Indiana man kills intruder

[beansprouts]

If someone is breaking into another's home - as far as I'm concerned the burden of protecting their backside is totally on them - not the home owners. If they break into someone's home for any reason - the risk they take is not getting back out and I don't feel much pity for them.

 

Aside from the entire absurd notion that I should be obligated to engage in dialog with any intruder in my home via "Hey there?! You just want my stuff, sex, or torture and murder tonight? Oh and are you under 18?" (As though under 18 criminals never kill anyone these days.)

 

Why shouldn't we protect our property?! Why bother with locks folks, they can just break in and you are supposed to stand back and let them take whatever they want? Um no. I don't think so.

 

I'd prefer to never hurt a person. Via shooting or otherwise.

But my home is our haven and we have every right to keep it that way and protect all that lies within it.

 

 

 

True enough. But the one thing that isn't murky in these examples is that they were an intruder. If they don't want to risk their backside - they should try not sneaking into people's homes!

 

 

 

Well, I realised after I posted that I am picturing my own garage which is detached from my home. I know many homes have attached garages, which would mean breaking into my garage equals breaking into my home where my children are sleeping. That is a different story.

 

Still, according to the story, the man's garage had been broken into six times, and I percieved the homeowner as simply being "fed up" throwing the equivalent of a hissy fit and pulling the trigger. I also know that is a very judgemental and unfair perspective to have given so little information.

 

I wasn't thinking "dialogue" with an intruder as much as an ultimatum: "Get out, or I'll shoot". Even at that, I am picturing someone pillaging my detached garage. If the intruder were in my home where my children sleep, there may or may not be such a warning.

Edited October 5, 2008 by beansprouts

[beansprouts]

His actions "dehumanized" him.

 

 

 

This is true.

[pqr]

If the intruder were in my home where my children sleep, there may or may not be such a warning.

 

Here here!

 

Reminds me of one of my favorite poems by Kipling:

 

The Female of the Species

 

She is wedded to convictions -- in default of grosser ties;

Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies! --

He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,

Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

 

 

the full poem http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/kipling_ind.html

[tibbyl]

I believe that child molesters and stranger rapists should get the death penalty.

 

But not rapists known to the victim?

[beansprouts]

You misunderstand. The whole thing is very tragic but this father defended his child. This girl and her dad will forever be traumatized by the evil that came into their home. I am not happy that a human being is dead, I am happy that this evil was taken out of this world, never to harm another creature again. The Dad wasn't trying to kill the evil creature, but it did happen and realistically that event saved time, money and probably other lives. He was more than "messed up". He was evil in human form.

 

I agree with everything you said. I am afraid my posts have sounded a little "softer" than I really feel.

Edited October 5, 2008 by beansprouts

[pqr]

But not rapists known to the victim?

 

Absolutely, but there are more grey areas. Both parties being drunk and sudden morning regret leading to claims of assault. A last minute "maybe we should not do this" or "we should not have done that." It is also far easier to get the "he said she said" in these cases. Where bona fide rape is shown... absolutely, where there is some question then punishment needs to be mitigated.

 

The reason I stated "stranger" is because those cases are fairly open and shut.

[beansprouts]

There is also a difference between a person who would assult a young child and a person who would assult a woman-child or a woman. The former is an extremely dangerous person with no conscience, and very low chance of rehabilitation. This "rehabilitation potential" needs to be considered when we determine how to handle violent criminals.

[Peek a Boo]

This whole conversation to me seems very, can I say "western"?..and somewhat narrow.

 

that might work except that self defense and protecting private property didn't originate here in America or even very recently --it's an age-old premise. That some choose to see the discussion as narrow kinda infers that you might have something deeper to add? It's been my experience that MOST discussions start off kinda narrow unless someone has already composed a thesis about the topic, lol.

This IS a discussion board, so if we want to delve deeper into a discussion then by all means-- let's throw some statements that require some critical thinking into the mix and discuss it. That doesn't mean we'll all agree, but it might allow others to clarify the statements that are sounding "narrow." i don't think i would try to assume a person's entire thinking about an issue based on one or two posts ;)

 

 

Imagine being born in Somalia, for example.

This idea of safety and who deserves what is certainly subjective.

