::deep breath:: (preparing for flames...my longest post ever)
The woman in the house should have shot the man exactly as she did. Debate over.
(the only reason I even questioned it (others seem to be incapable of entertaining a line of questioning that may seem absurd to them at the time) was because I thought this guy may turn out to have benign intentions, therefore she would (
not should) be punished for this act (
I hoped against, however... ultimately my feelings go to this woman). This was a stupid thought (and an extreme minded liberal thought process), but his intentions weren't clear,
at the time, to me and I thought his intentions would play a factor in the law; they don't. It's especially clear to me now once I found out he actually had a gun (the gun factor is not necessary)...)
Sorry, I'm not a lawyer. I know that right to protect one's property is a core American ideal...I just wasn't sure of its strictness in law (I wasn't aware of the castle concept and thought the intentions of the parties would be the factors). (now I know for sure, I also learned we all live in castles
)
As soon as someone tries to throw lawn furniture through your door, their life has NO VALUE.
Wrong, that life still has value, but it now has a
justified (by law for sure and definitely in this woman's case) target on it's head.
You can now
choose to kill this person or not.
If you automatically assume that life has no value or that this particular life has no value your odds go much higher that you will pull the trigger. It's your choice at this point...but life still hasn't lost its value (what little it may be) at this point (even if he was a drug addict, blah blah...).
You can kill the person...legally. It's your
choice. You, personally, must weigh all the factors when the time comes (like ask yourself..."Is this totally fucking necessary?" Of course, if your life is in danger then that question has been answered)... We all may come to different conclusions in different scenarios. There are infinite scenarios. (and I haven't already came to the conclusion that in every single one of them I will kill the person.)
Your odds of pulling the trigger may be greater than mine...
I think we, all now, agree that this woman should have definitely pulled the trigger.
Obviously...this woman didn't have the luxury of long winded debates about whether or not she should pull the trigger.
She was getting "real time data" to determine this. She had no missing data in order to make her decision.
I, rectroactively..... suspended...... judgement..... of
both parties.....until all the "data" came in that I needed. This woman got it in "real time", I was getting it in shit crafted chunks through the internet.
So don't go all darwin award on my ass. I'll be able to make my decisions just as quickly as this woman did. While at the same time I won't automatically assume that all life has no value (like others in this thread,
not the woman)
If you assume life has no value your odds go through the roof that you will pull the trigger. How BADLY do you want to pull that trigger? (why can't we just keep these desires to zombie movies/games and such?)
I just feel like people desire for these scenarios to happen, even to their own lives.... They desire to pull that trigger...after all...what value does a life have?
You keep asking "what if" - "what if his intentions weren't bad" "what If he didn't have a gun"?
By law...this is moot. (I've learned)
By conscious...it's up the individual weighing all factors involved whether to pull the trigger or not. Just like the woman did...and she was right. (I later find out that she was right
once "enough data was in"... something, ironically, that she had the "luxury" of having in "real time".)
Once the law says it's legal to kill someone, why flinch? Life has no value, so why flinch at all?
You may say...well this is great! The law has removed the flinching process now I'll be able to instantly act!
If anyone were to flinch now...they must just be a stupid pussy liberal deserving of a darwin award!
I'm saying if a person is pointing a gun at me...
ALL DATA IS IN....fire away!
Many people though...have plenty of time to think and...
while they're in safety (like the guy who killed the two robbers).
I would have come to a different conclusion than that guy, probably...
If you have zero value of life and are trigger happy then you would have automatically came to the exact same conclusion as this guy (Joe, I guess) with zero thought process involved... (not saying this was the mind state of Joe though (was that his name?) )
For me, this was more than just this woman's scenario. (and more than just Hellblazer's trumpeting of this action for political purposes.)
It's about people putting zero value to life. (if you put zero value on life then all questions surrounding this act seem ludicrous...why the fuck is Arbiter even questioning it?) I guess you could say I'm pro- (actual living) life. (not the this particular intruder's though (as it turns out)... I'm not pro
this particular life in this particular scenario. Every scenario is different. I'm just saying to be trigger happy about every situation will heighten your chances of killing someone unnecessarily.)
The actual reason I was questioning it however...actually kinda had her interest in mind. (I was trying to determine, initially, if this was justified by law or not.) (When I question if this guy had a gun or not I was just curious for the sake of my own mental calculation that I would have had to go through...also it would have made his intentions clear when I thought those mattered.)
If you're reading still you can stop now. Flame on.
