Reply #44: Fight or flight. [View All]

[AtheistCrusader]

Yeah. Rough to the point of nothing like, eh? Mind you, I'm not the one scared out of my wits by the thought of what a "hostile" in my home might do to me, so maybe your analogy holds some water for me. It doesn't for you, unless you're ascribing animus to fire. I think I would still be surprised, if so.
What gave you the impression I'm scared out of my wits? After all, I'm not the one who's apparent chosen option is to run away. To arm myself and investigate matters doesn't sound like being 'scared out of my wits'.

MEMBERS OF THE FUCKING GENERAL PUBLIC may arrest people here, and it matters not a pinch of shit if they are members of the armed forces and thus not "civilians" at all; they are members of the public for all purposes not relating to their military duties. (Obviously, the police, not being military, are also "civilians".) Members of the general public may also not KILL OR INJURE people to prevent the commission of a property offence any more than the police may.
Most people here never make the distinction between military and peace officers. Here, in my state, non-peace-officers also have the right to arrest someone. In fact, we are able to intervene, if we witness any form of felony in progress. Granted, that's not always a wise choice.

What I said that you were presumably replying to:

And if I harmed someone else in order to avoid a danger I could have avoided by removing myself from the vicinity of it, I'd expect to be prosecuted.

You may see a connection between the two. I don't.
That wasn't the only comment I was replying to, but that will do. Here, you would not be prosecuted. Possible culture difference between Canada and the United States. There are a couple states here that don't have the 'castle doctrine' yet, but in most states, mine included, we have no duty to retreat. Whether you committed a crime or not is dependent on whether you were justified in shooting someone. There are very specific criteria for that, that boil down to you fearing for your life, or that of another person. You can't shoot someone over personal property, but you can to protect your life.

And the absence of legal obligation is just as totally and completely IRRELEVANT as it was the first time. Even if they DID have a legal obligation to do something, they might not do it, for pity's sake. So then she could sue them. Not, I think, a meaningful distinction from your perspective.
I don't think you are understanding me.

1. Neither your neighbors or the police have any legal compulsion to protect you.
2. If your neighbors also don't have a firearm, what good is it going to do you for them to come running if you yell for them? What can they do, that you can't, aside from perhaps numerical superiority. (Meaningless if the intruder has a weapon, knife or otherwise)
3. If you run to your neighbors, and some scumbag follows you, you may be endangering them.

I realize your point is that you think yelling for them will be enough deterrence to cause whoever is breaking in to flee, but that's not always so. Some criminals have bad intentions, and a casual disregard for their own safety. If you like, I can link plenty of news articles, mostly of home invaders that were warned repeatedly they would be shot if they continued, and they did it anyway, and were shot. If someone telling them they are going to be shot if they don't knock it off isn't going to work, do you think yelling for the neighbors would help?



You think? And this would be why the article said that he followed her BACK down the hall after she went to the bedroom to get the firearm? Interesting, er, interpretation.

By your interpretation, he was pursuing her BEFORE she had the firearm. Odd how that makes no sense.
"The woman, who lives in the 1300 block of West Guadalupe Road, told police she heard somebody jump onto her patio just before 11 p.m. She ran into her bedroom to retrieve her gun, police said. When a man entered through the back door, he followed her down the hallway until he realized she had a gun, according to police. He fled."
Where in that paragraph does the word 'back' exist? (Aside from 'back door') She could have been standing in the hallway, and ran to the bedroom. She could have been anywhere, the bathroom, wherever. It doesn't say. There is insufficent detail to support your apparent interpretation.


Good god, you seem to be having flashbacks. These hostiles, are they all around, and do they drop out of trees and bayonet your good buddies?
Not at all. I apologize if my word usage somehow offends you, but if someone is breaking into my home at 11pm, I'm certainly going to assume they are 'hostile'. I wonder what the woman from that article thought of his intentions. I'll stick to 'invader' or 'intruder' from now on I guess.