• Idaho teen shoots burglar during home invasion, gunfight
    370 replies, posted
[QUOTE=RB33;51313425]Firefights are not healthy, you live longer if you avoid them. That's my advise, clearly they thought differently but i'm not letting a firefight determine a winner.[/QUOTE] How astute. One of the many ways to stop getting shot at (And one they had available) is to incapacitate (By killing or otherwise) the one(s) doing the shooting - that's how armed conflict usually goes these days.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51313453]3: You're making huge assumptions. The truth to this statement is again entirely dependent on the context (Of terrain/building structure and the people involved) 4: What if they'd done as you said and the police had died and he'd got away? They're people with families just as much as the homeowners, and they're just as mortal as everyone else. 5: The answer to that question can only be hypothesised when applied to a hypothetical scenario. In the reality of this case, how dangerous retreat would've been is a non-factor as it's not the course of action they chose.[/QUOTE] 3. Going after a possibly armed guy being more dangerous than staying away is a huge assumption? For me, that's only common sense. Don't go after armed untrustworthy people. 4. So the homeowner should have possibly died instead so that a cop did not? One of them has a job fighting criminals and it's not the homeowner. 5. If we can't talk about alternate options to situations, we have nothing to talk about.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51313551]I'm pretty sure that by his definition burglar(y) is the proper term here since the only force used wasn't for stealing to begin with but only once the burglar was confronted.[/QUOTE] Just being pedantic since we're clearly distinguishing terms
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51313537]3.) Still irrelevant. They were in danger either way. Period.[/QUOTE] The world isn't black and white. There exist shades of gray in between. [QUOTE]4.) You didn't even read the entire thing, let me quote it for you: See the issue here? You are advocating less danger now for more danger and damage later.[/QUOTE] We think about what's here and now, not about what the future might bring. People shouldn't worry about what's tomorrow, when their life is at risk now. [QUOTE]5.) Doesn't matter. If they are in danger either way then they should take the option that they feel most safe in.[/QUOTE] Even if that option is more likely to get them harmed? [QUOTE]My opinion wouldn't change. It would have been tragic, sure. But they chose to confront the burglar and that was their choice to make. As a bit of a silver lining too, the fact they'd have died would have made the police pursue the burglar even harder than they normally would for a burglary since the burglar is very clearly a danger to the public at this point.[/QUOTE] So these people would have been an acceptable loss in the fight against burglars? I must say, I care more about them than that.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313570]3. Going after a possibly armed guy being more dangerous than staying away is a huge assumption? For me, that's only common sense. Don't go after armed untrustworthy people.[B]*[/B] 4. So the homeowner should have possibly died instead so that a cop did not? One of them has a job fighting criminals and it's not the homeowner. 5. If we can't talk about alternate options to situations, we have nothing to talk about.[/QUOTE] *Possibly-armed. Again, they didn't know and probably didn't fully suspect he was armed until they were shot at. And again, when you get shot at you respond in one of the two ways as I outlined in an earlier post - rationality doesn't factor into it without training, which is something these people most likely didn't have as catbarf explained, hence their actions. 4: Putting words in my mouth. Since we are indeed speaking hypothetically (5), any number of things could've happened differently as a result of different actions taken by the homeowners. Should the homeowners have backed down from a situation they were able to resolve then, allowing the burglar to escape leading to the possibility of him putting another or several more families in mortal danger, likely some of whom would be unarmed? As someone else said, police don't teleport and the likeliest outcome of retreating (Even considering a firefight ensuing then - it's an unlikely but possible turn of events) is the burglar escaping before they arrive and not being caught for a while
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51313569]How astute. One of the many ways to stop getting shot at (And one they had available) is to incapacitate (By killing or otherwise) the one(s) doing the shooting - that's how armed conflict usually goes these days.[/QUOTE] To make a similar risk comparison, do you take out a bad guy using a drone strike or helicopter insertion? What is less risky? Drone strike being less risky for the ones using it, the same as waiting for the police. Or the helicopter insertion, going in yourself to take out the intruder. Both gets the job done, one is less risky.