 

absolutely. Would people in Somalia decide that protecting your life and property are not valid actions? And then there's the whole political-corruption problem worldwide: who's getting away w/ what because they happen to know the judge or have the right connectons?

[emeraldjoy]

You misunderstand. The whole thing is very tragic but this father defended his child. This girl and her dad will forever be traumatized by the evil that came into their home. I am not happy that a human being is dead, I am happy that this evil was taken out of this world, never to harm another creature again. The Dad wasn't trying to kill the evil creature, but it did happen and realistically that event saved time, money and probably other lives. He was more than "messed up". He was evil in human form.

 

I disagree. I don't think that ending life is ending evil. The evil that propelled that man is still here. I don't believe it ended with his death. I suppose that is what is so tragic about it all. Trying to fix a complex problem with a simple bandaid will not work, ever.

I wonder if the intruders are rationally thinking, "hey, I could get killed" or "hey I could go to jail" for doing; for some reason I think not. The problem will not be solved with death.

e

[beansprouts]

I disagree. I don't think that ending life is ending evil. The evil that propelled that man is still here. I don't believe it ended with his death. I suppose that is what is so tragic about it all. Trying to fix a complex problem with a simple bandaid will not work, ever.

I wonder if the intruders are rationally thinking, "hey, I could get killed" or "hey I could go to jail" for doing; for some reason I think not. The problem will not be solved with death.

e

 

No, but that embodiment of evil which is the one directly threatening a man's child is now gone and can no longer hurt others. But I agree that the evil that tormented that poor lost soul is still in the world. I do also see this from a spiritual perspective, but I am finding it very hard to put my ideas into words that make sense.

[Peek a Boo]

I disagree. I don't think that ending life is ending evil. The evil that propelled that man is still here. I don't believe it ended with his death. I suppose that is what is so tragic about it all. Trying to fix a complex problem with a simple bandaid will not work, ever.

I wonder if the intruders are rationally thinking, "hey, I could get killed" or "hey I could go to jail" for doing; for some reason I think not. The problem will not be solved with death.

e

 

 

she didn't say that killing the guy was ending evil --she said it was ending THIS evil. Trying to fix a complex problem w/o removing some of the sources OF that problem won't work either. And sometimes it really is someone w/ mental problems so huge they won't be rehabilitated.

 

But I tend to look at it from a matter of whose rights are being infringed and why. Infringing on another's rights has consequential actions of losing your own. Being sneaky about it increases the consequences.

[Peek a Boo]

I wasn't thinking "dialogue" with an intruder as much as an ultimatum: "Get out, or I'll shoot". Even at that, I am picturing someone pillaging my detached garage. If the intruder were in my home where my children sleep, there may or may not be such a warning.

 

If the intruder is armed, you shouting ANYTHING just gave him a target.

[emeraldjoy]

Peek

I did not say "United Statern", I said western. And the idea of private property is most definitley a western idea, an individualistic idea. For most of our world's history the idea of community, collectivism has been much more pervasive and only fairly recently has this idea of "private' property been an issue. And an issue it certainly has been; look into the Tragedy of the Commons, for example. For more time that not, tribalism, clans, etc. have been a more common way of life. It certainly is a whole other topic though, the idea of private property and how, who, and what have been exploited because of it. Not sure if that is "deep" enough to be considered expanding the narrow topic I suggested.

 

I think, if I understood right, you were thinking that I needed to back of my assertion of narrowness with more depth. My argument is that I have. I asked about Grace; not sure if anything is more depthly than that, in my opinion.

 

My Somalia point was misunderstood as I fully expected. Too add a bit more depth, I would like to add that my point was that this idea of our safety being lost here in the States and all of the bad people running around here and things getting so corrupt and too much leniency causing

it, and so and so forth seems a bit silly if you put it into a global context.

 

E

[pqr]

I wonder if the intruders are rationally thinking, "hey, I could get killed" or "hey I could go to jail" for doing; for some reason I think not. The problem will not be solved with death.

e

 

Emerald let me ask you this:

 

If it came down to an intruder or a loved one, would you kill? Would you care what he was thinking?

 

I know this is the Dukakis debate question, but it is still valid.

 

This guy will never again assault a woman. In his case it is problem solved.

 

Regarding the Somalia issue.

