but beyond that whatever means necessary to protect himself is justified. No one should be worrying about the safety of their attacker when they are defending themselves
Are burglars usually murderers? Don’t they usually care about stealing stuff to make some form of profit out of that?
I don’t share your view. You don’t need to kill someone in order to stop some form of crime. Especially not if there is no or a low risk of bodily harm.
Self defence only goes so far as to inrerrupt and disable an attack. The mildest means possible are the preferrable ones. For example, if some wants to beat you up, you don’t go on and kill them after you’ve defeated them and they’re unconscious on the ground.
In this case, the best the kid could’ve done is to just run away and call for help. It would’ve been safer for himself and prevented that he possibly might have become a murderer.
Self defence has limits. And for good reason. You can’t just do anything you want, just because someone attacks you. You do what is necessary and possible for you. Nothing more, nothing less. Otherwise you yourself become a culprit.
Are burglars usually murderers? Don’t they usually care about stealing stuff to make some form of profit out of that?
Sometimes they are. Sometimes they’re rapists. There are some sick motherfuckers in this world. When I was a kid a woman just down the street was raped in front of her kids by three home invaders. You can’t know the intention of the person breaking into your home. The safest bet for yourself is to assume the worst. There’s no way to know their intentions until they act and by then it may be too late. Especially if you’re not trained in “the mildest means possible” or are smaller and weaker than the intruder. You don’t owe these people anything. They put you in this situation. If they invent a gun with a stun setting like in Star Wars by all means use that. Until then lethal force is the most expedient way to disable an attacker. You don’t execute them if it renders them no longer a threat but if they die that outcome is acceptable.
Are burglars usually murderers? Don’t they usually care about stealing stuff to make some form of profit out of that?
I don’t share your view. You don’t need to kill someone in order to stop some form of crime. Especially not if there is no or a low risk of bodily harm.
Self defence only goes so far as to inrerrupt and disable an attack. The mildest means possible are the preferrable ones. For example, if some wants to beat you up, you don’t go on and kill them after you’ve defeated them and they’re unconscious on the ground.
In this case, the best the kid could’ve done is to just run away and call for help. It would’ve been safer for himself and prevented that he possibly might have become a murderer.
Self defence has limits. And for good reason. You can’t just do anything you want, just because someone attacks you. You do what is necessary and possible for you. Nothing more, nothing less. Otherwise you yourself become a culprit.
Sometimes they are. Sometimes they’re rapists. There are some sick motherfuckers in this world. When I was a kid a woman just down the street was raped in front of her kids by three home invaders. You can’t know the intention of the person breaking into your home. The safest bet for yourself is to assume the worst. There’s no way to know their intentions until they act and by then it may be too late. Especially if you’re not trained in “the mildest means possible” or are smaller and weaker than the intruder. You don’t owe these people anything. They put you in this situation. If they invent a gun with a stun setting like in Star Wars by all means use that. Until then lethal force is the most expedient way to disable an attacker. You don’t execute them if it renders them no longer a threat but if they die that outcome is acceptable.