Anon the murderer
(midwest.social)
oldmanalex
ShitpostingAs much as I hate lawsuits, this appears to be the perfect example of where a harassment/libel/slander lawsuit and massive fines would be very appropriate.
Seems to be a very US American problem, in most other parts of the world everybody involved would try to deescalate - from politicians who decide on the gun laws, down to the criminals and the victims and their families.
So if someone breaks into your home, you're gonna have a chat? Like I don't understand.
They defended their home. Whether with a sword, a gun, a toxic weapon, superpowers, a dog, whatever. Makes what you're saying seem quite outlandish.
Straight to death fantasy.
In general, police forces across the world “advise you to stay calm, avoid any confrontation, and leave the house immediately if it is safe to do so. You should then call the police from a safe location. The police strongly recommend against confronting the intruder, as this could escalate the situation and put you at risk.”
It sounds absolutely fucking insane to me to shoot someone 4-5 times, even if they break into your home. But i guess it's a cultural difference lol.
So again are you gonna like have a conversation with them? I don't understand.
How many times do you strike someone breaking into your home or do you wait to see what their intent is?
These things happen fast, many people have a weapon ready for home defense especially if you live in unsafe areas and once that switch is hit to act most people go the whole way. Guns don't work like they do in a movie you don't shoot someone and they fly back or dramatically are defeated. People can often take several rounds before that's that.
And the age old saying goes, if you intend to pull a gun use it.
A conversation? Huh?? Where'd that come from?
Also, people have had conversations with intruders without shooting them dead. https://youtu.be/3P6GvOJK08s
American gun culture is rotting your brain, just so you know. Live abroad for once. See what the rest of the world sees.
Because he talked about de-escalation with an intruder. What other forms of deescalating is there than talking? He's literally suggesting to have a conversation with your intruder.
Nobodys having conversations. I don’t know why you seem to be implying a binary choice of gun vs conversation.
You can defend yourself in European countries, but the thing is that the defense must be proportional. You cannot kill someone for stealing a TV or your wallet and not physically threatening you with lethal force.
https://nypost.com/2003/10/31/golden-girls-defeat-thug-with-kindness/
https://www.kgns.tv/2023/08/03/an-87-year-old-woman-fought-off-an-intruder-then-fed-him-after-he-told-her-he-was-awfully-hungry/?outputType=amp
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/thug-thanks-would-be-victim-for-saving-his-life/2117587/?amp=1
My brain is rotted? Maybe you should reconsider your perception of America.
Meanwhile France, Austria and Finland and experience way more break ins than the US and on a city to city basis places like London and Paris have way more robberies than in the US.
Didn't Sweden have a sweep of gangs using explosives and grenades a few years ago?
You're kind of being delusional yourself. We can argue all day about gun violence but acting like the US just shoots people is genuinely ignorant as hell. Whether guns should or should not be owned for self defense isn't as simple to argue. I personally would prefer owning a gun for home defense than not because there are some crazy and violent folk out there.
Are we just picking metrics at random that non-US people are supposedly better at now or what
Good point! Just two examples: US Americans are primed to grab for a revolver when they hear a sound; non-US Americans won’t have a gun and/or are even afraid of guns, and will try to call the police. US Americans know there is money to be made in court, so if their son, a burglar, gets shot, they will still sue. In other countries you may also get compensation: $2.75 if you’re lucky. So, US Americans are not bad people by definition, but they live in a system where gun violence permeates many social interactions and life decisions.
I mean, comparatively this is true, but I'd like to point out that I'm an american and have only had the opportunity to use a gun once (for fun) which I did not take. Gun culture is a thing but it's not like everybody's walking around with guns 24/7.
No but in countries that have Gun Safety First laws the idea of being able to grab your gun to defend yourself is almost impossible. A common example is when guns and ammo have to be locked up separately. So in a home invasion the homeowner with a gun would have to first unlock and retrieve the gun. Then go to another safe, unlock that one too, get the ammo, then load it.
