From: lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry)
Subject: Re: Killing burglars.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 22:47:10 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
	<1992Aug17.155648.28224@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1992Aug19.163045.374@informix.com>
	<1992Aug19.191133.18443@cc.gatech.edu>
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

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.

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
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
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.

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.

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.
--
Andy Lowry, lowry@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7925
IBM Research, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house