About the issue of defending your property lethally

Before I even say specifically what I was going to say, I decided it'd be best to simply point out that this is one of many instances where peoples' (not only myself, but you as well, I guarantee it) personal partiality will influence their political wants more than anything else.

On one hand, if someone were to break into my apartment, I'd be afraid and maybe not think very clearly and probably attack them to stop the threat. On the other hand, if someone I cared for did break into someone's house or attack someone's family and that person(s) hurt said person that I cared for, I'd pay someone I know to kill them and their family, that way they had something to really worry about..well, not so much, afterwards. Partiality would kill any sense of impartial justice because well, that's simply the way that I am. And yes, a friend of mine is friends with a man (I've met him once) who does kill people for a living so it's not far-fetched.

Discuss.

 

That's just the kind of statements that could have you in an FBI interrogation room. Most likely, the friend of a friend is just bragging. No one and I mean no one that kills for a living tells ANYONE about it. It's a real good way to end up on death row. If he really does and he's that stupid one of his targets will knock him off first.

 

Jeez..does your friend's friend brag about his chosen vocation? Like "Hi, I'm Bill..I kill people..wadda you do?" (by the way, knowledge of criminal activity makes you complicit in some states) Or does he have a '007' sort of license to kill?

 

Apparently you lack a moral compass. You seem to believe that it is acceptable to see retribution against people for protecting themselves.

This is actually a common mindset. People pick fights, lose, then seek retribution for getting beat up in a fight that they started.

This mindset is a symptom of the same lack of personal responsibility that causes so many problems. If a person invades someone else's property, they are responsible for anything that happens, including getting killed by the owner. Blaming the victim and supporting the criminal is appalling.

 

You've said it all within a nutshell. And it would NOT shock me if the FBI isn't already monitoring a few of the things people say on this website.

 

i hope it's the FBI that's been parked accross the street.

 

maybe the OP was refering to a soldier where its done legally but would disagree with retribution think the best thing to do is remain non violent and not retaliate against someone who broke in

also would argue against defense because some people do think this way so its best to remain neutral in a home invasion and hope for the best as most criminals are only looking for items to steal not harm anyone

 

I have been under investigation for quite some time now.

 

I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. If you don't have the Castle Doctrine in your state, get on your state reps and senators to get 'er done.

 

You seem like a typical self-centered liberal. You are the center of the universe, so of course, if a friend is killed in a home invasion you would want to kill the family of the homeowner. It makes sense to me from your perspective. Progressives tend to see crime as a form of social justice. Therefore, an armed homeowner is obstructing social justice by resisting violently.

_

 

in those cases the property owner decides to fight back yes it can result favorably or it can result in tragically like in the article above

the best thing to do is avoid any conflict let the criminals take their property then call the police

 

Did you even read the story? This person didn't fight back and ended up having his family raped and burned to death.

Like most liberals you seem to like to blame the victims and defend the criminal garbage. You'd probably support a rapist suing the woman who scratched his face while he raped her.

 

But I would kill you before you can hire anyone.

You talking about Dave? He just says that to scare kids. He told me about someone who posts online as "DeathSun or something like that" who fell for it.

 

the article didn't divulge all the details, the homeowner probably put up a fight and lost and that is why the criminal tortured them

if the home owners don't put a fight and remain submissive the criminals have no reason to hurt them, they are there to steal

 

I'm sure you would inquire of an unknown intruder in your home before defending yourself, right? I'm sure the criminals would give you an honest explanation that they only wanted to steal your stuff while tying you up, right? Probably would always turn out fine if people would just listen to criminals, like it did for the Clutter family in True Blood by Truman Capote.

 

So what you are saying is that nepotism is more important to you than morality or justice. The world certainly needs more people like you.

 

It's not that such careers don't happen, it's more that they're very brief. Perhaps this knowledge was passed on during that brief period.

 

Rather than hiring someone to kill the people that successfully defended themselves against someone that attacked them, wouldn't it make more sense on pretty much every level to hire someone to explain to your loved ones why attacking people is stupid?

Or, at the very least, hire someone to train them to be better at it?

 

I am 100% certain that he does.

 

But you don't understand my simple message; I'm not talking about me personally attacking someone and them defending themselves against me.

 

The only way to be 100% certain is if he kills you.

I had a friend that I was 100% certain worked for the DEA. Turned out he was just gay.

 

I'm not talking about a "friend", but yeah that'd also work. But you don't understand the point, which is that even though I do think it's wrong to invade someone's property, I'm also partial to certain people due to human nature.

Do you have a son or daughter, for instance?

 

I'm....100% certain that he does. To be honest, it's not all that uncommon..I've seen people killed before in Columbus

 

No...it doesn't.

 

You're talking about family loyalty, if I understand you correctly. An aspect of it, anyway. It's not a bad thing in and of itself, but it sounds as though you've found a negative hypothetical.

I think it's the same sort of emotional phenomenon that allows people to pretend that the soldiers working for their country would never commit atrocities. Which is silly, 'cause we all know that war is inherently atrocious, and committing atrocities is basically what we hire soldiers to do. But we still like to think that "our side" only commits the atrocities that we're comfortable with.