[quote] We think about what's here and now, not about what the future might bring. People shouldn't worry about what's tomorrow, when their life is at risk now. [/quote] Yes, they absolutely did. And they chose a course of action which eliminated that risk. [QUOTE=RB33;51313601]The world isn't black and white. There exist shades of gray in between. [...] Even if that option is more likely to get them harmed?[/QUOTE] Their confidence in their handling of the situation is a [B]factor[/B] in the likelihood of their success, ie preventing harm coming to them. [quote]So these people would have been an acceptable loss in the fight against burglars? I must say, I care more about them than that.[/quote] "Silver lining" =/= "Acceptable loss" [editline]5th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RB33;51313626]To make a similar risk comparison, do you take out a bad guy using a drone strike or helicopter insertion? What is less risky? Drone strike being less risky for the ones using it, the same as waiting for the police. Or the helicopter insertion, going in yourself to take out the intruder. Both gets the job done, one is less risky.[/QUOTE] Poor analogy. A more fitting one would be a helicopter extraction from the area in which the bad guy resides, and inserting a better-armed/equipped/trained unit to engage him. This increases the length of the overall engagement and therefore the length of time its participants are in danger, and therefore danger as a whole.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51313618]*Possibly-armed. Again, they didn't know and probably didn't fully suspect he was armed until they were shot at. And again, when you get shot at you respond in one of the two ways as I outlined in an earlier post - rationality doesn't factor into it without training, which is something these people most likely didn't have as catbarf explained, hence their actions.[/QUOTE] My opinion is that if they didn't know if he was armed or not, they should have waited for the police. [QUOTE]4: Putting words in my mouth. Since we are indeed speaking hypothetically (5), any number of things could've happened differently as a result of different actions taken by the homeowners. Should the homeowners have backed down from a situation they were able to resolve then, allowing the burglar to escape leading to the possibility of him putting another or several more families in mortal danger, likely some of whom would be unarmed? As someone else said, police don't teleport and the likeliest outcome of retreating (Even considering a firefight ensuing then - it's an unlikely but possible turn of events) is the burglar escaping before they arrive and not being caught for a while[/QUOTE] Yes, if the chance of being unharmed is increased by letting the intruder escape, they should have done it. You ending up dead after confronting an armed intruder is not worth it.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313601]The world isn't black and white. There exist shades of gray in between.[/QUOTE] Of course but that doesn't change the fact they were in danger regardless of which choice they made. [QUOTE]We think about what's here and now, not about what the future might bring. People shouldn't worry about what's tomorrow, when their life is at risk now.[/QUOTE] Remember my comment about your point of view being very myopic? Kinda highly relevant here. The greater good is served by not running away when there's a high chance of the burglar getting away and subsequently robbing more people. [QUOTE]Even if that option is more likely to get them harmed?[/QUOTE] That is [I]their[/I] choice to make. The only people they are endangering by making that choice are themselves and the intruder so there is no reason to impose your own morality on them and deny them their freedom of choice. [QUOTE]So these people would have been an acceptable loss in the fight against burglars? I must say, I care more about them than that.[/QUOTE] It's far more complicated than it being an acceptable loss or not. They could have done what you suggested and still lost their lives. Does that suddenly make what you suggested not okay because they still died?
[QUOTE=RB33;51313660]My opinion is that if they didn't know if he was armed or not, they should have waited for the police. Yes, if the chance of being unharmed is increased by letting the intruder escape, they should have done it. You ending up dead after confronting an armed intruder is not worth it.[/QUOTE] To bite your style, "the harm that could hypothetically come to the burglar's subsequent victims and/or the police is worth the possibility of somewhat diminishing the risk to your life?". The risk to their life cannot be accurately determined because we only have a very loose interpretation of events and the context in which they took place. You're of the opinion they should've gone and waited for the cops, congratulations, we've known this for the last however long. They didn't as they had already been engaged in combat when attempting to assess the situation, and had the available alternative of directly neutralising the threat, and came out fine (Relatively speaking). No, I don't advocate taking them on if you don't have to, but the situation as it unfolded dictated to them that that was their best option - so what you think they [I]should[/I] have done is a moot point. What people [I]should[/I] do in a similar situation is different sure, but that's if it's a safer situation than having just been shot at.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51313695]Of course but that doesn't change the fact they were in danger regardless of which choice they made.[/QUOTE] What is less or more dangerous is important and makes a difference. [QUOTE]Remember my comment about your point of view being very myopic? Kinda highly relevant here. The greater good is served by not running away when there's a high chance of the burglar getting away and subsequently robbing more people.[/QUOTE] It's not your job or responsibility to play hero and catch bad guys. [QUOTE]That is [I]their[/I] choice to make. The only people they are endangering by making that choice are themselves and the intruder so there is no reason to impose your own morality on them and deny them their freedom of choice.[/QUOTE] I'm not denying them a choice, simply offering them my advice. [QUOTE]It's far more complicated than it being an acceptable loss or not. They could have done what you suggested and still lost their lives. Does that suddenly make what you suggested not okay because they still died?[/QUOTE] It's not perfect. The same as confronting them is, it's about what makes you likelier to end up unharmed.