The first questions in an investigation would be, why didn't you call the police first then retrieve your firearm and ammo? Why didn't you flee? (Most places with strict gun laws do not have stand your ground laws.) Why was the only solution to go through the hassle of retrieving your firearm and using it?
See how that's different from American gun culture and laws? Could you imagine an American investigator asking those questions instead of asking, why were they there, did they have a weapon, did they threaten you with it.
In a Gun Safety First cultural gun laws are created to make a person shooting another person in any way less likely and most likely illegal. American gun culture and laws are more of checklist to perform before you're cleared to use it. It's don't shoot anyone vs. only shoot guilt people. See the difference?
Most countries have citizens that own guns.
I love the 'I live in Florida' as if that explains everything.
Wouldn't it be to clarify that he's in a "castle" state?
I have absolutely no idea, but I don't live in Florida, so that should entirely explain my position.
Lol that is funny to say but mostly they're expressing the whole stand your ground laws.
You sue them for harassment and get restraining orders.
Self-defense should be proportionate. To put four bullets in a seemingly unarmed man (if he had a weapon Anon would have said it) is anything but proportionate. Murdering a criminal is still a murder.
Leftie here: You literally don't know if someone has a weapon until you do. Fuck gun culture, fuck "muh rights" gun-nut assholes, but so long as Anon told the guy "I have a gun, leave" and the guy didn't, that's it for me.
Giving warning is a bad idea imo
You're right: escalation is a bad idea.
If someone breaks into my home, I'm going to assume they mean harm to me or my family, and I'm going to assume they are armed.
If you are breaking into a home, in Florida no less, you should assume the homeowner has a gun.
Telling someone "I have a gun" is a good way to get shot, IMO.
Usually they mean zapzerap to your belongings.
He didn't tell him. He told us nothing. He was waiting this chance his whole life I think. 5 shots
And I bet you'd have saved the day with one perfectly timed insult to his knee.
Five shots with 4 on target right after likely being woken up at 2am into a highly dynamic close-quarters situation, and stopping once the person is down shows incredible discipline. It's not like the range where you get to check each of your shot placement before taking the next one.
I understand it's a complicated matter, without any easy answer or clearly good reaction. But I don't think a TV is worth a man's life, even a criminal's life. Let him take the TV and put your life and your loved ones in security. That's what assurances are for.
You don't know their intent and few people will gamble with the lives of their family
If you have a gun at home, you already gamble with the lives of your family. Household firearms are involved in tens of thousands of deaths annually, while deaths caused by burglars is a small fraction of that.
I have my gun securely put away, I treat it with the seriousness it demands.
I'm sure you do. It's a personal choice, but for me benefits do not outweigh the risks. One time's enough…
I'd be more against it (and I used to be) if my country weren't teetering on the edge of civil war and I'm in a red county.
I'd agree, if you or I knew he was there for the TV.
He is. We're not in a movie.
You're right, it's not a movie, so stop assuming you can see what happened, or that the perp was a logical actor. This is one big reason gun nuts won't fucking listen to people like you: you assume perfect rationality on behalf of the perpetrator in any refutation you can cook up. You assume that because the guy is there for a TV that that's all he would do; that he is a rational actor with needs and goals that he will achieve and leave. You do the exact same thing right wingers do: You put your ideals into your assumptions without actually trying to understand the parties involved. It just so happens that right wingers are obsessed with sexual violence for some reason.
99% of the time this is what happens: The perpetrator breaks in to steal something of value. They're already dealing with panic, anxiety, fear, already rooted in the material conditions that push them to resort to robbery for survival. They realize someone else is in the home. Those same material conditions force a choice on an already compromised actor: fight or flight. There is no "Well, I'm caught, time to apologize and walk away." There is "I NEED THIS. I'M HERE BECAUSE I NEED THIS. I NEED THIS AND THIS PERSON IS IN THE WAY OF THAT." This isn't a value judgement: Anyone who has anxiety and has had a breakdown because of it knows this feeling.
