Is it right to kill a violent burglar?

[spiker777]

I think everyone puts themselves at risk for one reason or another. In a burglar's case this reason may be poverty or desperation or just stupidity in some cases. The violent part may come from either being too scared or mental issues. In any case, I don't think its right to kill a violent burglar because this person is just in need of help and we should try to be more understanding even if circumstances sometimes pressure us into taking tough decisions.

[1714840081]

1714840081

[1714840081]

1714840081

[1714840081]

1714840081

[Strufmbae]

I think everyone puts themselves at risk for one reason or another. In a burglar's case this reason may be poverty or desperation or just stupidity in some cases. The violent part may come from either being too scared or mental issues. In any case, I don't think its right to kill a violent burglar because this person is just in need of help and we should try to be more understanding even if circumstances sometimes pressure us into taking tough decisions.

Yes,  we have so called Human Rights, but if you are a real man you will do exactly what the 78 year Old did. It is a win win situation, there is a possibility that the old man get killed when the old man didn't act to kill the violent burglar.

For example,  let us pivot the story. The old man was killed rather than the burglar,  and then the burglar went to other house and kill somebody, again,  and then next day another homicide case happen and the culprit was the same burglar again.

now which is right to hear?  A violent burglar was killed and it lessen the crime from that place or the burglar continues to do the same crime again and again. 

If i were the old man. I will not regret what did he do, rather accept the fact that i killed a violent burglar and i don't care about the laws,  atleast i saved myself and my family. 

If you let the violent burglar live,  and consider human rights then you are selfish.

[BronxCats]

Of course he does. It's outrageous that they arrested the home owner. It's stupid.

I also read that one of the friend of the criminal passed by the house threatening the home owner.

[Impulseboy]

Morally speaking, killing is killing no matter the reason. But if you are talking about self-defense, then perhaps. It is still killing, mind you, but what would you in a situation like what the man went through? Would you let the burglar hurt/kill you and/or the ones that you love? I think not.

[TrumpD]

I do not think it is an easy thing to take a life, whether deliberately or not - mental and emotional trauma afterwards can be huge; sometimes you hear of soldiers who have gotten to war on how they have to deal with inner issues after killings. Even though this could be a one time thing, I want to believe that the act of taking anothers life can have a permanent effect on you.  If there is an opportunity to neutralize the situation, maybe aiming for important parts of the body rather than the fatal parts, I will choose those options, but if those options are not available then, I have to save myself and go for the kill. So I cannot for sure say it is the right thing to killer a violent burglar.

[Hedda Gabler]

Old dude shouldn't go to jail for this. Give him some fine, sure.
Just so he knows you can't just kill someone and have no cost or consequences for it.

He should not given fines, or any sort of punishment.

If you wake up on the wrong side of the bed one day, should you be given fines?

If a drunk driver decides to crash into your car, should you be given fines because a drunk driver made a choice to ruin your life?

Welcome to the almighty all powerful state and their sick and warped sense of justice and morality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSvFpBOe8eY&list=RDEMRoCx7NEN4B1lXoHSAiz26w&start_radio=1

[katelynsk]

I believe we must have the right to defend ourselves and our house. If somebody breaks in, you don't have enough time and desire to take a risk, thinking whether the criminal is armed and how serious the threat is.

However, in my country, self-defense can have bad consequences for you. If there are no witnesses and the attacker suffered. They can blame you for exceeding the necessary self-defense measures, and even call you an initiator of the attack (depending on the situation of course).

It's not fair, but I'd still prefer to first protect myself from the burglar, and then deal with the police. The burglar got what he deserved. And the laws - they're changeable and imperfect things.

[xtraelv]

In most commonwealth countries the laws are similar.

You have a right to protect yourself.
If there has to be a plausible threat of harm to you or another person then you can legally defend yourself.
You can only use proportional and reasonable force.

But self defense is a defense - not a legal right. (There is a subtle difference)
The law states that you cannot assault or kill a person.
You have a valid defense from conviction if you acted in self defense.

Just because they are in your house doesn't mean there is a threat. But if they threaten to hit and have the opportunity to do so (physically close enough) then you can act in self defence.

(You can also arrest them but that is more complex law)

So if a small 12 year old kid broke into my house and tried to take a swing at me and I killed them with a blow from a hammer - it would not be proportional.