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313731]What is less or more dangerous is important and makes a difference. It's not your job or responsibility to play hero and catch bad guys. [/quote] [quote]Their confidence in their handling of the situation is a factor in the likelihood of their success, ie preventing harm coming to them.[/quote] It is, however, their responsibility to defend themselves since it can't fall on anyone else in the moments immediately following being shot at. [quote]I'm not denying them a choice, simply offering them my advice.[/quote] This is after the fact. See my post above. [quote]It's not perfect. The same as confronting them is, it's about what makes you likelier to end up unharmed.[/QUOTE] And they chose a course of action which resulted in them coming out unharmed.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313731]What is less or more dangerous is important and makes a difference.[/QUOTE] As is the fact you're not going to be rational in a situation like that on top of the fact personal confidence in a given option is going to bias your decision one way or another. [QUOTE]It's not your job or responsibility to play hero and catch bad guys.[/QUOTE] And? You're literally saying that it's okay to let the burglar go so he can endanger others. More than that in fact, you're stating that's what [I]needs[/I] to happen. [QUOTE]I'm not denying them a choice, simply offering them my advice.[/QUOTE] No, that's not what you're doing at all. You're not simply stating it was a better choice. (Based off a media account of the situation nonetheless, which is going to be quite incomplete.) You're stating it was the option they should have taken implying you'd want to force them to do what you think is best. [QUOTE]It's not perfect. The same as confronting them is, it's about what makes you likelier to end up unharmed.[/QUOTE] The point is you're trying to say your choice is objectively the best choice when neither choice is perfect. Something people have actually pointed out to you on multiple occasions now but you seem unable to understand.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51313711]To bite your style, "the harm that could hypothetically come to the burglar's subsequent victims and/or the police is worth the possibility of somewhat diminishing the risk to your life?". The risk to their life cannot be accurately determined because we only have a very loose interpretation of events and the context in which they took place. You're of the opinion they should've gone and waited for the cops, congratulations, we've known this for the last however long. They didn't as they had already been engaged in combat when attempting to assess the situation, and had the available alternative of directly neutralising the threat, and came out fine (Relatively speaking). No, I don't advocate taking them on if you don't have to, but the situation as it unfolded dictated to them that that was their best option - so what you think they [I]should[/I] have done is a moot point. What people [I]should[/I] do in a similar situation is different sure, but that's if it's a safer situation than having just been shot at.[/QUOTE] Which they might very well have not ended up unharmed in. It's just repeating ourselves at this point. They should have left the house before investigating and putting themselves at higher risk. This story didn't start with them being shot at, they could have left before that.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313772]Which they might very well have not ended up unharmed in. It's just repeating ourselves at this point. They should have left the house before investigating and putting themselves at higher risk. This story didn't start with them being shot at, they could have left before that.[/QUOTE] I got the perfect avatar for you since you don't have one [URL]http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/RpwGu8yNTNI/hqdefault.jpg[/URL] It's much easier to work out the best course of action as it would hypothetically relate to yourself, than it is in the real moment involving different people with different values and knowledge, specifically lack of pre-cognition in relation to that situation.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51313753]It is, however, their responsibility to defend themselves since it can't fall on anyone else in the moments immediately following being shot at. This is after the fact. See my post above. And they chose a course of action which resulted in them coming out unharmed.[/QUOTE] I adress these points in the post above. They were lucky it ended up this way, it could have ended much worse for them. If you mean that my advise would end up with them still being shot at, they could also have died if what you advised them to do turned out differently.
I missed a good thread. Oh well. The intruder had his chance, he chose to open fire. At that point the people in the home are free to respond as they see fit in my opinion. The intruder is lucky he was only shot once.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313801]I adress these points in the post above. They were lucky it ended up this way, it could have ended much worse for them. If you mean that my advise would end up with them still being shot at, they could also have died if what you advised them to do turned out differently.[/QUOTE] See above. In any case, the application of hindsight here is only truly useful to them, and I imagine they're more inclined to take such a home defence course, if not take a defensive posture were a similar situation to occur.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51313754]As is the fact you're not going to be rational in a situation like that on top of the fact personal confidence in a given option is going to bias your decision one way or another.[/QUOTE] As Morbo!!! said, if they can be aware of what happens if the burglar escapes. They can also be aware of what's more dangerous or not. [QUOTE]And? You're literally saying that it's okay to let the burglar go so he can endanger others. More than that in fact, you're stating that's what [I]needs[/I] to happen.[/QUOTE] I'm simply stating it's neither your job or responsibility, which is true. [QUOTE]No, that's not what you're doing at all. You're not simply stating it was a better choice. (Based off a media account of the situation nonetheless, which is going to be quite incomplete.) You're stating it was the option they should have taken implying you'd want to force them to do what you think is best.[/QUOTE] I can't force them to do something else, so it's simply advise on that one should have acted differently. [QUOTE]The point is you're trying to say your choice is objectively the best choice when neither choice is perfect. Something people have actually pointed out to you on multiple occasions now but you seem unable to understand.[/QUOTE] It's better. You think confronting is better, I think the opposite. I don't see the problem?
