From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Killing burglars.
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:53:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Aug20.175358.16856
Organization: Western Washington University

lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry) writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.191133.18443@cc.gatech.edu> duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) writes:
> > 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.

>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.  

	Actualy, a burglar would be there during the day, while you
are at work.  The night guys are known as home invaders, and they
obviously are ready and willing for a confrontation to happen, or
the wouldn't be walking around in an occupied residence.  Home invaders
are opportunists, and often will gladly engage in rape, assault, and
murder as a side occupation.

	
>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.  

	Wrong, see above.

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.

	Ditto.

>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.

	"Deal with the matter"?  Deal with the matter of writing out
the police report on the rape that occured at your residence?  The
murder?   The job of the police is not to stand gaurd over you, but
to collect information at the scene a crime has been commited in order
to identify and arrest the perpetrator.  They try to arrive while the
evidence is still fresh, but what the police are going to come and "deal 
with" later is of little concern to you while the crime is in progress.

	I agree with Andy that citizens should not attempt to write out
police reports while a crime is in progress against them.  That is a
matter for trained police to deal with later.	(^;

Jim Del Vecchio

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