Meh. Agree with it or not, your agreement is not required, nor wanted, in the course of my actions. You have your opinions and I'll have mine.
With a wife and three children in my home, it is one of my many responsibilities as a husband and father to ensure their safety. If someone is willing to break into my home, I will not waste much time trying to determine their intentions or feeling sorry for them and their stupid decisions in life. They've already made a pretty good statement of what their intentions are.
At 4am, there are damned few, if any, valid reasons to be banging on someone's door. At 4am, there are even fewer valid reasons to be breaking down a door to get into someone else's home. If someone doesn't want to get shot, then perhaps they shouldn't break into someone's home. I know that is a very novel idea for some, but they made their (bad) decision, let them bear the responsibility for their actions.
If you wish to enter my home, you will do so in a civilized manner. ie you will knock politely and wait to be invited in. If you insist on banging on the door and screaming and shouting, you will be dealt with as approriate. Yes, I will probably simply call LEOs and wait for them to deal with the problem. While waiting however, I will be armed and ready and I will do what I can, safely, to defuse the situation. If you insist on escalating the encounter by bypassing the locks through force or picking, you will be dealt with as appropriate. Yes, that probably means doing whatever is necessary to end the threat. At all times during this hypothetical situation, you are the one escalating the situation, I'm simply standing ready to end the threat to my wife and children in an efficient manner.
As for the decision to use lethal force over "less-than-lethal" options... It is not a decision of lethal vs "less-than-lethal". It is a decision to use what will end the threat to my wife and children in the most effective and efficient manner. Taser will not be effective against more than one opponant. That canister of bear-spray while it might be effective against multiple opponants, it may not be effective at all against them. In addition, depending on wind or in a small, enclosed space, it might just be more effective against YOU rather than your opponant.
If someone's life and the life of their family means so little to them that they are unwilling to defend it by any means necessary, then they have my pity and my scorn. As for me, my life and the life of my family is soooo precious to me that yes, I am willing to protect it by any means necessary.
If someone's life means so little to them that they are willing to risk it to break into someone else's home, then they have my pity and my scorn. If someone's life means so little to them that they are willing to impair their judgement (through the use of drugs or alcohol) to the point where they are capable of making such a horrible decision as breaking into someone else's home, then they have my pity and they have my scorn. They are responsible for their own actions. If those actions get them killed, they made their choice.
As for blind dismissals of these alleged peer-reviewed articles... They are just that, alleged. Until citations are given yes they will be dismissed out of hand. And no, I won't do your homework for you and go look for them. You want to bring them to the discussion, you bring the citations with you.
Quietus wrote:I don't particularly disagree with any of this.
My point is simply that it is irresponsible and completely off the deep end when people advocate going straight to lethal force. And I will always maintain that picking up a firearm, is deciding to use lethal force. If people didn't want to use lethal force, they would be more likely to go for a taser or a canister of bear spray. Hell, Take one of each, you have two hands after all.
Both methods work pretty damn well.