Self defense of the home(UK)

[David Floyd]

But stealing is hurting me. Further, a large number of people who will break into my house to rob me will also be more than willing to assault me. Further, someone who breaks into my house is already committing a wrong, against me - why are you focusing on the perceived wrongness in me shooting him, rather than on what he is doing?

[David Floyd]

It appears that your intention is not defense but murder.

No, because I won't kill anyone who isn't already trying to commit a violent crime against me. I'm just saying that if a violent criminal gets killed while committing a violent crime, I don't care, because that piece of **** won't rob or harm anyone ever again.

[Ramo]

Looking at me funny is hurting me. Therefore it's ok to kill people who look at me funny. Since everyone who looks at me funny, is willing to assault me. I'm not going to justify any of that, but will kill the next person who looks at me funny.

As for why the focus, the person who b&e is taking your TV, "you" are taking his life. "Your" action is far worse than burglar's.

[Ramo]

No, because I won't kill anyone who isn't already trying to commit a violent crime against me.

It's not a violent crime unless he tries to physically attack you, not your property. Calling him violent doesn't make it so.

[David Floyd]

Looking at me funny is hurting me. Therefore it's ok to kill people who look at me funny. Since everyone who looks at me funny, is willing to assault me. I'm not going to justify any of that, but will kill the next person who looks at me funny.

Explain to me how you have a right not to be looked at funny.

As for why the focus, the person who b&e is taking your TV, "you" are taking his life. "Your" action is far worse than burglar's.

Worse? No, because my action is not the initial action. My action is in response to an action that is already harming me, and the action creates the quite reasonable expectation of forthcoming harm of a more serious nature.

It's not a violent crime unless he tries to physically attack you, not your property. Calling him violent doesn't make it so.

So breaking my window in order to get into my house isn't a violent act?

[David Floyd]

This is just absolutely unbelievable - I cannot fathom how people can have more sympathy for criminals who get shot while committing crimes than they do for the victims who defend themselves.

[monkspider]

As per usual, DF espouses the most absolute bat**** opinions in the entire thread.

[David Floyd]

The most bat**** opinions? Ramo thinks that breaking into my house isn't a violent act! How's that for a bat**** opinion?

[Ramo]

Explain to me how you have a right not to be looked at funny.

Why should I? That's not relevant to my point.

You say that B&E is a violent act. Then you say that because he committs one form of violence, it's likely he'll assault people. This whole thing is circular. Just like Randism in general.

[David Floyd]

But breaking and entering is by definition violent! You can't break and enter a house without being violent to begin with!

And my point is that when someone commits violence against me, I have a reasonable right to assume that he is capable of committing further violence against me, and I can defend myself on that basis, knowing the WHOLE time that the burglar wouldn't be in his predicament if he hadn't committed a violent act in the FIRST place.

[David Floyd]

Why should I? That's not relevant to my point.

But it's relevant to mine. You tried to equate a funny look to breaking and entering. The difference is, breaking and entering harms me, and violates my rights, and a funny look doesn't.

[Ramo]

I generally associate violence with physical harm - you know, to a person. Not a lock.

Ignoring that for a moment, why do you have any expectation that just because a person breaks and enters, he will assault the people in the house? How does the former in any way imply the latter?

[David Floyd]

I generally associate violence with physical harm - you know, to a person. Not a lock.

You may, but that isn't the definition of violence.

Ignoring that for a moment, why do you have any expectation that just because a person breaks and enters, he will assault the people in the house? How does the former in any way imply the latter?

What do you expect he'll do? If I go up to him and say "Excuse me, you're in my house, now kindly leave", that he'll just leave?

[Ramo]

I expect him to take my TV/some other valuable, not hurt me.

[David Floyd]

And what if you tell him "No", and try to stop him? It's your stuff, after all. Don't you think he might hurt you?

And if your response is, "Then just let him have your stuff", then **** it, why even install locks, or alarm systems? Why not just hang a sign that says "Please, take my stuff, I'm morally opposed to stopping you"?