7 ms·

So I am sitting in my living room at 12:25 in the middle of the night in Brooklyn right now. If I look up from my phone and I see someone standing unexpectedly

So I am sitting in my living room at 12:25 in the middle of the night in Brooklyn right now. If I look up from my phone and I see someone standing unexpectedly in my kitchen, I should give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume I am in mortal danger? I mean, what would you think?

oblio 7y ago
In most of the world, yes, you don't assume you're in mortal danger. This is the kind of logic that makes US police officers shoot everyone on sight. An intruder most likely wants to steal your stuff, which hardly requires a death sentence, as you seem to want to offer.
- jack_h 7y ago
  What if the intruder isn't perpetrating this "most likely" case of theft? The other possibilities aren't exactly great alternatives for the occupant. That seems like a very risky gamble to me.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  What do you think happens when someone just wants to steal your stuff and runs into property owners in the process? 1/4 of the time when a person is present for their burglary they are assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered. If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Decreasing the risk of breaking into people's homes incentivizes human trash to convert your valuables to drugs and put your family at risk in the process. Even junkies can grasp that housebreaking is dangerous which is why they try to at least avoid people most times. Being kinder to garbage changes that dynamic.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    > If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Shooting at a burglar sounds like a great way to turn them into a robber or murderer.
    - giancarlostoro 7y ago
      Only if you miss.
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        Or you fail to injure them sufficiently, or there are other people. There’s a number of ways this can go wrong.
        giancarlostoro 7y ago
        As opposed to much worse happening to you and your family. Someone willing to break into a home is not thinking clearly and willing to do much worse more than likely, that might even be their original intent: do much more harm.
  - meowface 7y ago
    I agree with you that lethal force is the only reasonable option in that situation, but a human doesn't become "garbage" simply because they fall victim to addiction to a substance which causes them such suffering during withdrawal that they feel like they have no other choice but to try to steal to end the withdrawal. If you were in that same situation after some friends got you hooked, you might steal something to stop the pain, too. In my opinion, providing legal drugs and rehabilitation to addicts, free of charge, would significantly reduce these kinds of thefts and break-ins, in addition to a lot of other huge societal benefits. The system works by only allowing the addict to consume the drug under supervision; they can't take anything outside of the clinic. It seems to work very well in some European countries.
    - acollins1331 7y ago
      Sorry buddy, but there around millions of people around the world that go through very painful withdraws and don't break into people houses. The withdraws don't make them bad people, the criminal neglect for others does.
      - meowface 7y ago
        Sure, but many of them feel they have to resort to stealing something, whether or not it's from a break-in. Of course break-ins and theft are extremely unethical; I'm just saying that the full circumstances should be considered, and they're not necessarily irredeemable human beings just because they're committing this crime. A spree shooter killing innocent people in cold blood is garbage, and a terrorist blowing up a building is garbage, but a drug addict in awful pain due to terrible decisions acting purely on impulse to stymie the pain isn't garbage. They take their life in their hands if they break into someone's home, because that's how any break-in has to be treated, but that doesn't make them subhuman.
    - celticmusic 7y ago
      Sorry, but I'm going to fall on the side of the law abiding citizen here. If you can't know the intent (and you can't), then you must assume the worst intent and act accordingly. Anything else is naive. Because I promise you one thing, I look up and see a stranger in my house, I'm attacking them immediately with no thought towards anything except protecting myself and everyone in the house. There will be no questions until it's over with. If they were just looking to steal something for drugs, that can be sorted out once I've subdued them.
  - oblio 7y ago
    > human trash > Being kinder to garbage See, that's where we probably don't think the same way. I consider few people "human trash". Drug addicts I don't count as "human trash", they're just victims of an addiction and in need of help. People who are not drug addicts and are just plain evil, those would be "human trash" in my eyes (think Mengele). The words we choose to frame a situation are important. Your mindset comes from a very aggressive mindset, at least that's how it seems to me.
    - acollins1331 7y ago
      I know plenty of drug addicts that don't break into people's homes putting themselves and others at risk. Hurting other people to benefit yourself is exactly the type of person that is just asking to be categorized as 'human trash'.
    - lidHanteyk 7y ago
      Meta-lesson: Not only are some people complete and total garbage, utter tools that have nothing to contribute to society aside from constant regurgitation of a corporatized and hateful memecomplex, but you have responded to one; grandparent is human trash.
      - michaelmrose 7y ago
