I do think that if you are burglaring someones home that you have sacrificed some of your rights by doing so. Though I do think that going equiped with a weapon should mean that you should expect the worst.

Totally support them. he shouldn't have tripped over his own shoelace should he.

"Yes officer the man brutally violently dislocated both his own legs in a fit of impromptu breakdancing."

Jon

Wrong. I there cannot be no X and no Y, nor X AND Y, then no Y means there is X.

If there was a third option (excessive violence, non excessive, or pie), then disproof of excess would not provide a basis for choosing between non excess and pie.

If there is violence, and that violence can only be excessive or not excessive, the disproof of one is categorical proof of the other.


You are now defeating your own argument from a different direction. Here you are demonstrating that your obviousness-of-excess premise is empirically false. You don't agree that it is generally obvious at all, you now contend that it is merely sometimes obvious, and then only in the most extreme cases.


Well you might be, you are a person making a statement to another, so there is subtext involved, you may well know me for the incorrigible and reckless drunkard that I am.

A law is not a person, nor is it communication with an individual, it is a code, a set of instructions. If a packet of cigarettes says "don't smoke while pregnant" should a smoking nun take offence at this scurrilous attack on her chastity? One would assume not, the cigarette packaging does not know her personal circumstances, she would be considered somewhat mad if she treated it as something that should.

The implication attached to a law, just as that attached to a warning notice, is that some people do X, some do not, and X is either required or prohibited. Any personal slight you infer from that is probably something to discuss with your counselor.


I don't need to be objective to the point of having no opinion on the matter, opinions have no bearing on the logic of the arguments.

The ambiguity of what is reasonable cannot possibly be resolved, because reasonable can disagree about it. It is reasonable to stop trying to kill an attacker once he is no longer a threat. It is reasonable not to prosecute somebody whose judgment of continuing threat is more severe than yours, so long as they could reasonably be believed to have used their judgment honestly. It is reasonable to regret that under some circumstances an act of apparent defence can turn into one of sadistic revenge. It is less reasonable to draw a precise line saying where that threshold is, although it is sometimes reasonable to wish that we could (reasonably) do so.

How exactly would you define someone as no longer being a threat? In the heat of the moment you may not realise that someone is no longer a threat, especially if weapons are involved as apparently small or superficial injuries can be life threatening (a stab wound that has penetrated into internal organs or nicked an artery being a prime example as would a sharp blow to the head). If you manage to incapacitate someone then restrain them until competent authorities arrive then you could quite easily exacerbate an injury to point at which it either life threatening or recovery is no longer possible.

A frenzied attack (or rather defence) wouldn't be entirely unexpected in the case of a home invasion. Someone has broken in and threatened you/your partner/your kids so you charge at them with whatever is at hand and keep going until they've stopped moving. Trying to tell someone so threatened that they should have stopped after each blow to check if the burglar had been sufficiently incapacitated is madness and completely impractical. Under such circumstances judgement is more than likely to have taken a back seat to the combination of fear and adrenalin.

So it is less reasonable to stop attacking somebody who is no longer a threat than it is to turn them into a puddle of goo with mashed up bits of bone in it?

I anticipated the "where do you draw the line?" question in my very next sentence, and I've addressed already the ambiguity of reason and subjectivity of judgment. But the mere fact that reason can be difficult, and judgment can be subjective surely does not force us to abandon these concepts entirely.

People may resent circumstances in which they are victims, and wish to reverse positions such that the trespasser becomes the abused. But I recommend taking a breather at some point, and trying not to descend into sadism.

I'm sorry, but if it was me and I was scared for my personal safety, I wouldn't stop until I was sure the person isn't going to get up again, or I feel they no longer pose a threat.

I could then safely and comfortably wait the obligatory three weeks until the Police arrive.

Will you also be waiting three weeks to make sure that they do not move before you call the police?

I would be of the same mind.

That said, I think giving the impression that an 80 year old gran can stab a burglar will just result in us seeing far more dead 80 year old grans.

As I said on another forum, there's a lot of hard bastards here, if I woke up to the sound of burglars downstairs, I'd be curled up in the foetal position screaming "take whatever you want".

More so if you were insured.

I think there's often a difference on what people would like to think they do and what they would actually do.

It's all good and well people generally saying they would attack someone who broke into their house who made them fear for their safety but if you've ever had any 'altercations' of any sort you realise it's easier said than done.

In reality most people who say they would attack someone in their house would have the crap beaten out of them for trying to do so. That said, adrenaline and the instinct to protect loved ones can be very powerful.

There is also the fact that unless you are Chuck Norris you could come out much worse. Sometimes if you react you only aggravate the situation. You do have a certain advantage from knowing where everything useful is. I have no idea what I would do in that situation.

I'd leap out at them, naked but for a gimp mask, wielding a chainsaw, with this blood curdling battle cry: "I'm going to rub you with my belly"

That should persuade anyone to leave.

Belly's gonna get ya.