 

Reference the link to see how they deal with this issue.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4967108.stm

 

While I am not an expert on Islam the punsihment for rape appears to be

 

"The punishment for rape in Islam is the same as the punishment for zina (adultery or fornication), which is stoning if the perpetrator is married, and one hundred lashes and banishment for one year if he is not married. "

 

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1125407868541

[Peek a Boo]

Peek

I did not say "United Statern", I said western. And the idea of private property is most definitley a western idea, an individualistic idea. For most of our world's history the idea of community, collectivism has been much more pervasive and only fairly recently has this idea of "private' property been an issue. And an issue it certainly has been; look into the Tragedy of the Commons, for example. For more time that not, tribalism, clans, etc. have been a more common way of life. It certainly is a whole other topic though, the idea of private property and how, who, and what have been exploited because of it. Not sure if that is "deep" enough to be considered expanding the narrow topic I suggested.

 

I think, if I understood right, you were thinking that I needed to back of my assertion of narrowness with more depth. My argument is that I have. I asked about Grace; not sure if anything is more depthly than that, in my opinion.

 

My Somalia point was misunderstood as I fully expected. Too add a bit more depth, I would like to add that my point was that this idea of our safety being lost here in the States and all of the bad people running around here and things getting so corrupt and too much leniency causing

it, and so and so forth seems a bit silly if you put it into a global context.

 

E

 

I absolutely understand you meant Western --

 

There's a difference between societies doing things to establish communal needs [prevalent] vs societies not recognizing any private property rights.

Since we were discussing what rights one has to protect their private property, this is what I was focussing on. Which societies are you thinking about where people were never given the right to defend their personal property? i mean, i'm sure they exist, but my point is that protecting an individual's private property is not a "western" idea at all.

 

history has plenty of examples w/ individual property rights being recognized --The Code of Hammurabi sets forth consequences to individuals when one's rights have been infringed. i don't think Babylon was considered "western"..... ;) Even ancient China had some recognition of private property rights.

 

more here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property#Ancient_philosophy

 

i do agree that the western LEGAL protections is taken up a notch. That's one of the things that i LIKE about America. ;)

 

or maybe we're talking about two different issues?

 

now if you want to clarify what Somalia has to do w/ protecting personal property, that would be great. i don't think a society dealing w/ its problems is silly, regardless what other societies are doing.

 

From that perspective, it's silly of us to be spending our time homeschooling when we could just send them all to school [cuz the disadvantages of our public school system isn't that bad when you look at it from a global perspective] so we as parents can focus on taking care of the Really Big Problems on a global scale. It's one thing to think globally, but most of us are confined to [or more efficient at] acting locally.

[LizzyBee]

It is interesting to me to think of the responses here while pondering the question of "life"....maybe some of the same logic that says it is okay to kill death row criminals, but not the unborn, I suppose.

Grace is also another concept I am pondering here as well......confusing...

e

 

I'm confused about your question about grace. Grace compels me to forgive someone who wrongs me. It doesn't compel me to give that person permission to commit a wrong against me. It doesn't prevent me from defending the lives of my family and myself. All life is sacred, but if I have to choose the life of a guilty person vs. the life of an innocent person, I believe the innocent person's life should take precedence.

Edited October 6, 2008 by LizzyBee

[pqr]

Peek

And the idea of private property is most definitley a western idea, an individualistic idea. For most of our world's history the idea of community, collectivism has been much more pervasive and only fairly recently has this idea of "private' property been an issue.

E

 

Emerald,

 

I disagree, the idea of private property is most certainly not only a Western idea. For much of the world's history the idea was not collectivism, though it may have been that everything belongs to the king, leader or emperor.

 

Any nation that had slavery certainly did not believe in the idea of collectivism. Slavery equated to property and woe betide the commoner who took one of the leaders slaves.

 

Ancient China had the sense of ownership, even if this was limited to senior officials who could take what they wanted.

 

Islam has penalties for theft and has had since its conception. Accepting the concept of theft equates to accepting the concept of private property.

 

While the first coins were issue in Greece 6th Century BC, they were minted in India in the 5th Century BC ( before Alexander ) and in China in the 2nd Century BC. Coinage equates to private property.

 

The barter system also equates to private property.

 

Taxation equates to private property.

 

Yes we in the West may have refined the concept, but it is an idea that is common to almost all advanced societies.