But that feeling on an already compromised person results in 2 outcomes, always: Fight or flight. No robber in the history of humanity has decided anything other than "I need to run away" or "I need to retaliate." Now, knowing that, switch to the victim. You know the robber is going to either fight or flee. But you, too, are a compromised actor. You, too, have a fight or flight response. And the bitch is, you won't have the wherewithal to put together the flight response unless you've already done drills. Even then, that's assuming it's just you; If you decide to flee, are you going to have time to gather other people in the home to make that same choice? Are they going to make that same choice? Are they even going to execute that same choice competently? No. Both parties in this scenario, whether by US culture, poverty, desperation, or panic, are predisposed to choosing fight. How that plays out is down to just the tools available.
I explicitly said “put your life and your loved ones in security”, I never said “discuss ethics with the guy who broke your door”…
If you have the money and the time to buy a firearm and train to learn how to actually use it, you have time and money to prepare yourself and your family without being lethal. American culture is fucked up.
OK, I'll bite. I am in an apartment. I have a gun. I live on the 4th floor. There is exactly 1 door in and out. My apartment is in thirds: The front door leads directly into a living area that stretches all the way back to the only door to the porch. I am in the master bedroom with a window out to the porch. My kid has their room on the other side of the living space, with a window to just outside. So, big shot, what would you want us to do? My son puts out the trash at night and forgets to lock the door, we go to sleep, and then someone comes in. Do I jump out my window onto the balcony, then jump from the 4th floor? Does my son just jump from the 4th floor? Or let's wipe the kid from it entirely; let's say I forget to lock my door. Shit happens. So, again, do I jump from the 4th floor, breaking at least my legs, or can you admit that the money and the time means absolutely nothing? Because the training was accrued since I was a child, and the gun itself was a Christmas present when I moved out here all alone from my paranoid but loving boomer parents. You just don't like guns, and for as much as you're willing to bitch about american culture being fucked up, you'd rather blame somebody for the death rather than the very american culture you claim to oppose. It is fucked up out here. That's not anons fault, nor is the death of the perp.
"A TV is not worth a mans life" is something one could also tell the criminal.
Obligatory fuck guns, etc.
Of course. But maybe we shouldn't take criminals as examples?
Self-defense should be proportionate
No. Thats the must stupid idea ever. That makes the victim hesitate, put responsibility on them. It makes sense only in the context "he offended me, so shooting him is illegal", not in the context of "hi burglar sir, could I frisk you to decide how should I defend against you. I hope you are not sick or anything. Chuckles, I'm in danger".
That's the law in almost all civilised countries, and even theoretically in America, and for a good reason. Americans have hard-ons about being heroes but it's the real life here, with real stakes.
That’s the law in almost all civilised countries,
No it is not.
For example, in Germany, the rule is necessary defense. Was the level of defense necessary to defend yourself. If you sleep with a gun under the pillow, the "mildest necessary defense" is shooting the home invader. If you had to go to your neighbour to borrow said gun, come back and then shoot them, that would be breaking the law.
See https://se-legal.de/services/criminal-defense-lawyer/self-defense-in-germany/?lang=en
(Sorry its some random lawyer practice, but it in English and I don't want to scour the internet on Friday)
No, per your own link: “The act of self-defense must also be reasonable”, that is, proportionate.
Literally the whole article explain it does not. With examples.
Yet you see "reasonable" and think it must mean "proportionate". You USian by any chance? Or French?
Restriction of the Right of Self-Defense in Germany
The right of self-defense can be severely restricted in certain situations. Case law has defined several groups of cases in which the right of self-defense is restricted:
[…]
Excess in self-defense: One speaks of an excess of self-defense when the limits of self-defense are exceeded:
- “Intensive Excess of Self-Defense”: In the case of an intensive excess of self-defense, a disproportionately strong means of defense is used, although milder means would have sufficed.
Your link again. Do you read what you send?
I believe I explained that in the first example. If you go to your neighbour to grab the gun and return that is excessive.