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51313541]I've seen burgalry defined specifically as committing a crime within a property; In this case one of them is theft, one of them is attempted murder and breaking & entering/unlawful entry on top would probably be caught in that umbrella. Hence, he's a burglar. Robbery's basically extorting belongings from a victim under threat of violence. Their actions were legally justified since the belief that the burglar was going to cause GBH or death was a reasonable one, due to the fact he shot at them.[/QUOTE] Robbery is taking from your person, burglary is taking from your property. The two crimes aren't mutual
[QUOTE=Code3Response;51313841]Robbery is taking from your person, burglary is taking from your property. The two crimes aren't mutual[/QUOTE] You're right, but I didn't insinuate they were mutual(ly exclusive?)
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51313791]I got the perfect avatar for you since you don't have one [URL]http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/RpwGu8yNTNI/hqdefault.jpg[/URL] It's much easier to work out the best course of action as it would hypothetically relate to yourself, than it is in the real moment involving different people with different values and knowledge, specifically lack of pre-cognition in relation to that situation.[/QUOTE] The amount of danger you're willing to put yourself into is the same. Confront the intruder or don't. You might defeat him, he might defeat you. Large chance of getting hurt either way. Staying away lowers that risk. [editline]5th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51313824]See above. In any case, the application of hindsight here is only truly useful to them, and I imagine they're more inclined to take such a home defence course, if not take a defensive posture were a similar situation to occur.[/QUOTE] Okay, whatever they do is their choice. I only hope they remain within the law and do what's considered the safest. Even if we might disagree on what that is.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313835]As Morbo!!! said, if they can be aware of what happens if the burglar escapes. They can also be aware of what's more dangerous or not.[/QUOTE] Again, personal confidence in one option over the other will bias your perception of a given option. [QUOTE]I'm simply stating it's neither your job or responsibility, which is true.[/QUOTE] Just because something is not your job or responsibility does not mean you shouldn't be allowed to do it. [QUOTE]I can't force them to do something else, so it's simply advise on that one should have acted differently.[/QUOTE] That's not at all how it's coming across. [QUOTE]It's better. You think confronting is better, I think the opposite. I don't see the problem?[/QUOTE] I never said confronting is better. I said there's no issues. Both are viable choices from my point of view and which one someone takes hinges on which they feel is the better choice. I've argued the positive aspects of confrontation because you're arguing that it's a bad choice all while ignoring that in this instance it worked out perfectly fine. The only person who was injured was the burglar.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313835]As Morbo!!! said, if they can be aware of what happens if the burglar escapes. They can also be aware of what's more dangerous or not.[/QUOTE] Which, in my experience, you can't. You attempt to end the threat in the quickest manner possible whether that be rapid retreat or direct confrontation. It's possible and likely they were adrenalised as soon as they established there was an intruder, the flight or fight response already having taken place before they made the decision to enter the house. That decision then being perfectly reasonable in the absence of training. [quote]I'm simply stating it's neither your job or responsibility, which is true.[/quote] It's not your responsibility to stop a burglar, no, but it is your responsibility to defend yourself when nobody else is immediately available to do so. A burglary transitioned into a self-defence situation, the avoidance of which being in the realm of possibility and even likelihood. [quote] I can't force them to do something else, so it's simply advise on that one should have acted differently.[/quote] And none of us were there in the event to influence the chain of events. They went with what (knowledge, ability and capability) they had and were successful. This debate really is circular and semantic at this point since we've already said pretty much all there is to say so I'll quit here, spent too much time on it lmao, GG Oh but before I do [quote]Ideally every human being is rational and logical. No one would be physically hurt because there is no reason for it, and no one would steal because there would be ways to make it through life without resorting to crime. There would be no need to use drugs and there would be no need to steal things to afford them. Life is not ideal, and human beings are not always rational and logical, especially if drugs or mental illness is involved. Let's look at a play by play here and look at what choices each individual had in this scenario.[/quote] Applies to the homeowners too.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51313882]Just because something is not your job or responsibility does not mean you shouldn't be allowed to do it.