 

I would opine that private property is a fundamental human concept.

[pqr]

As an aside I do love this board, where else can people discuss opinions in such a cordial manner?

[Debbie in OR]

And the question of grace?? Anyone?

Emerald

 

Grace without truth is compromise. Truth without grace is legalism. Can we extend grace to someone who commits a crime? Of course. Should there be consequences for their actions? Absolutely. That's the truth part.

 

I do hear what you are saying...I feel I am in the catagory of Paul of being "the worst of sinners" and am well aware of the grace that has been extended to me. However, there have been, and should have been, consequences for my bad choices.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Debbie in OR

[Laura K (NC)]

He works out every day for a couple hours. Nicest kid you'd ever meet, but if I saw his shadowy figure in my house, unaccounted for, in the middle of the night, he would be more scary than most adult men. I wouldn't wait for him to kill me to retaliate.

 

One of my sons is 13, about 150 lbs, and not overweight. He's taller than me and probably stronger. A teenager can be mentally immature and still be physically very dangerous.

[Murphy101]

Still, according to the story, the man's garage had been broken into six times, and I percieved the homeowner as simply being "fed up" throwing the equivalent of a hissy fit and pulling the trigger. I also know that is a very judgemental and unfair perspective to have given so little information.

 

Good for him!! SO we should just continue to be robbed again and again and do nothing? Frankly, if anyone wants to be ticked at someone for that teen's death and just can't bring themself to see the kid went looking for trouble and found it - blame the lack of law enforcement and the uncle.

 

I wasn't thinking "dialogue" with an intruder as much as an ultimatum: "Get out, or I'll shoot". Even at that, I am picturing someone pillaging my detached garage. If the intruder were in my home where my children sleep, there may or may not be such a warning.

 

I imagine I may or may not say anything pending the situation. the stress of the situation might make me say lots of things or might completely clog my voice.

 

In the garage situation. Maybe the guy didn't want them to "get out"? After all "get out" = "get away with breaking into my dadblum home AGAIN!".

 

Ultimatums are pretty useless unless one is willing to back them up.

 

Then what? What if they didn't want to stay for the police? Would he have been just in shooting then? I think maybe so. I'd have aimed for a leg. But most people would not have perfect aim in such situations.

 

If the intruder is armed, you shouting ANYTHING just gave him a target.

 

This too. For ME, I wouldn't be too thrilled to call attention the fact that a woman alone or a woman alone with little kids is home. Some sickos would look on that as icing on the cake. But like I said, in the thick of the moment? Who knows?

 

I wonder if the intruders are rationally thinking, "hey, I could get killed" or "hey I could go to jail" for doing; for some reason I think not. The problem will not be solved with death.

e

 

I really don't give a flip what they are thinking.

Can't think of a thing they would think that would excuse them.

 

However, there's many things they could be thinking:

ego tripping too much to think they'll get caught.

too stupid to avoid getting caught a.k.a not thinking at all

thrill of potentially getting caught might actually be the attraction

 

And I don't know how you can say that a death didn't solve the problem.

In the case of the rapiest - well he is no longer a problem for that family or any other.

In the case of the man's garage - well he didn't have to replace his valuables a SEVENTH time. Who the heck can afford that!? I bet his insurance didn't cover much of anything after the 2nd time. Know mine wouldn't even if I could afford the outragious sky rocketing premium afterwards. And I'd wager that word got out to stay the heck out of his house. I'd be surprised if he has had any theft problem since.

 

Now I'm really not a gun toting trigger happy kind of person. Truth be known I don't own any guns. (Well a pellet gun if that counts to someone.) But in these cases, I feel the homeowners were 100% just in their actions. Even so, I'd bet they are sufferring for having been put in a situation where they had to do it. Most people do not kill another easily or without some level of sorrow.

[Remudamom]

Seriously people, it's a joke! And it's meant to poke fun at (not the killing of "innocent" intruders or would-be attackers) but the insane gun law that doesn't allow Texans (or whatever state you live in that also has this law) to protect themselves. No one that I've ever heard of has ever really dragged a dead body into their home. As Remudamom so aptly pointed out with such wit, the blood would be on the outside of the house. Goodness, lighten up!

 

You got it!