        I have sympathy for people who made bad choices. I believe in helping them get better and make better ones in the future. I don't think the time is when their presence represents a threat to one's family. I also regard violation of a family home as such a crime as to render the person difficult to redeem. The kind of people that make such choices aren't just high right now they are also bad unethical people. The poster above made a conjecture that it was incorrect to assume one was in mortal danger from a robber and that shooting such a person was an overreaction. I considered that. Actual stats say that 1/4 robbers that break in while individuals are home victimize the people therein and 39% had a weapon. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt This says to me that a house breaker is a substantial risk refuting the prior posters expressed idea. You will note that both the original poster and I had a point regardless of whether you agree with either. I'm not even sure what idea >constant regurgitation of a corporatized and hateful memecomplex Is supposed to express. What is the memecomplex and wherein is it puked up repeatedly? Would you like to try to express yourself more clearly and respectfully?
  - justinclift 7y ago
    > If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Unless you miss, and take out your family member (or others) yourself. Also, if you do take out someone in your house... they likely have relatives too. Who may become fairly interested in you and/or your family afterwards. Aka that "violence begets violence" thing. :/
- meowface 7y ago
  It's not about a death sentence, but about staying alive yourself. If a stranger's inside of your home, there is a significant chance they're going to murder or grievously harm you or others in your house. I think this is true whether or not you're in a country where guns are commonplace. Even if their goal was purely to steal something, things progress very quickly in chaotic situations like those; especially when their state of mind could be affected by drugs or mental illness. And you have no idea what their goals actually were or are. Milliseconds matter, so there isn't really a better way to handle that situation, in my opinion. It'd be nice if there existed non-lethal weapons which could incapacitate as effectively as lethal ones, but they don't seem to exist yet. If it were a death sentence, then you'd be allowed to shoot someone in the back after they've exited the house and are running away. And obviously you aren't; that'd be murder.
  - oblio 7y ago
    > If a stranger's inside of your home, there is a significant chance they're going to murder or grievously harm you or others in your house. Why would you assume this? Do you have any studies that back this up? My default assumption, way more logical I'd say, would be that they want to steal stuff. Stealing is logical and rational, under some circumstances. Attacking someone (so putting yourself at risk as the attacker) or killing someone (again, putting yourself at risk immediately and after) are not rational. Why would you assume that they want to kill or harm you? I'd say that I have Occam's razor on my side with this one. Stealing stuff makes waaaay more sense and again, can be quite logical in many circumstances.
    - forgetfulusr 7y ago
      This person is already doing something irrational, you can't expect them to do the most rational thing once they find someone inside. If they were inside just to steal, they would have a plan if they find they are not alone. Now GP's situation had someone staring at them in their kitchen. So the assumed thief has not run away yet. Why would you assume best intentions? Why is it irrational/illogical to attempt to defend yourself at this point?
    - MiracleUser 7y ago
- pandaman 7y ago
  You are confusing criminal punishment with self-defense. In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. As far as I know, even in states where there is no death penalty for any crime. For example, "Manson Family" could not get death penalty for the murder of Sharon Tate and others because California banned death penalty at the time of their trial. Would you really argue that, if they had means to kill the intruders, victims had no right to do so because whatever happened to them was not punishable by death?
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. It's not quite that simple. Self-defense must be proportionate, so you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      > you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat This varies by locale. In Texas, in a situation where the use of force is permitted, the use of deadly force is permitted to stop arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. Most states permit the use of deadly force to protect against serious injury, not just a deadly threat.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        Self-defense and defense of property are related, but not the same. The castle doctrine doesn't change the rules on self-defense; it permits similar use of force in non-self-defense scenarios. Specific facts of each case will matter, but things that cause serious injury tend to get into the life-threatening realm.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - pandaman 7y ago
- ct520 7y ago
  you must not have kids.
- celticmusic 7y ago
  an univited intruder in your home shouldn't be considered dangerous? We have a word for this, it's called naive.
  - oblio 7y ago
    Not everything dangerous has to be shot on sight. That's not being naive, it's being reasonable.
    - mattr47 7y ago
      If it is in my home then, yes, it will be shot on sight.
    - CapricornNoble 7y ago
      Do you lock your doors and windows? In what scenario does someone who has bypassed your domicile's security at night have anything other than malicious intentions?
      - BoiledCabbage 7y ago
        His point that you keep missing is that malicious intentions doesn't equal death. Someone wanting to steal from you doesn't mean the death penalty. Stealing is malicious.
        CapricornNoble 7y ago
        And you are willing to gamble the lives of yourself and your loved ones on the assumption that the intruders' only intentions are theft? Why? To protect the intruders' physical wellbeing?
        celticmusic 7y ago
        yeah... I dislike the term 'bleeding heart liberal', but I think it applies here. There's a difference between 'love thy fellow man' and 'worry about the health of an intruder in your home at 3am'.
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
drunk person confused wandered in house via open door unexpectedly? Is New York a state where you are allowed to shoot someone for just being on your property or do they have show some hostile behavior. You should probably find out the relevant law before you tell someone he was standing in my kitchen unexpectedly and I shot them, it's self-defense because it might not pass the test.

