From: sns@bondi.jpl.nasa.gov (Sam Southard)
Subject: Re: Killing burglars.
Organization: SAR Systems Development & Processing, JPL
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:41:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.193732.25818@tfs.com> paigen@tfs.com (David Paigen) writes:
>sns@bondi.jpl.nasa.gov (Sam Southard) writes:
>Yes, I read what you wrote.  Carefully, even.  In your article you mention
>(once) something about "freeze."  Once you mention that you would shoot
>without waiting for evidence of intent to do harm (for example, a weapon).
>Once you mention that you would shoot at first sight.

The article I wrote was fairly lengthy.  At certain points, I put in an
"executive summary" of what was to follow, or had just been related.  In no
case did I say I would shoot at first sight, unless that first sight included
a weapon.  Their mere presence in my home is evidence that they intend to do me
some sort of harm.

>I am objecting to what you said because you advocate striking without
>evidence of threat based on "worst-case scenarios."  By that reasoning,

Nope.  I never said without evidence of a threat.  I said without a warning,
in the back.  His mere presence in my house while I'm there is prima fascie
(sp?) evidence of a threat.

It's like California's speed limits, under 55/65 (you get an "unsafe speed"
ticket, not an exceeding the limit ticket).  The posted limit is assumed to be
the maximum safe speed.  However you can, theoretically at least, prove that
your speed was safe for conditions.

His presence in my house is assumed to be a threat.  However he can,
theoretically at least, prove that his presence in my house is not a threat
to my family.  Given the extreme importance of my family's safety, that proof
had better be presented exceedingly swiftly.

>all of my ex-girlfriends should blow me away because I might come after
>them.  Or the Space Shuttle should never have been built because
>someone could die.
>
>I believe that it was you (although the article has expired :-( ) who
>advocated shooting an intruder in the back.  Such a situation does not
>require an autopsy to reealize that the intruder could not have been
>a threat at the time of the shooting.  They knew that back in the Old
>West :-)

It was me who advocated shooting him in the back.  That doesn't mean he's not
a threat.  If he has a gun, how great an angle does there have to be between
the line from it to you and the line formed by the barrel?

If I see he has a gun, he's shot dead before he gets a chance to look at me.
As I said in the posting, I will probably aim the gun at him and give him some
sort of warning first.  If he makes any sort of threatening move (including not
doing exactly what I say), or if I don't get the chance to warn him because I
believe my family is in immediate danger (what if he was at the door to a kid's
room, weapon drawn?), it's too bad for him.

>>Go back and read my post.  There is a very high chance that he will be able to
>>present this evidence.  However, any evidence whatsoever that he will remain
>>hostile will cause him to be shot dead.
>
>I went back and read your post.  Twice you said that you would shoot first,
>ask questions later.  Once you said that your would command the intruder
>to freeze.  That makes 66% dead, 33% alive, hardly, "a very high chance
>that he will be able to present his evidence."

I believe that it is possible for a human to be male.
I believe that it is possible for a human to be male.
I believe that it is possible for a human to be male.
I believe that it is possible for a human to be male.
I believe that it is possible for a human to be female.

Does this mean that I believe 80% of humans are males?

When I said I would shoot first, it was to preserve my or my family's safety.
I stand by my statement.  If you look at the section of my post where I was
detailed, you will see a pretty close approximation to the method I would
follow.  You will also see that it is designed to do everything possible to
ensure my family's safety.  It also has a secondary objective of maintaining
as many people alive as possible, including the intruder.  However, the
secondary goal is absolutely secondary: no compromise of the primary goal is
acceptable to increase the chance that the second goal will be achieved.

In other words, when compared to the life of my family, or any of it's members,
the intruder's life is worth nothing.  Keeping my family unhurt, not keeping
the intruder alive, is my highest concern.  If he ends up dead when 99.999% of
the time he was just going to give my wife a hangnail, that's his problem.
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house