 

I think we need to expand the membership of the misplaced corncob club.

[Spy Car]

never mind

[sunshine]

I never thought I'd get tips on getting away with murder on the Well Trained Mind board! :lol:

 

 

Alright when you see me in the papers screaming self defense don't give me away!!!

:tongue_smilie::lol:

[sunshine]

You got it!

 

I think we need to expand the membership of the misplaced corncob club.

 

 

I don't know what that means, but it sure made me laugh out loud!!:lol: So I have to say :iagree:

[LilyK]

And the idea of private property is most definitley a western idea

 

 

As a non-westerner, I would like to clarify. This statement is catergorically false. In fact, the Eastern, especially Asian cultures have historically had much harsher penalties for infringement on private property. More than 2,000 years ago, before Western influence, it was a common punishment in China to take the thieving arm and twist it around a pole while the accused was being beaten with sticks. I would say these people took private property very seriously.

 

But maybe you could clarify why you brought up private property in the first place. The issue at hand is self defense. I don't think that the father who killed the intruder gave a moment's thought to his private property. In the case of the garage intruder, I know I would feel physically threatened and would not be too concerned about my ipod in this situation.

[Colleen]

never mind

 

Good man, Bill.

[beansprouts]

If the intruder is armed, you shouting ANYTHING just gave him a target.

 

 

This is true.

 

I feel like Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof":

 

"He's right too."

"How can they both be right?"

"You know, you are also right!"

:tongue_smilie:

[emeraldjoy]

I have pondered all of the communication on this particular thread for a few days now.

 

I appreciate very much the points that have made me think and question and ponder and have been done in an informative, non-bullying sort of way. Thanks for that, those who have done so.

 

My conclusion (not final as I don't think anything ever is) for now is that this is really a matter of a different worldview and morality. Who has ever been able to successfully argue for their interpretation of "morality" with complete logicality(I don't even think this is a word, sorry) and rationality and objectivity? Darn near impossible, I think.

 

To me 2,000 years is not "most" of history, it just isn't to me. So the argument that the idea of private property and protecting it in harsh ways has been around for all of time I just don't get. This is my worldview though. To others it may be most of time. My definition of a valild history is different though. It is according to my worldview. Likewise, my idea of "civilized" or advanced societies represents the way I intrepret the world and believe history to be.

 

To me (in America) our idea of rights, private property, who deserves what, and who gets to make the decisions on who deserves what, and so on and so forth has gotten to a point of unbalance...to me, that is. It is a different worldview as I said before.

 

I think of the Native cultures that I hold so dear in my part of the country (montana) and I view them as ancient cultures because I choose to validate their oral history and according to their way, the problems with the mentally ill person, or the evil person, or the addicted person, or whatever are also the problems of the greater society (yes, I am generalizing here and there many differences among Native culutres, please don't ding me on this). And the greater society needs to work together in solving the problems, not eliminating the person or the body that represents the problems. Sometimes the person may be (or have been) eliminated,banished, or even killed because of what they have done but mostly it was done in a very ritualistic, serious, mourning sort of way. It was not taken lightly and they were not neccesarily individually seen as the problem. Many, many other factors were considered and understood to part of the problem. Different worldview.

 

My worldview says the problems (yes, the exact same problems) are present and will continue to be present even if that someone who personfies the problem is eliminated. This is what I believe and I feel silly now even trying to put it into an argumentative format. This is my heart, I know no different and probably never will. And I really can't argue that.

 

I felt disturbed by the responses I saw on this thread and how lightly some very, very serious issues were taken. I felt compelled respond. Next time, I will be a bit wiser about.

Blessings to all.

Emerald

[Peek a Boo]

To me 2,000 years is not "most" of history, it just isn't to me. So the argument that the idea of private property and protecting it in harsh ways has been around for all of time I just don't get. This is my worldview though. To others it may be most of time. My definition of a valild history is different though. It is according to my worldview. Likewise, my idea of "civilized" or advanced societies represents the way I intrepret the world and believe history to be.

 

um, how can looking at the ways ancient cultures legally protected individual property rights be limiting our worldview to the last 2000 years?

It sounds like you are basing your worldview on one culture instead of world history through an objective lens.

