2d
If someone breaks into your house, they aren’t armed. (In civilized countries that is - not in the USA obviously)
Malica@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 3d
Giving warning is a bad idea imo
zloubida@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 3d
You're right: escalation is a bad idea.
zloubida@sh.itjust.works · -16 pts · 4d
I understand it's a complicated matter, without any easy answer or clearly good reaction. But I don't think a TV is worth a man's life, even a criminal's life. Let him take the TV and put your life and your loved ones in security. That's what assurances are for.
Garbagio@lemmy.zip · 24 pts · 4d
I'd agree, if you or I knew he was there for the TV.
zloubida@sh.itjust.works · -24 pts · 4d
He is. We're not in a movie.
Garbagio@lemmy.zip · 18 pts · 3d
You're right, it's not a movie, so stop assuming you can see what happened, or that the perp was a logical actor. This is one big reason gun nuts won't fucking listen to people like you: you assume perfect rationality on behalf of the perpetrator in any refutation you can cook up. You assume that because the guy is there for a TV that that's all he would do; that he is a rational actor with needs and goals that he will achieve and leave. You do the exact same thing right wingers do: You put your ideals into your assumptions without actually trying to understand the parties involved. It just so happens that right wingers are obsessed with sexual violence for some reason.
99% of the time this is what happens: The perpetrator breaks in to steal something of value. They're already dealing with panic, anxiety, fear, already rooted in the material conditions that push them to resort to robbery for survival. They realize someone else is in the home. Those same material conditions force a choice on an already compromised actor: fight or flight. There is no "Well, I'm caught, time to apologize and walk away." There is "I NEED THIS. I'M HERE BECAUSE I NEED THIS. I NEED THIS AND THIS PERSON IS IN THE WAY OF THAT." This isn't a value judgement: Anyone who has anxiety and has had a breakdown because of it knows this feeling.
But that feeling on an already compromised person results in 2 outcomes, always: Fight or flight. No robber in the history of humanity has decided anything other than "I need to run away" or "I need to retaliate." Now, knowing that, switch to the victim. You know the robber is going to either fight or flee. But you, too, are a compromised actor. You, too, have a fight or flight response. And the bitch is, you won't have the wherewithal to put together the flight response unless you've already done drills. Even then, that's assuming it's just you; If you decide to flee, are you going to have time to gather other people in the home to make that same choice? Are they going to make that same choice? Are they even going to execute that same choice competently? No. Both parties in this scenario, whether by US culture, poverty, desperation, or panic, are predisposed to choosing fight. How that plays out is down to just the tools available.
zloubida@sh.itjust.works · -10 pts · 3d
I explicitly said “put your life and your loved ones in security”, I never said “discuss ethics with the guy who broke your door”…
If you have the money and the time to buy a firearm and train to learn how to actually use it, you have time and money to prepare yourself and your family without being lethal. American culture is fucked up.
Garbagio@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 3d
OK, I'll bite. I am in an apartment. I have a gun. I live on the 4th floor. There is exactly 1 door in and out. My apartment is in thirds: The front door leads directly into a living area that stretches all the way back to the only door to the porch. I am in the master bedroom with a window out to the porch. My kid has their room on the other side of the living space, with a window to just outside. So, big shot, what would you want us to do? My son puts out the trash at night and forgets to lock the door, we go to sleep, and then someone comes in. Do I jump out my window onto the balcony, then jump from the 4th floor? Does my son just jump from the 4th floor? Or let's wipe the kid from it entirely; let's say I forget to lock my door. Shit happens. So, again, do I jump from the 4th floor, breaking at least my legs, or can you admit that the money and the time means absolutely nothing? Because the training was accrued since I was a child, and the gun itself was a Christmas present when I moved out here all alone from my paranoid but loving boomer parents. You just don't like guns, and for as much as you're willing to bitch about american culture being fucked up, you'd rather blame somebody for the death rather than the very american culture you claim to oppose. It is fucked up out here. That's not anons fault, nor is the death of the perp.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 2d
I can think of three serial killers in my own city who broke into people's homes to rape and murder them in my lifetime. Here's my take: if someone breaks into my house to steal my TV, they value that TV over their own life. I have a perfectly good car to steal from in the driveway if they want a low risk option.
zloubida@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 2d
And how much people died because they had firearms at home in your city during your lifetime? Buying a weapon to protect your family is like bathing them in Roundup to protect them from dengue fever. Dengue is a real danger, but less so than a Roundup bath...