oblio 7y ago

In most of the world, yes, you don't assume you're in mortal danger. This is the kind of logic that makes US police officers shoot everyone on sight. An intruder most likely wants to steal your stuff, which hardly requires a death sentence, as you seem to want to offer.

jack_h 7y ago
What if the intruder isn't perpetrating this "most likely" case of theft? The other possibilities aren't exactly great alternatives for the occupant. That seems like a very risky gamble to me.
michaelmrose 7y ago
What do you think happens when someone just wants to steal your stuff and runs into property owners in the process? 1/4 of the time when a person is present for their burglary they are assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered. If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Decreasing the risk of breaking into people's homes incentivizes human trash to convert your valuables to drugs and put your family at risk in the process. Even junkies can grasp that housebreaking is dangerous which is why they try to at least avoid people most times. Being kinder to garbage changes that dynamic.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Shooting at a burglar sounds like a great way to turn them into a robber or murderer.
  - giancarlostoro 7y ago
    Only if you miss.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      Or you fail to injure them sufficiently, or there are other people. There’s a number of ways this can go wrong.
      - giancarlostoro 7y ago
        As opposed to much worse happening to you and your family. Someone willing to break into a home is not thinking clearly and willing to do much worse more than likely, that might even be their original intent: do much more harm.
- meowface 7y ago
  I agree with you that lethal force is the only reasonable option in that situation, but a human doesn't become "garbage" simply because they fall victim to addiction to a substance which causes them such suffering during withdrawal that they feel like they have no other choice but to try to steal to end the withdrawal. If you were in that same situation after some friends got you hooked, you might steal something to stop the pain, too. In my opinion, providing legal drugs and rehabilitation to addicts, free of charge, would significantly reduce these kinds of thefts and break-ins, in addition to a lot of other huge societal benefits. The system works by only allowing the addict to consume the drug under supervision; they can't take anything outside of the clinic. It seems to work very well in some European countries.
  - acollins1331 7y ago
    Sorry buddy, but there around millions of people around the world that go through very painful withdraws and don't break into people houses. The withdraws don't make them bad people, the criminal neglect for others does.
    - meowface 7y ago
      Sure, but many of them feel they have to resort to stealing something, whether or not it's from a break-in. Of course break-ins and theft are extremely unethical; I'm just saying that the full circumstances should be considered, and they're not necessarily irredeemable human beings just because they're committing this crime. A spree shooter killing innocent people in cold blood is garbage, and a terrorist blowing up a building is garbage, but a drug addict in awful pain due to terrible decisions acting purely on impulse to stymie the pain isn't garbage. They take their life in their hands if they break into someone's home, because that's how any break-in has to be treated, but that doesn't make them subhuman.
  - celticmusic 7y ago
    Sorry, but I'm going to fall on the side of the law abiding citizen here. If you can't know the intent (and you can't), then you must assume the worst intent and act accordingly. Anything else is naive. Because I promise you one thing, I look up and see a stranger in my house, I'm attacking them immediately with no thought towards anything except protecting myself and everyone in the house. There will be no questions until it's over with. If they were just looking to steal something for drugs, that can be sorted out once I've subdued them.
- oblio 7y ago
  > human trash > Being kinder to garbage See, that's where we probably don't think the same way. I consider few people "human trash". Drug addicts I don't count as "human trash", they're just victims of an addiction and in need of help. People who are not drug addicts and are just plain evil, those would be "human trash" in my eyes (think Mengele). The words we choose to frame a situation are important. Your mindset comes from a very aggressive mindset, at least that's how it seems to me.
  - acollins1331 7y ago
    I know plenty of drug addicts that don't break into people's homes putting themselves and others at risk. Hurting other people to benefit yourself is exactly the type of person that is just asking to be categorized as 'human trash'.
  - lidHanteyk 7y ago
    Meta-lesson: Not only are some people complete and total garbage, utter tools that have nothing to contribute to society aside from constant regurgitation of a corporatized and hateful memecomplex, but you have responded to one; grandparent is human trash.
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      I have sympathy for people who made bad choices. I believe in helping them get better and make better ones in the future. I don't think the time is when their presence represents a threat to one's family. I also regard violation of a family home as such a crime as to render the person difficult to redeem. The kind of people that make such choices aren't just high right now they are also bad unethical people. The poster above made a conjecture that it was incorrect to assume one was in mortal danger from a robber and that shooting such a person was an overreaction. I considered that. Actual stats say that 1/4 robbers that break in while individuals are home victimize the people therein and 39% had a weapon. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt This says to me that a house breaker is a substantial risk refuting the prior posters expressed idea. You will note that both the original poster and I had a point regardless of whether you agree with either. I'm not even sure what idea >constant regurgitation of a corporatized and hateful memecomplex Is supposed to express. What is the memecomplex and wherein is it puked up repeatedly? Would you like to try to express yourself more clearly and respectfully?