 

I can appreciate you deciding to base your examples on one culture that you consider best, but what was not really coming across was that you wanted to limit the idea of defending personal property w/ lethal force as a "western" idea --that is simply false. It's not a western idea and it's not a new idea --it goes back a long, long way.

 

and FWIW, i do agree with the statement :

And the greater society needs to work together in solving the problems, not eliminating the person or the body that represents the problems.

I see that in abortion-on-demand all. the. time.

Killing a human is seen as a right because that human's life is problematic for another.

[beansprouts]

I can appreciate you deciding to base your examples on one culture that you consider best, but what was not really coming across was that you wanted to limit the idea of defending personal property w/ lethal force as a "western" idea --that is simply false. It's not a western idea and it's not a new idea --it goes back a long, long way.

 

:iagree:

 

I don't get it.

 

The right to private property is protected in Mosaic law, as well as the Code of Hammurabi. Both were established around 1500 BC.

 

I understand that you are saying evil will always exist even though praticular agents of evil are removed. But how does that change the immediate need to protect a child who is about to be raped?

 

I do think some of the posts were a bit flippant about the taking of a human life. My perception is (CC warning) that God never meant for his beloved child to become a rapist. He knew what the man was about to do, and perhaps even orchestrated for the girl's father to be ready to protect her. I am sure He holds the father blameless for the man's death. But God is not celebrating. He is mourning for the wasted life of one of his precious children.

Edited October 7, 2008 by beansprouts

[emeraldjoy]

Peek-a-boo

You are putting words in my mouth and misrepreseting me and my heart. Please, out of common decency, don't.

 

I do not have the time or the energy to go back through everything and pull out my words and compare them with yours and show how you have been unfair in using what I have written.

 

Not to sound too terribly harsh, but I have read what you have written on several different topics on here and it is rare that I have see anything constructive. It appears (my opinion) that you sort of like to bully.

 

Please, allow people a little bit of leeway in expressing themselves, even if they don't agree with you, without fear of their own words being fragmented and misrepresented. Nothing productive is happening otherwise.

 

emerald

[Peek a Boo]

Peek-a-boo

You are putting words in my mouth and misrepreseting me and my heart. Please, out of common decency, don't.

 

I do not have the time or the energy to go back through everything and pull out my words and compare them with yours and show how you have been unfair in using what I have written.

 

Not to sound too terribly harsh, but I have read what you have written on several different topics on here and it is rare that I have see anything constructive. It appears (my opinion) that you sort of like to bully.

 

Please, allow people a little bit of leeway in expressing themselves, even if they don't agree with you, without fear of their own words being fragmented and misrepresented. Nothing productive is happening otherwise.

 

emerald

 

 

emerald, I'm not the only pointing out that you expressed an actual incorrect statement --that's not "indecent" --it's academic.

 

If I'm misrepresenting you, then it would help to know HOW so it can be clarified. But everything i posted was directly from your specific words here.

 

you have leeway to express your feelings, but you don't have leeway to spread incorrect information.

[emeraldjoy]

For some reason the few statements I have made on private property seem to be confusing or points of contention or...something. I should never have gone there again with my most recent post because my main point and what I really wanted to convey was lost because of the private property thing again. I really don't want to argue about valid history, etc. I simply wanted to say that I see the world differently. Simply.

 

I never said anything about it being okay to harm a child. I never said I wouldn't protect my family. All I really should of said is "I believe in Grace", which aptly sums up my final position.

 

E

[beansprouts]

I never said anything about it being okay to harm a child. I never said I wouldn't protect my family. All I really should of said is "I believe in Grace", which aptly sums up my final position.

 

 

Well, I am trying to understand you, because I think we agree more than we realise. My question would be how do you define grace, and where would it play out in this scenario?

[Bev in B'ville]

who think the man got what was coming to him.

 

A predator has been removed from this earth. Forgive me if I dance on his grave!

 

Anyone who breaks into my house will have a shocker. My husband may travel 5 days a week, but between me and my two dc, we have three guns and three people who know how to use them. Not to mention a 150 lb. dog and one attack cat.

 

As always, just my musings.

[Peek a Boo]

For some reason the few statements I have made on private property seem to be confusing or points of contention or...something. I should never have gone there again with my most recent post because my main point and what I really wanted to convey was lost because of the private property thing again. I really don't want to argue about valid history, etc. I simply wanted to say that I see the world differently. Simply.