If a 2m 150kg thug broke into my house and threatened to hit my 1.6m missus popped him on the nose with a hammer and he dies - it would be proportional.

When weapons are involved it becomes more serious. Someone with a baseball bat can potentially be more dangerous and the level of violence allowed to be used to neutralize the threat is much higher.

If they flee you can't shoot them with a gun, stab them in the back or run them over with your car - because there is no longer a threat to you.


I wouldn't want to kill someone over property. But I would defend myself and others against harm.

[bluefirecorp_]

In America, a lot of states have "defend your castle" laws, which are quite interesting.

If you feel your life is in harm's way, you have a natural right to defend your life. It's just biological survival. Anyone who wants to punish you for that biological survival instinct has never been in the situation themselves.

[yoseph]

In America, a lot of states have "defend your castle" laws, which are quite interesting.

If you feel your life is in harm's way, you have a natural right to defend your life. It's just biological survival. Anyone who wants to punish you for that biological survival instinct has never been in the situation themselves.

In America where almost everyone seems to have a gun in their homes, when you decide to rob a house, you have a 50% of getting shot and killed and I do believe that's not a good probability at all especially when you know your life may be at stake.

[xtraelv]

In America, a lot of states have "defend your castle" laws, which are quite interesting.

If you feel your life is in harm's way, you have a natural right to defend your life. It's just biological survival. Anyone who wants to punish you for that biological survival instinct has never been in the situation themselves.

In America where almost everyone seems to have a gun in their homes, when you decide to rob a house, you have a 50% of getting shot and killed and I do believe that's not a good probability at all especially when you know your life may be at stake.

In America it is also much more likely that the criminals are armed. In other countries (like most commonwealth countries) handgun ownership is almost nil and heavily restricted. There it is almost unheard of that a burglar has a gun.  So your risk of being shot by an intruder is extremely low.

In some fortunate nations - even the police don't normally carry guns. Your chance of getting shot is that low.


 United States   2016   119.6 gun related deaths/ 1 million people 89% gun ownership (71.0 of those suicides)
 Australia   2016            10.4  gun related deaths/ 1 million people 13.7% gun ownership (8 of those suicides)
  Norway   2012            17.5 gun related deaths/ 1 million people  31.3% gun ownership (16.3 of those suicides)

What it doesn't show is whether the death by homicide are gun owners or people who don't own the guns.

If you calculate an 80 year lifespan your risk of getting killed by a gun in a high gun ownership country is reasonably high so having laws to protect yourself against intruders in your own home / property would make sense.

[Cofuchu]

i strongly belive in the case of violent burglar if he of she is harmfull you can kill in self defense. there is no wrong in that. or if ou dont want to kill you can just run to avoid killing..

[Vinnyjrt]

I think a person has every right to defend their house and family. If someone breaks into your house, you really don’t know their full intentions.  They could be there with the intention to not just steal, but to murder, rape, or kidnap you, your wife or your kids.  I personally support the right to defend your family and home even if you kill the intruder.   

[bluefirecorp_]

In America, a lot of states have "defend your castle" laws, which are quite interesting.

If you feel your life is in harm's way, you have a natural right to defend your life. It's just biological survival. Anyone who wants to punish you for that biological survival instinct has never been in the situation themselves.

In America where almost everyone seems to have a gun in their homes, when you decide to rob a house, you have a 50% of getting shot and killed and I do believe that's not a good probability at all especially when you know your life may be at stake.

In America it is also much more likely that the criminals are armed. In other countries (like most commonwealth countries) handgun ownership is almost nil and heavily restricted. There it is almost unheard of that a burglar has a gun.  So your risk of being shot by an intruder is extremely low.

In some fortunate nations - even the police don't normally carry guns. Your chance of getting shot is that low.


 United States   2016   119.6 gun related deaths/ 1 million people 89% gun ownership (71.0 of those suicides)
 Australia   2016            10.4  gun related deaths/ 1 million people 13.7% gun ownership (8 of those suicides)
  Norway   2012            17.5 gun related deaths/ 1 million people  31.3% gun ownership (16.3 of those suicides)

What it doesn't show is whether the death by homicide are gun owners or people who don't own the guns.

