From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan)
Subject: Re: Killing burglars.
Organization: College of Computing
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:16:41 GMT

In article <LOWRY.92Aug19174710@rotor.watson.ibm.com> lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.191133.18443@cc.gatech.edu> duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) writes:
> > In article <1992Aug19.163045.374@informix.com> davek@informix.com (David Kosenko) writes:
> > >I think it would be sad for someone to spend time in prison for kiiling
> > >a theif.
> > 
> > I agree with the discussion about not depriving a ``thief'' of
> > his (or her) rights to a fair trial.  However, the main point is that at
> > 2:00 in the morning, I know nothing about the motive of the invader
> > in my home.  It is merely prudent to worst-case the scenario and
> > assume you (and/or your family) are going to be harmed.  Yes, 
> > it would be sad to kill a thief (and if I *knew* he were only 
> > going to take my TV, I wouldn't shoot to kill).  But the point is 
> > that I don't *know* that.
>
>Gee, you might better blast away at that person who's running toward
>you down the dark sidewalk at 2:30am.  Heck, you don't *know* that
>he's not about to knock you out and take your money.  Or for that
>matter, the motorist who's speeding toward the intersection you happen
>to be crossing *might* be intoxicated and about to run you down, as
>opposed to simply being an aggressive driver with late braking habits.
>So you'd better off them too.
>

As has been stated before, these people haven't committed an
immediate prior crime in those situations.  But I think I will
assume that the motorist is intoxicated, and make sure I don't
enter the intersection if I believe he won't stop.  What do you
do, drive through every intersection assuming best case?  ``That 
guy's going 100 mph, but he has anti-lock brakes on his 'Vette so he'll
be able to stop in 247 feet, and he looks to be 253 feet from the
intersection.  I'll just drive through the intersection.
He won't hit me.''  I prefer to say, ``Doesn't look like he'll be able
to stop in time.  I think I'll hit my brakes and slow down.''

>You play the odds.  

Of course you play the odds.  I'm not going to stop driving
because it's dangerous.  But I will take some precautions.  I 
can't assume everyone is going to cross the median and then drive 
1 mile per hour to minimize the danger, but I'll be careful enough 
to (hopefully) avoid the rare case when someone does.

>The intruder is not likely to intend you or your
>family harm beyond depriving you of some articles that are probably
>insured anyway.  They *might* be after more than that, but to assume

Any intruder who will enter the home while there are occupants
are likely to be more dangerous than those thieves who wait 
until they are fairly sure the home is unoccupied.  If you're
that stupid, or on drugs, you may not care who gets hurt.
If you're just in it for the money, you'll want to minimize
your contact with the homeowner.

Also, I never made any mention of blowing people away.  My last
sentence may have given that impression, but I was just stating
the sentiment that it would be sad spend time in jail for
killing a ``mere'' burglar.  (It would also be sad to kill that
person.  They do still deserve a fair trial.)   All I said
was to assume the worst.  That means assume the intruder is
dangerous.  If it's safe to flee the house by climbing out 
a window, do that.  If you can call the cops, do that too.
But don't lie in bed just thinking the guy is after your TV.

>Reasoning by worst-case scenarios is very rarely useful as a guide for
>decision making.  It's mostly useful when you want to put a bound on
>the damage or cost you risk incurring.  That is, you use it to
>understand your risk, but not as a basis for deciding a course of
>action.  Generally, if you want to maximize your benefits, think in
>terms of likely scenarios, not worst-case.

When the damage I risk incurring is the death of me and my entire
family, I think I'll worst case it.  I really prefer to bound
the damage from death by a wide margin.

-rick

"Random acts of violence just don't do it for me anymore.  Call it 
 maturity.  Bang!  Bang!  Heh, heh." - Cactus Jack WCW Saturday Night 07/04/92
Rick Duggan | duggan@cc.gatech.edu | CS1410 TA - Section A
Office Hours (CC 103): Tue 1:30-3:00 Thu 1:30-2:30
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house