 

I never said anything about it being okay to harm a child. I never said I wouldn't protect my family. All I really should of said is "I believe in Grace", which aptly sums up my final position.

 

E

 

I do agree your points about private property are kinda confusing --you were the one who brought up the historical view and continued to try to "correct" us wrt "western" thought and "2000" years as "history."

 

 

And the idea of private property is most definitley a western idea, an individualistic idea. For most of our world's history the idea of community, collectivism has been much more pervasive and only fairly recently has this idea of "private' property been an issue.

 

this is a discussion board, not a mind-reading baord, so we are always willing to discuss stuff :)

[Laura Corin]

- Defending oneself and others against harm

- Preventing trespass

 

Protect my family from attack? Definitely, with whatever force was needed to stop the attack.

 

Stop someone from trespassing? Unless there was a specific threat to my safety, then I would hope not to use force that would damage them.

 

Laura (1/3rd of whose new property in Scotland falls under right-to-roam legislation, which also gives me leave to ramble freely through most of this beautiful country)

[Remudamom]

Crap, we pay tens of thousands of dollars on property taxes. I'll be danged if someone's going to walk on any of it without my permission. Especially when they have no business but bad business when they trespass.

 

No one around here would tramp on someone's place without permission. When a steer is missing, neighbors call and say they'll be looking for it on such and such a pasture.

 

I saw some hunters once south of our house, charged down on the ATV to find out what was going on. They saw me coming and very wisely started hollering "It's us, it's us!" Okay, friends with permission are safe. We've also run off others that were actually camping on our property. Thought it looked like a pretty spot. We were nice, even let them take their stuff with them.

 

What about the ^$%* we caught aiming his high powered rifle over my children's play area?

 

Why don't I and the family come traispe all over your city yards, throw trash around and pi$$ all over your trees?

 

Oh, btw, how many times do those teens from the town down the road have to rob us of our farm equipment, batteries, saddles, and vehicles before I can take pot shots from my bedroom window at three in the morning without having to listen to a bunch of crap about it? Oh, wait, wait, wait, what about the joy seekers that shot one of our horses, yes it killed her.

 

 

Start a **** fire and let it burn? Oh, that's okay, that field of soy beans wasn't important, go ahead and do donuts all over it. Dang right I'll shoot.

 

ETA-if someone expects a direct rebuttal from me and doesn't get it, it's probably because they're on my very short and precise ignore list.

Edited October 7, 2008 by Remudamom

[Spy Car]

I need one of those tin-foil hats :001_huh::lol:

[Murphy101]

- Defending oneself and others against harm

- Preventing trespass

 

Protect my family from attack? Definitely, with whatever force was needed to stop the attack.

 

Stop someone from trespassing? Unless there was a specific threat to my safety, then I would hope not to use force that would damage them.

 

Oh come now. It's not like I'd shoot some door to door salesman for trespass. (tempting though it might be!;))

 

What's the bloomin' point of my dh and I working our bums off to provide for our families if any yahoo with a hankering can come take it when they want it and I don't have the right to stop them? With force if neccessary? Deadly force if they're too stupid to stop and drop?

 

When the public is in charge of paying my taxes, mowing my yard, buying my car, and other valuables - then I'll consider letting them have free reign on or with my property. Maybe. More likely I'd think he** had frozen over.:lol:

 

Crap, we pay tens of thousands of dollars on property taxes. I'll be danged if someone's going to walk on any of it without my permission. Especially when they have no business but bad business when they trespass.

 

No one around here would tramp on someone's place without permission. When a steer is missing, neighbors call and say they'll be looking for it on such and such a pasture.

 

I saw some hunters once south of our house, charged down on the ATV to find out what was going on. They saw me coming and very wisely started hollering "It's us, it's us!" Okay, friends with permission are safe. We've also ran off others that were actually camping on our property. Thought it looked like a pretty spot.

 

Why don't I and the family come traispe all over your city yards, throw trash around and pi$$ all over your trees?

Start a **** fire and let it burn? Oh, that's okay, that field of soy beans wasn't important, go ahead and do donuts all over it. Dang right I'll shoot.

 

Oh don't be subtle now, tell us what you really think.:D:lol:

 

My dad has the same problems on his property down in Mississippi.

