An intruder most likely wants to steal your stuff, which hardly requires a death sentence, as you seem to want to offer.
Even if their goal was purely to steal something, things progress very quickly in chaotic situations like those; especially when their state of mind could be affected by drugs or mental illness. And you have no idea what their goals actually were or are.
Milliseconds matter, so there isn't really a better way to handle that situation, in my opinion. It'd be nice if there existed non-lethal weapons which could incapacitate as effectively as lethal ones, but they don't seem to exist yet.
If it were a death sentence, then you'd be allowed to shoot someone in the back after they've exited the house and are running away. And obviously you aren't; that'd be murder.
Why would you assume this? Do you have any studies that back this up? My default assumption, way more logical I'd say, would be that they want to steal stuff. Stealing is logical and rational, under some circumstances. Attacking someone (so putting yourself at risk as the attacker) or killing someone (again, putting yourself at risk immediately and after) are not rational.
Why would you assume that they want to kill or harm you? I'd say that I have Occam's razor on my side with this one. Stealing stuff makes waaaay more sense and again, can be quite logical in many circumstances.
Of course it's not in their rational interest to kill anyone, but what if they're suddenly surprised by a homeowner armed with a baseball bat while they have a gun? They're probably going to shoot and kill the homeowner.
And there is a significant chance they're not in any sort of rational state of mind at that time.
So even if they don't want to kill or harm anyone, they easily may end up doing so due to the circumstances. And then there's the added possibility that they want to steal but would also not turn down the opportunity to sexually assault someone while they're there. And then also the additional possibility that they do intend to harm or kill people while there. That's far too great a risk to treat it as anything but a lethal threat.
You are perpetuating that danger. Now the would-be thief knows you will attack him if you see him, so he has to be ready to shoot you. By powertrippig and "protecting" your home, you are making a banal situation more dangerous for everyone, including yourself.
If you didn't have a gun you might do the more logical thing. Calm the intruder down, and run away.
Its hard for some to imagine standing up for themselves. They fantasize about retreat; rational conversations with thieves; happy outcomes when one has already broken all social constraints.
Finally, by definition, an intruder who's shot on sight isn't going to know, later, that you're going to shoot them. They'll not be robbing anybody, later.
1/4 of the time when a person is present for their burglary they are assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered.
If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family.
Decreasing the risk of breaking into people's homes incentivizes human trash to convert your valuables to drugs and put your family at risk in the process. Even junkies can grasp that housebreaking is dangerous which is why they try to at least avoid people most times.
Being kinder to garbage changes that dynamic.
Shooting at a burglar sounds like a great way to turn them into a robber or murderer.
In my opinion, providing legal drugs and rehabilitation to addicts, free of charge, would significantly reduce these kinds of thefts and break-ins, in addition to a lot of other huge societal benefits. The system works by only allowing the addict to consume the drug under supervision; they can't take anything outside of the clinic. It seems to work very well in some European countries.
A spree shooter killing innocent people in cold blood is garbage, and a terrorist blowing up a building is garbage, but a drug addict in awful pain due to terrible decisions acting purely on impulse to stymie the pain isn't garbage. They take their life in their hands if they break into someone's home, because that's how any break-in has to be treated, but that doesn't make them subhuman.
If you can't know the intent (and you can't), then you must assume the worst intent and act accordingly. Anything else is naive.
Because I promise you one thing, I look up and see a stranger in my house, I'm attacking them immediately with no thought towards anything except protecting myself and everyone in the house. There will be no questions until it's over with.
If they were just looking to steal something for drugs, that can be sorted out once I've subdued them.
I was just saying drug addicts aren't necessarily garbage. They face lethal force because they've broken into one's home; not because "they're garbage".
> Being kinder to garbage
See, that's where we probably don't think the same way. I consider few people "human trash". Drug addicts I don't count as "human trash", they're just victims of an addiction and in need of help.
People who are not drug addicts and are just plain evil, those would be "human trash" in my eyes (think Mengele).
The words we choose to frame a situation are important. Your mindset comes from a very aggressive mindset, at least that's how it seems to me.
I also regard violation of a family home as such a crime as to render the person difficult to redeem. The kind of people that make such choices aren't just high right now they are also bad unethical people.
The poster above made a conjecture that it was incorrect to assume one was in mortal danger from a robber and that shooting such a person was an overreaction.
I considered that. Actual stats say that 1/4 robbers that break in while individuals are home victimize the people therein and 39% had a weapon.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt
This says to me that a house breaker is a substantial risk refuting the prior posters expressed idea.
You will note that both the original poster and I had a point regardless of whether you agree with either.
I'm not even sure what idea
>constant regurgitation of a corporatized and hateful memecomplex
Is supposed to express. What is the memecomplex and wherein is it puked up repeatedly?
Would you like to try to express yourself more clearly and respectfully?
Unless you miss, and take out your family member (or others) yourself.
Also, if you do take out someone in your house... they likely have relatives too. Who may become fairly interested in you and/or your family afterwards. Aka that "violence begets violence" thing. :/
For example, "Manson Family" could not get death penalty for the murder of Sharon Tate and others because California banned death penalty at the time of their trial.
Would you really argue that, if they had means to kill the intruders, victims had no right to do so because whatever happened to them was not punishable by death?
It's not quite that simple. Self-defense must be proportionate, so you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat.
This varies by locale. In Texas, in a situation where the use of force is permitted, the use of deadly force is permitted to stop arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.
Most states permit the use of deadly force to protect against serious injury, not just a deadly threat.
Specific facts of each case will matter, but things that cause serious injury tend to get into the life-threatening realm.
We have a word for this, it's called naive.
That's not being naive, it's being reasonable.
Someone wanting to steal from you doesn't mean the death penalty. Stealing is malicious.
I dislike the term 'bleeding heart liberal', but I think it applies here. There's a difference between 'love thy fellow man' and 'worry about the health of an intruder in your home at 3am'.