Topic: Is it right to kill a violent burglar? - page 3. (Read 2168 times)

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.

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.

it's scary, I won't wish it on anyone. I can't judge anyone, but I think it's right that if the police can't catch him, ordinary people do.

If I were in the same situation, I will probably do the same. We need to protect our selves all the time and on this scenario, the only way is to strike first when you have the chance. The situation could have been different if the pensioner didn't defend himself. The police will have a murder case and a chase for the 37 year old burglar. Sometimes the law protect those criminals instead of sending them behind bars.

Its hard to tell what will we do if we are in the situation of the pensioner. I think i will kill that burglar too if it is for the safety of my family and myself.

funny enough where am from, if you are a burglar and you get caught in the act, immediate jungle justice will follow you get beaten to death and only with luck can you survive.   

You csn't really blame the person fo protecting himself from an attack what if the Burglar had a weapon and had killed the person rather.

I think it's a vigilante, because every country has its own policy and there is a separate rule of every crime whether in the theft or in the case of murder.

Private property and self-defense must be a sacred right in all societies, I believe such criminals truly deserve death but it's not my burden to decide that, I don't wanna be the responsible for the death of someone else, it must be backed up by law so he knows what's he getting for doing that, after all, a burglar with such a big historic like that has any sort of respect for someones else life already, thus, he can't expect the same to happen to him, most of them are actually just waiting for a release of their own self-demise. And their deaths will be the lesson for others who are following the same path. It's hard but necessary.

If a burglar came into my home armed and with intent to harm me or family, I will shoot first and ask questions later.

He or she should not have entered my private home and by doing so it was with malice in mind.

Would I want them to die? Of course not. But at the heat of the moment these things will not be registering in my mind.

My will to survive by protecting myself and family will be first and foremost. If they do get grievously injured and or die, they should have though twice before entering my home.

intrusion = risk of death.

welcome texas, florida and co.

it's not part of the protocol to invade, at any time.

edit never heard of lambo hunting? keep you lambo in the garden well exposed, car open... and wait for the bait to make it's work .

it can work with girls in bikinis... but it's more splashy , some don't like it .

It depends on your jurisdiction. Most people are completely oblivious to how the law really works. For example, my natural country is called America, while a privately owned non-profit religious corporation called the United States claims to be the government.

A maxim of law states that any corporation may only interact with other corporations. This means that by interacting with a government official (police officer, etc), you are providing proof of the false claim that you are also a corporation.

It is bad to BE a corporation, because they are created by the government (United States), and therefore are owned by the government. We are actually REAL PEOPLE. But the ONLY way to provide proof of that claim (to be real flesh and blood), it is required to say 'under protest' before answering or doing anything a police officer says. AND by writing 'under protest' above your signature before signing ANYTHING.

By using the phrase 'under protest', you become a sovereign, literally a King or Queen. And you then have the right to create a Charter to set out cannons, which can be enforced in court (In Admiralty).

The only things a sovereign cannot do is harm another or damage property, however, if someone fails to use the phrase 'under protest' they are not a real person, and therefore may be legally executed, prosecuted, charged, tazed, kicked or robbed. (execution is a form of murder by a sovereign that has no legal repercusions if sufficient evidence is provided that the victim was a 'person' (legal corporation, i.e. not 'under protest', A.K.A. 'ens legis'.

If someone decides to intrude your home then they in turn accepted the possible risks that may come with it. As the victim you have to assume the person is armed and willing to kill (At least here in South Africa). There is nothing wrong with defending yourself, you have a right to life and this person is threatening that right. The pure B.S. of this comes in to play when they fire a gun at you and you shoot them back but the bullet hits them from behind as they retreat, you are then called a murderer. The fact the guy was trying to kill you falls out the window and the criminal gets all the rights.

Home invades should have zero rights, they chose to invade a house. If you really need to resort to crime there are many other non violent illegal ways to get money. No need to go shove a 12 year old boys head into boiling water and light people on fire and all.

The sad part comes in when you consider the invader is someones parent or child. But again, the person knowingly chose to invade a house. That said you guys are very lucky that these things still make the news. When it gets to a point where the police sends one car out 5 hours after the incident and its just another day at the office then you know you got a problem.
How I envy the freedom of not living behind 6 locked doors, armed response and alarm beams all over my garden with a few dogs..

**Opinions above are a bit more severe than you guys in the EU has I know,but unfortunately this is our reality

The burglar really deserves what happen to him. If i am on the position of the pensioner i will do the same thing for the safety of my family.

I think that the murder of a robber is not right, because after that you will have to live, how you will feel after this. no it's not right

There is a requirement or facts to fulfill for the said "self-defense" and ofcourse If the requirement was fulfilled on the 78 yrs old pensioner could not be going to jail and actually it's the job of the police to find the facts of self defense for the defendant. But on the on the hand we know it was not moral good to take lives someone but what if the 78 yr old was the one who killed? then intruder lives? Think again.

In the U.S. it varies by state, but what may matter most is his risk level. I have heard it often asked as "Did the shooter assume his/her life was in danger?" and "Was it reasonable to think that?". I don't know about this case. Did these guys know each other? Is Mr. Osborne_Brooks known around town as "The lying stabber"? Because that would also matter.

I say shooter in my example since we shoot intruders rather than stab them. Assuming the guy found someone in his home threating him after breaking in and he killed the intruder, I think he would have to give a statement to the police and they may hold the knife for evidence, but he wouldn't be charged.

It was self-defense and it is in the law. I don't know all the facts but maybe his life was threatened we was a 78 years old man and the burglar was 37. The burglar may decide to kill him at anytime, no one know what ideas run in a criminal's mind.

You reap what you sow in life.This career burglar and criminal remains an
unrepentant and die-hard criminal who may unleash untoward attack on its
target.Hence, in a bid to defend and protect its target and the worst happens.
It should not be misconstrued as unfairness.The criminal who remains unrepentant after
experiencing jail penalties may never need mercy.Hence, if he or she is killed in the
course of criminality, the person reaped what was sowed.

I'd pray for a violent intruder in my house.  I have many special features built into my home for protection. Not to mention that as an American I have guns, lots of guns. Shotguns and handguns for inside, AKs and ARs for the property. I think it would be a very one sided fight as I watch them on camera while putting on my body armor.