From: sns@bondi.jpl.nasa.gov (Sam Southard)
Subject: Re: Killing burglars.
Organization: SAR Systems Development & Processing, JPL
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:33:05 GMT

In article <LOWRY.92Aug19174710@rotor.watson.ibm.com> lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry) writes:
>You play the odds.  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
>the worst is ridiculous.  At some point you have to weigh the odds and
>the consequences of your various choices of action.  If, upon
>discovering the intruder, you call the police and let them take care
>of the situation, you risk exposing your family to untold horrors at
>the hands of this intruder who, as it turns out, is a psychotic serial
>murderer.  Likelihood: extremely low; potential consequences:
>extremely severe.  If you take your gun out and blow the intruder

Who's at risk in this case?  The people who are ligitimatly in the house.

>away, you risk killing a person who meant you no physical harm, you
>risk going to jail on manslaughter charges, and you risk that the

Who's at risk here?  The guy that chose to break into the house.

>weapon you're stupidly keeping in your home will accidentally be used
>against a family member or friend rather than an intruder (incidents
>of the former far exceed those of the latter case).  Likelihood:
>extremely high; consequences: severe to extremely severe, depending on
>which consequence and how you view these things.

The intruder took the action to break into the house.  There is no reason I
should be placed at risk to any degree because of his illegal actions.  I
will do everything in my power to make the intruder take all the risks.

As far as accidentally killing a family member or friend, there is no such
thing.  There is only stupidity.  It's evolution in action.  If I'm stupid
enough to not teach anyone, specifically my kids, who has access to the guns
how to handle them responsibly and avoid "accidents", then my kids will likely
be as stupid.  If there's an "accident", they get taken care of before they can
reproduce and I get locked away in jail (or should be) and I can't reproduce
any more.  If I'm stupid enough to make it possible for anyone not old enough
or responsible enough to understand how to respect guns and avoid "accidents",
it's more stupidity, with the same potential consequences.

Accidents happen with cars, as well - far more of them.  Innocent people get
killed in those also.  Do we advocate the elimination of cars?  No, we
advocate the education of the people who will be using them or who might get
access to them.  Why should it be different with guns?

Small children die all the time because of household chemicals.  Do we
advocate making them illegal?  No, we tell people to make it impossible for
people who don't know that it's dangerous or how to handle them (don't drink
them) to get access to them.  Why should it be different with guns?

>It seems clear to me that blowing away the intruder is far more likely
>to leave you in very bad straits than letting the police deal with the
>matter.

If you're a drug dealer with a history of antagonism, maybe.  However, if you
know your neighbors, don't have a violent past, etc. (in other words, you can
produce a decent supply of character witnesses), I think that "blowing away
the intruder" is far less likely to leave you in "very bad straits".

>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.

You're saying that you go through the exercise to understand the risk, but
then ignore your understanding of it by not using it "as a basis for deciding
a course of action."

The following cases are possible:

(1) Intruder is a homicidal maniac.  I shoot him.  My family is saved.  He's
	dead, but it's probably better all around.
(2) Intruder is not a homicidal maniac.  I shoot him.  My family is saved
	from the chance that he might panic and end up hurting someone.  He's
	dead, which is probably a little extreme since he might not have
	paniced (then again, he might have.  How would I know?).  However,
	he's the one who took the risk, so he pays the price.

You would also add:

(3) Intruder is not really an intruder, but you shoot him anyways and then find
	out that it's a unexpected relative visiting.
(4) No intruder is present, but there's an accident and someone gets hurt.

As I indicated earlier, I don't believe in (4).

And I doubt that anyone in this thread who advocates killing intruders is
saying that you should go blast something at the first sight of movement once
you hear a noise in the night.  It really wouldn't be that hard to determine
whether or not the person is an intruder.  If he's got a flashlight, creeping
around looking through drawers, etc., he's an intruder.  If it's a relative
they're likely to immediately annouce their presense.  However, let's say that
you can't tell what it is.  You then have these cases:

(1) He's an intruder, sees you first, and is willing to do you harm.  You're no
	better or worse off than not trying to shoot him - he would have hurt
	you in your sleep or while you hid, waiting for the police to arrive.
(2) He's an intruder, sees you first, and is not willing to do you harm.  He
	carefully exits, watching you all the time and ready to surrender as
	soon as you see him, or let you know that he's leaving and not to shoot.
	He survives this one.
(3) He's an intruder, you see him first, and he's willing to do you harm.  You
	aim at him, wait until his back is turned, and then yell (calmly -
	don't be nervous) "Freeze.  I have a gun aimed at you.  If you move I
	will shoot you."  If he's really willing to do you harm, he will move
	at some point (possibly before you finish) and you will shoot him.  If
	he's not that anxious to do you harm, you'll sit there until the
	police get there.  If he's not really an intruder, but a friend/
	relative/etc., he'll know you have a gun and will freeze when you say
	so.  As soon as you're done, he'll yell something like "Wait John,
	it's me Fred!"
(4) He's an intruder, you see him first, and he's not willing to do you harm.
	You proceed exactly as in (3), but he may try to slowly move away (case
	(2)) or he may freeze.  If he freezes, you wait until the police come.
	He survives this one.
(5) You see each other at the same time.  If he's willing to do you harm, it's
	the same result as with (1).  If he's not, then he'll either freeze or
	bolt.  If he freezes, you have the same as in (2) - wait until the
	police arrive.  If he bolts towards you, he's dead.  How do you know
	he's not attacking?  If he bolts away but stays in view, he probably
	will survive.  If he bolts towards a corner, or other obstruction, he's
	dead.  How do you know he's not just going to pop back out and attack
	you?  This is one area where people might decide to let him go unless
	he bolts right toward you.  I probably would, if I could isolate that
	portion of my house so that there was only one direction from which he
	could come after me and none of my family was in that portion of the
	house.

Of course, as soon as possible you should call the police in any case.  This
might be before you see him - if someone's available to make sure that no one
comes up behind you while you're calling and you can take aim right at the
only place from which the intruder can enter.  It might be after you see him,
with the same kind of restrictions - he may have a partner.

This is a responsible way to protect your family with a gun.  Yes, a burglar
who was not going to harm you may get killed.  However, you have minimized this
chance, while keeping the chance that a friend or relative gets hurt at zero.
The second of these goals is by far the more important.