What Can One Do During Home Invasion?

[Michael Hardner]

47 minutes ago, eyeball said:

how far and wide does the principle behind standing one's ground extend?

Principles ?  Good for you for remembering those ancient things.   Narrative rules the day in these times, though.

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

You're not a member of the jury who deliberated over the FACTS!

I have seen enough of the facts to know that some of the bullcarp peddled above is in fact full of it.

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

Even if he's acquitted to everything - just the fact that you're forced to get a lawyer to defend yourself (which translate to expenses), and to get into that kind of stress....is a hateful scenario.  

To take out a restricted handgun and point it at someone is also a hateful scenario.

[betsy]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

So are you suggesting that when I report a dead guy on my property, I can just say "He was here to steal something, so I shot him", the police should just nod and say "OK", even if someone else says "That's not what happened"?

I'm responding to the particular scenario given by Hal.  I cannot really comment much about the Boushie incident since I don't really know the particulars.

[betsy]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

To take out a restricted handgun and point it at someone is also a hateful scenario.

If you're pointing it at an intruder in your home - boy, I don't care what you find hateful, but I surely don't find it that. 

It's better I get the upper hand!  Using a restricted gun would be the least of my worries.

 

Are you willing to gamble the life of your family?  You never answered that question.

Edited February 12, 2018 by betsy

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, betsy said:

If you're pointing it at an intruder in your home - boy, I don't care what you find hateful, but I surely don't find it that.

That was not this scenario.

[betsy]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

That was not this scenario.

I was responding to yours! Didn't you not give the scenario of a restricted gun? 

Edited February 12, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

That was not this scenario.

Are you willing to gamble the life of your family?

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, betsy said:

I was responding to yours! Didn't you not give the scenario of a restricted gun? 

I think if you trace the thread back, it will lead to Hal implying a specific real world scenario.

1 minute ago, betsy said:

Are you willing to gamble the life of your family?

The problem with violence is almost always escalation, and usually you are gambling the life of your family just as much as anyone else when you escalate.

[betsy]

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I think if you trace the thread back, it will lead to Hal implying a specific real world scenario.

 

 I was responding to that particular scenario that I quoted.

 

 

Quote

The problem with violence is almost always escalation, and usually you are gambling the life of your family just as much as anyone else when you escalate.

 Are you saying you wouldn't resort to any violence to protect your family?  

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, betsy said:

Are you saying you wouldn't resort to any violence to protect your family?  

The problem is most people who ask that end up escalating the situation because it is not the last resort but something they plan for and they hurt their own families in far greater numbers than protecting them.

[DogOnPorch]

There is only the moment and the choice to act. 

It's all over by the time one chats about it.

[Hal 9000]

4 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I think if you trace the thread back, it will lead to Hal implying a specific real world scenario.

The problem with violence is almost always escalation, and usually you are gambling the life of your family just as much as anyone else when you escalate.

Are you suggesting a proportional defense?

[?Impact]

54 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Are you suggesting a proportional defense?

I am suggesting that paranoia has killed far more family members than it has saved.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

Would you feel the same way about any trespassing invasion that is violently resisted?

The particulars of an incident notwithstanding just how far and wide does the principle behind standing one's ground extend?

Trespassing, certainly not.  Trespassing with intent, I don't know.  It would depend on the intent.

How do you feel about the kind of situation I described?

Edited February 13, 2018 by bcsapper

[Hal 9000]

17 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I am suggesting that paranoia has killed far more family members than it has saved.

Clearly, the person in question wasn't paranoid, the threat was real! 

But, anyway that's just your opinion - right?  It's hard to prove a negative.  All we can know is what happened, not what didn't happen.  For you make such a statement makes less sense than someone insisting that had the farmer NOT had a gun, his whole family might be dead.

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

All we can know is what happened, not what didn't happen.

Agreed, and if you read my comment it was about paranoia in general and not this incident in particular. I don't blame you however, it seems the world is rife with people taking others statements way out of context, you are just part of the herd.

[Hal 9000]

6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Agreed, and if you read my comment it was about paranoia in general and not this incident in particular. I don't blame you however, it seems the world is rife with people taking others statements way out of context, you are just part of the herd.

Geez, you almost sounded like a real person for a minute.  Anyway, in any home invasion, I wouldn't blame any occupant for suspecting their safety was in question.  Maybe they don't have a gun, maybe they have a knife, brass knuckles, maybe they could grab a lamp, baseball bat...who knows?  When someone is in your house, all bets are off, and self preservation is the name of the game.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Principles ?  Good for you for remembering those ancient things.   Narrative rules the day in these times, though.

Are we talking about the Saskatchewan thing, or the OP question in general?  Because I'm not sure exactly what principle is involved in risking harm to yourself and your family so the bad guy can get his drug money.

[Hal 9000]

That old couple in Calgary who were murdered, had their RV stolen and bodies burnt beyond recognition....would those be the paranoid people you're talking about?

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

That old couple in Calgary who were murdered, had their RV stolen and bodies burnt beyond recognition....would those be the paranoid people you're talking about?

I think the reward billboard is still on the Yellowhead.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Because I'm not sure exactly what principle is involved in risking harm to yourself and your family so the bad guy can get his drug money.

That wasn't eyeball's question though.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

That wasn't eyeball's question though.

Your comment had nothing to do with his question.  I was replying here to your comment.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Trespassing, certainly not.  Trespassing with intent, I don't know.  It would depend on the intent.

How do you feel about the kind of situation I described?

I don't know yet I'm still testing how far the principle of standing your ground in defence of it extends.

Lets say an indigenous people decided to stand their ground and resist the invasion of their lands, how would you feel about that?

Edited February 13, 2018 by eyeball

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I don't know yet I'm still testing how far the principle of standing your ground in defence of it extends.

Lets say an indigenous people decided to stand their ground and resist the invasion of their lands, how would you feel about that?

I thought they did.  George Armstrong Custer told me all about it.

Edited February 13, 2018 by bcsapper