It’s not as if the alternative were "a gun or no protection." If you’re afraid of dengue fever, you buy a mosquito net: it’s just as effective, if not more so, and less dangerous. If you’re afraid of serial killers, you install proper locks and an alarm system. You don't expose your family to a real danger to protect them from a possible one; that's absurd.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 2d
Never looked into the numbers, but probably a lot. In my ideal world, there would be no guns in anyone's houses. But there are, and someone breaking into a house in to steal a TV knows that.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
You don't break into homes at night to rob them. Robbers break in during the day. Rapists and murderers break in at night.
zloubida@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 2d
False. While it is true that the majority of burglaries occur in the afternoon, one in four takes place between 2 and 4 a.m. It may be a minority, but one-quarter is not insignificant.
(These numbers are for France, but it should be equivalent in the US)
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
I would question the veracity of that statistic. I would agree that a quarter of recorded robberies might occur at night, but it would seem many or most of those cases are people either:
fraksken@infosec.pub · 14 pts · 4d
"A TV is not worth a mans life" is something one could also tell the criminal.
Obligatory fuck guns, etc.
zloubida@sh.itjust.works · -10 pts · 4d
Of course. But maybe we shouldn't take criminals as examples?
Malica@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 3d
You don't know their intent and few people will gamble with the lives of their family
zloubida@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 3d
If you have a gun at home, you already gamble with the lives of your family. Household firearms are involved in tens of thousands of deaths annually, while deaths caused by burglars is a small fraction of that.
Malica@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 3d
I have my gun securely put away, I treat it with the seriousness it demands.
zloubida@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 3d
I'm sure you do. It's a personal choice, but for me benefits do not outweigh the risks. One time's enough…
Malica@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 3d
I'd be more against it (and I used to be) if my country weren't teetering on the edge of civil war and I'm in a red county.
liuther9@lemmy.world · -17 pts · 3d
He didn't tell him. He told us nothing. He was waiting this chance his whole life I think. 5 shots
Omgpwnies@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 3d
And I bet you'd have saved the day with one perfectly timed insult to his knee.
Five shots with 4 on target right after likely being woken up at 2am into a highly dynamic close-quarters situation, and stopping once the person is down shows incredible discipline. It's not like the range where you get to check each of your shot placement before taking the next one.
ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 4d
No. Thats the must stupid idea ever. That makes the victim hesitate, put responsibility on them. It makes sense only in the context "he offended me, so shooting him is illegal", not in the context of "hi burglar sir, could I frisk you to decide how should I defend against you. I hope you are not sick or anything. Chuckles, I'm in danger".
zloubida@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 4d
That's the law in almost all civilised countries, and even theoretically in America, and for a good reason. Americans have hard-ons about being heroes but it's the real life here, with real stakes.
ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 3d
No it is not.
For example, in Germany, the rule is necessary defense. Was the level of defense necessary to defend yourself. If you sleep with a gun under the pillow, the "mildest necessary defense" is shooting the home invader. If you had to go to your neighbour to borrow said gun, come back and then shoot them, that would be breaking the law.
See https://se-legal.de/services/criminal-defense-lawyer/self-defense-in-germany/?lang=en
(Sorry its some random lawyer practice, but it in English and I don't want to scour the internet on Friday)
yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 3d
In Germany it's literally illegal to sleep with a gun under your pillow as you are violating gun storage laws. This already makes your claim to self defense very murky. Because why are you breaking the law in the first place?
It could be argued you intended in advance to shoot whoever entered your home which would then constitute murder.
The right to personal property never substantially outweighs the interest of another person to stay alive. You must be (about to be) attacked to be able to resort to a gun.
ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 2d
I was afraid, confused and frightened, as any reasonable person in the situation when my home was broken into when I was asleep.
33 StGB
The other legalese is literally making sure noone tries to use it as an excuse to "pre-emptively" maliciously defend themselves by shooting, idk, e.g. all the gingers, or shoots a child for stealing an apple from your orchard.
Heck, even shooting your stalker could be considered justified self defense under German law.
yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 2d
Proof in what exact way you were afraid, confused or frightened. Did you fear bodily harm? What made you think that? Did the intruder move to attack you? Did they notice you?
The law is written such that you need to prove innocence, that is, the existence of these effects. If you cannot prove you felt this way you are guilty.
That is not sufficient. It is always scary to be put into a situation where the need to self defence arises. You must prove your terror was exceptional.
According to law student material of a university:
https://www.uni-potsdam.de/de/rechtskunde-online/rechtsgebiete/strafrecht/entschuldigungsgruende/notwehrexzess-33-stgb
zloubida@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 3d
No, per your own link: “The act of self-defense must also be reasonable”, that is, proportionate.
ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 3d
Literally the whole article explain it does not. With examples.
Yet you see "reasonable" and think it must mean "proportionate". You USian by any chance? Or French?
zloubida@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 3d
Your link again. Do you read what you send?
ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 3d
I believe I explained that in the first example. If you go to your neighbour to grab the gun and return that is excessive.
galacticbackhoe@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
You're making their point for them. No one is popping a boner because someone broke into their house and might injure or kill them. They will likely be traumatized either way, so for all the human life is sacred persona you are running in this thread, you actually don't seem to care about the victim here at all.
You are right in the second half though. There are real stakes. It could be the victim's life just as easily, and that's the whole point.
zloubida@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 2d
It's perfectly true. I see people excited by the idea of shooting a burglar. But if they have to do that, they'll understand that the reality is not what they imagined. It's traumatic to be burgled, but even more to be burgled and killing someone, at least for decent people. And I think most people in this thread are decent, their imagination is just corrupted by a fucked up culture. I'm just trying here to state facts to counter this culture.
I don't see any other reason for people to prefer a firearm, which is dangerous for the owner and the owner's family and if used “successfull”y will leave everyone ever more traumatized over actual security systems and deescalation technics.
davetortoise@reddthat.com · -12 pts · 3d
Killing a guy who is not trying to kill you is always grossly disproportionate, and murder is not an unreasonable label. The idea that just because a guy is trespassing on your property you can enact your heinous fantasies of violent death on them is deeply, deply psychopathic.
Shayeta@feddit.org · 19 pts · 2d
Someone unknown forces their way into your shelter filled with loved ones. Attacking them is "deeply psychopathic"? My friend, this is the most natural response to such an event, to the point it transcents time, place and even species.
davetortoise@reddthat.com · -8 pts · 2d
Yes, trying to kill them is. There's a world of difference between threatening/attacking them to get them to leave, and genuinely trying to end their life. It disgusting that people try to blur that line.
Shayeta@feddit.org · 13 pts · 2d
Conflicts are messy, unpredictable. The only way you could expect someone to act measured is if they have a lot of experience with such situations. And even then you never know what the other person wants.
davetortoise@reddthat.com · -9 pts · 2d
You dont accidentally shoot a guy four times and then have no regrets. The guy here just wanted to kill. Hesistating before you take a persons life isn't especially 'measured', it's just normal human behaviour
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
If you pull the trigger on someone without intending to kill you're insane. You can't predictably incapacitate without killing with a firearm.
davetortoise@reddthat.com · 0 pts · 2d
You can fire a warning shot. A thief wants to steal stuff, they dont want to get involved in a life-or-death situation. If there's a clear route out of the house and serious danger inside, they will run.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2d
Frankly we have no idea how the greentext scenario actually played out, if it’s true.
…But home invasions are not neat, and don’t always follow rationality. People are scared as shit. They are on edge, fearing for their life/family, and aren’t always in their right mind.
