Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins
I think we can all understand the use of deadly force under these circumstances. Again, I think the rub lies in where we are willing to make that call. Some folks might have to wait until a loved one is lying in a pool of blood before they begin to perceive a threat. Others prefer not to let it get that far.
|
Ok, your turn for melodrama
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins
Re-reading the articles and re-reading this thread, coupled with a day of pondering the questions involved, has led me to shift my position. I now believe, in these two specific cases, that the home owners were properly charged. It's a very fine line, and one I very much hope none of us has to toe, but I do believe they crossed it. I very much believe in the premise of protecting what is yours, from loved ones to property. I do still very much believe that under most circumstances anyone caught in my home should be perceived as a threat and dealt with accordingly. Even under the worst conditions, however, I don't think I could ever just start blazing away without saying something first. Unless, of course, a loved one is already in peril.
|
We actually are in pretty close agreement. I think that internet puffery accounts for some of the bravado on this thread. My home is probably better armed than most here, and any real threat to my loved ones would be met with a serious response. I think where I differ is calculation of the odds of that happening, and similarly, how much I weigh the reality of living with taking another person's life. I suppose that one would prefer to err on the side of safety in a situation where you think it is them or us. I hope I don't have to make that decision, and so far, haven't needed to in 53 years on this planet.