- justinclift 7y ago
  > If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Unless you miss, and take out your family member (or others) yourself. Also, if you do take out someone in your house... they likely have relatives too. Who may become fairly interested in you and/or your family afterwards. Aka that "violence begets violence" thing. :/
meowface 7y ago
It's not about a death sentence, but about staying alive yourself. If a stranger's inside of your home, there is a significant chance they're going to murder or grievously harm you or others in your house. I think this is true whether or not you're in a country where guns are commonplace. Even if their goal was purely to steal something, things progress very quickly in chaotic situations like those; especially when their state of mind could be affected by drugs or mental illness. And you have no idea what their goals actually were or are. Milliseconds matter, so there isn't really a better way to handle that situation, in my opinion. It'd be nice if there existed non-lethal weapons which could incapacitate as effectively as lethal ones, but they don't seem to exist yet. If it were a death sentence, then you'd be allowed to shoot someone in the back after they've exited the house and are running away. And obviously you aren't; that'd be murder.
- oblio 7y ago
  > If a stranger's inside of your home, there is a significant chance they're going to murder or grievously harm you or others in your house. Why would you assume this? Do you have any studies that back this up? My default assumption, way more logical I'd say, would be that they want to steal stuff. Stealing is logical and rational, under some circumstances. Attacking someone (so putting yourself at risk as the attacker) or killing someone (again, putting yourself at risk immediately and after) are not rational. Why would you assume that they want to kill or harm you? I'd say that I have Occam's razor on my side with this one. Stealing stuff makes waaaay more sense and again, can be quite logical in many circumstances.
  - forgetfulusr 7y ago
    This person is already doing something irrational, you can't expect them to do the most rational thing once they find someone inside. If they were inside just to steal, they would have a plan if they find they are not alone. Now GP's situation had someone staring at them in their kitchen. So the assumed thief has not run away yet. Why would you assume best intentions? Why is it irrational/illogical to attempt to defend yourself at this point?
  - MiracleUser 7y ago
pandaman 7y ago
You are confusing criminal punishment with self-defense. In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. As far as I know, even in states where there is no death penalty for any crime. For example, "Manson Family" could not get death penalty for the murder of Sharon Tate and others because California banned death penalty at the time of their trial. Would you really argue that, if they had means to kill the intruders, victims had no right to do so because whatever happened to them was not punishable by death?
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. It's not quite that simple. Self-defense must be proportionate, so you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    > you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat This varies by locale. In Texas, in a situation where the use of force is permitted, the use of deadly force is permitted to stop arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. Most states permit the use of deadly force to protect against serious injury, not just a deadly threat.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Self-defense and defense of property are related, but not the same. The castle doctrine doesn't change the rules on self-defense; it permits similar use of force in non-self-defense scenarios. Specific facts of each case will matter, but things that cause serious injury tend to get into the life-threatening realm.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - pandaman 7y ago
ct520 7y ago
you must not have kids.
celticmusic 7y ago
an univited intruder in your home shouldn't be considered dangerous? We have a word for this, it's called naive.
- oblio 7y ago
  Not everything dangerous has to be shot on sight. That's not being naive, it's being reasonable.
  - mattr47 7y ago
    If it is in my home then, yes, it will be shot on sight.
  - CapricornNoble 7y ago
    Do you lock your doors and windows? In what scenario does someone who has bypassed your domicile's security at night have anything other than malicious intentions?
    - BoiledCabbage 7y ago
      His point that you keep missing is that malicious intentions doesn't equal death. Someone wanting to steal from you doesn't mean the death penalty. Stealing is malicious.
      - CapricornNoble 7y ago
        And you are willing to gamble the lives of yourself and your loved ones on the assumption that the intruders' only intentions are theft? Why? To protect the intruders' physical wellbeing?
        celticmusic 7y ago
        yeah... I dislike the term 'bleeding heart liberal', but I think it applies here. There's a difference between 'love thy fellow man' and 'worry about the health of an intruder in your home at 3am'.

bryanrasmussen 7y ago

drunk person confused wandered in house via open door unexpectedly? Is New York a state where you are allowed to shoot someone for just being on your property or do they have show some hostile behavior. You should probably find out the relevant law before you tell someone he was standing in my kitchen unexpectedly and I shot them, it's self-defense because it might not pass the test.