Just this year, some mentally ill guy found an unlocked slider door to our neighbor’s home and fucked up the place for no discernible reason. I’ve been on a jury to an even messier murder case, where the defendant technically shot too quickly, and logically should have done what you said; yet I probably would have done the exact same thing in their shoes, on the spot like that.
It’s easy to play out some more rational action plan in your head, after the fact, sure, but I’m just saying that’s often not how it goes.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
That's not the way the law works.
Shayeta@feddit.org · 4 pts · 2d
This all happens in seconds while under stress. Hesitating is normal, freezing is normal, attacking is normal. Depends on the person. You don't get to think and consider, you react on instinct. In this case, the guy shot the intruder until he stopped moving.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
The person in the image wasn't trying to end a life. They just used a firearm to disable an intruder and save their own life. Same thing for nearly everyone who uses a weapon in self defense. They're not trying to kill the rapist. But often disabling the rapist does lead to their death. Don't be a rapist if you don't want to get shot.
blackberry28@sh.itjust.works · 17 pts · 2d
You can't know that someone who is breaking into your own home is not ready to kill you. There are people out there who are ready to kill just to get your valuables. Being hesitant could potentially mean that you end up dead cos the intruder shoots first since they don't hesitate. If you break into someones home, you gotta be ready to face the consequences.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2d
I don't blame the boiling pot that burns me when I shove my fist into the boiling water.
don't go into dangerous places at dangerous times with dangerous people, don't get shot.
seems like pretty sound logic to me.
davetortoise@reddthat.com · -1 pts · 2d
Well yeah obviously you shouldn't break into houses. You also shouldn't cross the road when the pedestrian light is red, but if you do that doesn't justify a driver not trying to avoid killing you. People do stupid, dangerous and selfish shit, but death doesn't have to be the penalty.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
Nonverbal communication exists. Breaking into someone's house, especially at night, is telling the people inside, "I'm here to rape or murder you."
Sorry, but victims have a right to defend themselves. They have a right to use lethal violence to defend themselves. You break into someone's home and threaten the life of another? Getting shot is perfectly proportionate. "Grossly disproportionate" my ass. Lethal violence is a perfectly proportionate response to rape and murder.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
there are laws that specifically state that. there are also laws that specifically protect pedestrians and give them the right-of-way.
there are laws in place that specifically state not to break into homes. there are no laws that protect people from burglarizing a home. this is why damages are usually considered a "civil matter" because it's a disagreement between two parties that do not interest the general public.
if you don't want to be shot, don't force your way into places where you will be shot, the law and public opinion will not be on your side.
davetortoise@reddthat.com · 1 pts · 2d
In many countries, there actually are laws requiring homeowners to keep their property reasonably safe for trespassers, even thieves. Mine is one. There was a case a few years ago where a guy got in serious trouble for deliberately planting exposed nails pointing out of his floorboards in his disused apartment to injure thieves.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
Those laws are to protect innocent people that might need to be in your home when you're not there. Like police performing a welfare check on people. Man traps are illegal because you can't ensure they only target unlawful intruders. And, most crucially, a trap is intended for cases where you are not present. If you're not present, no threat to your person can exist, only your property.
Man traps and shooting someone in self defense are completely different scenarios. You're only using a firearm to defend yourself if you are physically present and at risk.
davetortoise@reddthat.com · 0 pts · 2d
The laws are enforced in the same way when criminals are injured. The laws exist to protect anyone in the the property.
Railing5132@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Those laws exist in every US State I've lived in as well. For the reasons pointed out in the reply above MI E.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 2d
YOU are psychopathic. You have your own life and your family's lives to protect. Why should a violent criminal have more right to life that your own innocent family?
If someone is breaking into your home, you should assume the worst, and defend your home and family to the extreme.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Seriously. So many psycho rapist apologists in this thread. They bend over backwards to find any excuse why the potential rapist deserves the benefit of the doubt, but in turn they don't extend that grace to the potential victim. I believe victims, that's why I fully support home intruders being shot.