He had to take his shotgun out to convince some guys being "neighborly" that no the ponds he fills with fish he bought and plans to harvest for sale are NOT open for them to fish in and that they'd better get their dadblum donut making 4 wheelers off his property while they could drive them. He says they had to have been stocking their freezer with his cattle and fish. And even apparently thought it okay to have a scout camp out without asking!! They even used stones he'd laid around some of his trees to make the firepit! When he drove down ticked and told them to leave, they said a lot of bull hockey about being neighborly, and the kids were having so much fun (mistake! my dad didn't like his own kids - no way was he going to be thrilled with theirs!) and how it was just some fish and fun - no big deal buddy. Man o man, was he one royal ticked man ready to shoot.

 

I don't get this entire notion that we shouldn't protect what we've worked hard to provide for our families so I'm right there with you!

[LilyK]

Start a **** fire and let it burn? Oh, that's okay, that field of soy beans wasn't important, go ahead and do donuts all over it. Dang right I'll shoot.

 

 

Remudamom, are you serious? This is a real question, not me being snarky. I think we are usually on the same side of an issue, so I hope I'm not on your short list.:confused:

[Murphy101]

Remudamom, are you serious? This is a real question, not me being snarky. I think we are usually on the same side of an issue, so I hope I'm not on your short list.:confused:

 

I don't know if you're on her short list or not...

 

but I don't think she was saying someone should burn down YOUR property, but rather that some idiots out there wouldn't think a thing of starting a fire on her property b/c they might have a it's just a "bunch of grass" anyways attitude.

 

At least that's how I read it.:)

[Peek a Boo]

- Defending oneself and others against harm

- Preventing trespass

 

Protect my family from attack? Definitely, with whatever force was needed to stop the attack.

 

Stop someone from trespassing? Unless there was a specific threat to my safety, then I would hope not to use force that would damage them.

 

Laura (1/3rd of whose new property in Scotland falls under right-to-roam legislation, which also gives me leave to ramble freely through most of this beautiful country)

 

No, i don't think we're really conflating the two: they are both illegal actions that directly affect the personal rights of another person who has committed no crime.

 

When you break the law, you open yourself up to consequences --legal and otherwise.

 

The laws being broken in both cases are infringing upon another's personal rights: right to life and right to private property. Many times it is simply impossible to assume that the guy "trespassing" at night through a window or into a garage is simply "in the wrong place." --once caught in a crime, many people will do desperate things to Not Get Caught.

 

We aren't talking about PREVENTING trespass --we're talking about what to do w/ that criminal once they have already trespassed. To take an analogy from the pro-choice camp: people are going to trespass anyway --we need an option to protect the person being trespassed against.

 

So how does one determine when the trespass is such an offense that the death penalty --or possibly lethal force-- can be used?

 

There's a HUGE difference between a kid cutting across the corner of your yard as they are playing chase in broad daylight and someone who is ARMED sneaking in w/o permission under cover of night or while you are gone. There are certainly other instances where one can reasonably assume no intent to harm was in place.

 

for more about this in the US --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

 

I think that like a lot of other laws, citizens are getting into the habit of choosing to blatantly ignore or even justify those who are breaking the law. We've seen this here on the board itself when it comes to admitting when an illegal immigrant is Breaking the Law and Committing a Crime. When people don't make it remarkably clear just how important it is to obey laws --especially laws that affect another person's right to life or personal property --then they are put in danger of doing illegal things w/o knowing what those consequences are.

 

It would seem prudent and helpful to our fellow citizens to make sure they understand exactly how and why people have the right to use lethal force to defend themselves and their property. People SHOULD be thinking more along the lines of respecting other people and other people's stuff.

 

i do think there tends to be a huge lack of respect in general --people are convinced they are entitled to other people's land, tax money, and time.

[Lovedtodeath]

Originally Posted by Zelda

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if an embryo attempted to break into the home of these ladies that embryo would be dealt the same hand.

 

I have seen too many episodes of X-files and I am sure that embryos are going to be breaking into my house tonight. I can't wait for REM sleep.:svengo:

 

Peek, great last words.

[Remudamom]

Absolutely Peek. Any idiot, even me, can tell the difference between the stranded motorist and the meth kid.