By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zkuq on 07 April 2018
Edit Thread
John2290 said:
Zkuq said:

Yeah, like I said: It sounds like this particular kill was justified. Of course it also depends on how threatened he was. If he was backed into his kitchen but not threatened beyond that and he attacked after being backed up there despite not being threatened further, killing the burglar seems more than anyone should be allowed to get away with. Of course I don't know the details, but that's one example of a situation where he could probably be found guilty and at least I couldn't really argue about it.

I think however when someone break into your home, armed and in a ramped up mental state that is enough to justify self defence and if that self defense ends in the criminal who entered your home ending up dead then the law should have no right to prosecute. Only if the burgler becomes aware of you and runs, is clearly unarmed or the situation is such that you can call the police without intervening but you still attack should there be case for prosecution and even then the sentence should be lightened heavily, possibly to just house arrest and probation rather than jail time. When someone sets out to commit a crime and they or others get hurt, the blame should always fall with them, especially in home invasion, what is the point of a supposedly free society if you can't protect yourself in your own home from a criminal engaging in criminal activity without fearing prison time, it's a loose, loose situation.

What if the case was a woman, the intruder wasn't armed but much stronger and intent on rape. The woman defends herself before the rape occurs by stabbing the intruder in the same situation as this man minus the screwdriver. How would you think the law should take on that case as opposed to this had it been the case the intruder didn't have the screwdriver?

I'm pretty sure we have differing opinions on this. I don't consider it self-defense if you get cornered somewhere but not directly threatened beyond that. For self-defense, you would have to be directly threatened by violence. Killing someone is much more serious than simple burglary, and as much as it sucks, if you're not threatened, you should not attack the burglars lethally. Everything needs a properly weighted counter-act, and I consider killing someone much more serious that burglary. In other words, I suppose, I think you should always use the minimum amount of force necessary.

If the victim was female and it was about rape, I don't see how the situation is any different. You can't stab people pre-emptively just because you think they might be going to do something, but as soon as the threat realizes, you should definitely be allowed to defend yourself. For example, if you have a knife, and the rapist approaches you and tries to violate you despite it, let the stabbing commence! If it's all talk without any actions yet, it's probably less clear, but if the threat seems imminent, it might be reasonable to consider it self-defense.