From: m1nxb00@fed.frb.gov (Nicholas Bull)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Killing burglars.
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:56:49 GMT
Reply-To: m1nxb00@fed.frb.gov
Organization: Federal Reserve Board, Wash, DC

This whole subject of killing intruders (burglars) seems not so hard
to resolve.  There is no right answer!  But there is an easy way to
see the issues and figure out what is right for you.  Suppose there is
an intruder in the house.  Either you can stay or you can try to
leave--there are risks in both cases, since if you try to leave you
might get followed and killed anyway.  But most of the discussion in
the thread has been around the decisions you make if you stay, so that
is where I'll focus.

There is an intruder in the house and you decide to stay.  Either you
assume the intruder is dangerous or not.  And either they are
dangerous or not.  So initially there are four cases: 1) assume they
are not dangerous and they aren't; 2) assume they are not dangerous
and they are; 3) assume they are dangerous and they aren't; 4) assume
they are dangerous and they are.  One might also think that it is
possible to collect more information to determine which case is
involved, such as yelling "freeze."  We'll talk about that in a
moment, but first let's explore the initial cases.

In case 1), presumably you yell "get out of here," or something, and
they boogie and you all breathe a sigh of relief.  In case 2), you end
up dead after yelling "get out of here".  In case 3) you kill the
intruder, only to discover that it was an unarmed burglar.  In case 4)
presumably the burglar ends up dead, maybe after a warning or maybe
not (they took the risk of being killed when they entered the
house--tough for them).

What are the costs in each case?  Well, case 1) and case 4) have no
costs at all.  Your assumption in each case was correct and your
behavior in response to it was correct.  Case 2) has, in some sense,
infinitely high costs to you, the homeowner.  Case 3) is the sad case
where someone who "should not have" died does so.  (Yesterday I walked
past a parked car with its lights on.  Did I stop to turn them off?
Heck no, the car could be rigged in some way or the owner might just
happen to turn the corner and see me leaning into the car and get
trigger happy; I don't want to be a statistic.  We all know the
possibility of case 3) and we all watch out for it.)

OK, now what about collecting more information, say by yelling
"freeze"?  In case 1) the intruder runs.  In case 2) you still end up
dead.  In case 3) the intruder says "don't shoot" and lies down.  In
case 4) it's now not unlikely that you end up dead because you've now
alerted a dangerous intruder to your whereabouts.  So getting more
information might save a non-dangerous intruders life, but might also
end up getting you killed.  The cost of getting more information is
the increased likelihood of getting killed less the benefit of not
killing somebody who is not dangerous.

_Personally_, I'd regard the cost of getting more information as quite
high, valuing my life more highly than some nitwit who has shown, by
the fact of their intrusion, that they don't value their life very
highly.  So given that it is costly to get more information, which
type of error would I prefer to make?  I'd prefer to be in case 3)
than in case 2), since, again, I value my life more highly than that
of some nitwit who has shown, by the fact of their intrusion, that
they don't value their life very highly. So I'd always assume they
were dangerous and make little effort to get any information to the
contrary.

Your mileage may differ.  Maybe you think killing someone else is
never justified under any circumstances.  Then you will always be in
case 1) or 2) and more power to you.  Sometimes you'll survive and
once you may not.  Or you may think that no matter how much the
increased risk to you, you can't live with yourself if you didn't
attempt to get more information.  Fine; sometimes you'll survive and
once you may not.

Nick
Xref: sparky misc.consumers.house:11852 misc.consumers:16132