[/QUOTE] And being allowed to do it doesn't mean that you should do it. [QUOTE]I never said confronting is better. I said there's no issues. Both are viable choices from my point of view and which one someone takes hinges on which they feel is the better choice. I've argued the positive aspects of confrontation because you're arguing that it's a bad choice all while ignoring that in this instance it worked out perfectly fine. The only person who was injured was the burglar.[/QUOTE] I believe this is more due to luck than actual skill or how effective of an approach confronting is. [editline]5th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51313895]Which, in my experience, you can't. You attempt to end the threat in the quickest manner possible whether that be rapid retreat or direct confrontation. It's possible and likely they were adrenalised as soon as they established there was an intruder, the flight or fight response already having taken place before they made the decision to enter the house. That decision then being perfectly reasonable in the absence of training.[/QUOTE] There should be more training then, it can't hurt. [QUOTE]It's not your responsibility to stop a burglar, no, but it is your responsibility to defend yourself when nobody else is immediately available to do so. A burglary transitioned into a self-defence situation, the avoidance of which being in the realm of possibility and even likelihood. [/QUOTE] I'm not disagreeing with you here. [QUOTE]And none of us were there in the event to influence the chain of events. They went with what (knowledge, ability and capability) they had and were successful. This debate really is circular and semantic at this point since we've already said pretty much all there is to say so I'll quit here, spent too much time on it lmao, GG[/QUOTE] The same here, it's just a simple disagreement. I need to get me some food now.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313907]And being allowed to do it doesn't mean that you should do it.[/QUOTE] There's a difference, however, between "you probably shouldn't do it" and "don't do it". One implies it's probably a bad idea but may not be. The other leaves no room for compromise. [QUOTE]I believe this is more due to luck than actual skill or how effective of an approach confronting is.[/QUOTE] Even if it's luck there's no denying that their choice turned out perfectly fine. This debate wouldn't be a debate if you'd just accept that confrontation is an imperfect yet completely viable option to take, just like I'm accepting that retreating is also a perfectly viable, if imperfect, option to take. (Retreat being the likely option if I were in a similar situation myself due to the fact there's not even a single gun in my entire household.)
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51313969]There's a difference, however, between "you probably shouldn't do it" and "don't do it". One implies it's probably a bad idea but may not be. The other leaves no room for compromise.[/QUOTE] I can't decide what others do, so while I think it's a bad idea, they may not. [QUOTE]Even if it's luck there's no denying that their choice turned out perfectly fine. [/QUOTE] If the chance of it ending up like this was 10%, it wouldn't be a reliable approach just because it worked this time. It doesn't tell us much unless compared with other similar cases.
[QUOTE=RB33;51314002]I can't decide what others do, so while I think it's a bad idea, they may not. If the chance of it ending up like this was 10%, it wouldn't be a reliable approach just because it worked this time. It doesn't tell us much unless compared with other similar cases.[/QUOTE] I have to wonder, but why are you getting so hung up over this hypothetical scenario you've made up, the intruder decided to open fire first and the homeowners returned the same in self defense, yes they could've backed off but I imagine it's pretty hard to do that when you have a man in the same room as you firing his gun at you in hopes to kill you so he can escape. What's with these "should have" and "could have" when the situation already happened and ended in a way that both parties are still here, it's not like you can suddenly stop time the moment you get shot at and consider your options.
[QUOTE=RB33;51314002]If the chance of it ending up like this was 10%, it wouldn't be a reliable approach just because it worked this time. It doesn't tell us much unless compared with other similar cases.[/QUOTE] And here you're pulling a statistic out of your ass and subsequently using it to back up your own preconception. Someone addressed it earlier and said that the statistical result is that more often than not the intruder will turn tail even when the confronter is armed with a gun. So statistically it sounds like the likely conclusion to confronting the burglar is them running or the home owner managing to apprehend them and hold them until police can arrive. So it's pretty clearly more than 10% that turn out well.
[QUOTE=RB33;51314002]If the chance of it ending up like this was 10%[/QUOTE] I've already explained why this isn't the case. Provide evidence to back up your claims. Your feelings about the issue do not overrule measurable metrics- very simple statistics shows that somewhere between 98% and 99.95% of confrontations between an armed citizen and an aggressor end with neither party dead. The chances of an armed homeowner confronting an intruder resulting in their own death is extremely small.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.