It is a common pattern if you research serial killers/rapists. But yeah, if you live in an urban area with lots of drug addicts then it is more likely that they want to pawn something.
The commission of one crime in particular–burglary–has been found to be a predictor of future violence in sexual offenders.
There are numerous examples of murderers who escalate through home invasions. It’s not some things just in movies
Meth heads also ramp up and do crazy violent shit all the time too.
My position is that there is a proportionate response to people entering your house without your permission or people calling you names you don’t like or people starting a fight with you. If you exceed that limit you should be held responsible for your actions. Yes, it is messy and requires making decisions under pressure, but that is what trials are for, to rule if those decisions were justified or not and legal or not. I’m not saying you can’t defend yourself or your home, I’m saying “defending myself or my home” isn’t carte blanche to kill someone.
Sometimes I feel like people treat this forum like an unread gmail inbox. When I see 100 new posts in a thread, I’m always excited to read about the discussion taking place. Even more so when there is an actual debate, instead of the usual news story followed by a bunch of people dunking on it in the same way. But apparently people find it annoying? It seems weird to participate in a political discussion forum if you feel this way, but you can always just click through to the end and mark all the posts as read, it takes 2 seconds.
No one disagrees with this. The problem is your idea of a proportionate response doesn’t make sense. Your position is that punching in response to being punched is manslaughter if the other person falls the wrong way after getting hit.
It doesn’t get much more proportionate to punching someone who is punching you
Well shoot them then
Oh stop. Punching someone so hard they die is different than punching someone. My understanding of manslaughter is that it is killing someone on accident, when you were in the fight you didn’t mean to kill the person but you did.
There’s a lot of nuance to the home defense in scenario.
One big problem with limiting to a proportionate response is adverse selection. Someone can choose to antagonize when they feel the socially proportionate response is worth it in that specific situation
I’m guessing I’m the only one in this conversation that has seen a bunch of people die or take serious injuries from various types of head trauma. Any time you take a swing at someone bad things can happen. It takes far less than you think if you’re unlucky.
No one is saying you should have instant carte blanche to kill someone if they’re trespassing. You just seem to have unrealistic expectations for how well people under duress can calibrate the precise force needed to defuse a situation. It’s the definition of chutzpah to start a bar fight and then sue because the other guy broke your jaw.
When they get this way I mostly just scan the thread and blip over posts from people who absolutely should know better.
The vast majority of breaking and entering is done to steal stuff. I would be surprised if that were less than 95%.
Rural areas are full of meth addicts.
The question is not how often murderers and rapists start as home invaders, but how often home invaders turn into murderers and rapists. I know you can’t tell the difference between those two things.
Ah yes, a very interesting debate about what the definition of “is” is. I’m sure you in particular find that utterly fascinating. You also don’t have to engage with my posts if you don’t like them friend.
I’m just doing some noticing since this type of post always comes up whenever an argument here takes off. Today’s debate is about stand your ground laws and self-defense. Yesterday’s was about whether violence includes property damage and in what situations might it be acceptable. These are valuable discussions in the context of politics and particularly in the context of a progressive value system in response to the Trump era. I don’t get the allergy to them.
For an enlightened centrist dedicated to convincing the other side of the virtues of your position it seems rather idiotic to start your argument with “you’re reading the forum differently than me and are therefore wrong and should leave”. But yeah, go forth and debate what the meaning of “is” is to your heart’s content, it’s just annoying when 1 poster in particular comes in and derails the thread with personal attacks and pedantry. I’ve been assured by the mods multiple times that they agree it’s a problem and they’re looking into it VERY STRONGLY though so we’ve got that going for us.
Personal attacks and gaslighting aside, yea the main reason I responded originally is that you asked to bring the mods into it and I wanted to push back on that.
Many people here just want a curated version of other people’s Twitter feed and not a discussion board. At most they want to +1 some things.