If you calculate an 80 year lifespan your risk of getting killed by a gun in a high gun ownership country is reasonably high so having laws to protect yourself against intruders in your own home / property would make sense.

The problem is, manufacturing guns can be done at home and with a hardware shop. You can 3D print a gun and buy a tube and get something that can lethally kill someone within 10 ft of you. You literally can't stop people from obtaining weapons, if they so choose.

However, you can educate and regulate the safety of firearms to individuals. Overall, America does have a mental health problem. We have more suicides than any other nation. It probably also has something to do with our weak social safety nets.


For those thinking about about removing personal ownership of weapons from America:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[CoinCowgirl]

I think it`s part of the deal, when this criminal decides to break in to somebody`s house he accepted the risk that there is a possibility that the victim try to defence himself, his family and his belongings and that there is a change that he get hurt or worse. A painter accept the risk that he can fall of his ladder. Isn`t that calling business risk?!

[acidburn14]

An intruder killed during a raid on a pensioner's home was a career criminal who worked in a family gang and had spent time in jail.
Henry Vincent, 37, from Kent, was stabbed during a break-in at the home of pensioner, Richard Osborn-Brooks, 78, in Hither Green on Wednesday.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/05/burglar-killed-pensioners-home-wanted-previous-robbery/

What do you think? I think that a 37 year old career burglar who attacked a 78 year old pensioner in his own home, deserved what he got, and I hope they catch his accomplice. It seems the police don't agree, and they have arrested the pensioner for defending himself and his family.

What kind of law are they enforcing? First, I supposed that it happened inside the house which is clear that the burglar cleary commits trespassing. Second, what do the police expect the old man to do? Law enforcers are sick!! Do they know the word self-defense?

[groko271]

the pensioner should be celebrated as a national hero.

Every criminal should know when they break into someones house they can be killed, and not one iota of trouble will meet the home owner who killed them.

[beej]

I think if the burglar becomes a great threat the home owner has the right to
bear arms and protect his home and the inhabitants within. There may be laws
that cover this certain situation in several countries, but from my point of view
when an intruder enters your home, it's better to assume that the intruder will
pose as a threat and may be violent. It's something probably one must never
underestimate. It may be your life at stake. Some may not like this approach
but when you're in that situation it's all fight instinct.  

[Carlton Banks]

So if a small 12 year old kid broke into my house and tried to take a swing at me and I killed them with a blow from a hammer - it would not be proportional.

If a 2m 150kg thug broke into my house and threatened to hit my 1.6m missus popped him on the nose with a hammer and he dies - it would be proportional.

When weapons are involved it becomes more serious. Someone with a baseball bat can potentially be more dangerous and the level of violence allowed to be used to neutralize the threat is much higher.

Well, it's potentially more complex than even that.


If you were a 12 year old housebreaker, would you go unarmed? Or even if you're just a physically small adult? This is why I'm against modern strict gun legislation, a regular person cannot defend themselves against any attacker if the attacker has a gun and the victim does not.

Guns are not the ultimate answer to the problem, addressing the causes of criminality is (and that's so so much harder). But should the general depravity that drives criminal behaviour not improve, and there is little sign of that, then calling the police is not going to work either. Vulnerable people without the means to employ their own security must be able to defend themselves in these circumstances, and so the law is a disgrace in this instance.

And of course, the police apply an entirely different standard to themselves; instead of arresting police officers for murder whenever they kill on duty as a matter of procedure, it's always assumed that the police officer did the right thing as a matter of course. Which is illustrative of how corrupt this modern policing system is: police officers are presumed innocent, and everyone else is presumed guilty. Unless they're powerful.



Local people should be paying a local officer who they trust to police their neighbourhood. People often reply "but that would lead to complete corruption", but at least the police would be corrupt in the way that the people who pay them wanted.

[Squishy01]

I agree with what you have to say sir, that burglar did deserve what he got. How could you violently rob a senior citizen? That is just way too low for a human being.

For me, however, killing should be the last option to anything, as I myself believe that I do not have the guts to kill anyone. Moreover, if someone uses violence against you and threaten your life just to steal your property, then you should not hesitate to commit self-defense and try to harm the attacker as well, and killing them would just be one of the many just consequences.