davidtorez
09-16-2009, 08:20 AM
What do you guys say about this?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090915/ap_on_re_us/us_samurai_sword_death?Submit
In my opinion if someone enters my home covertly and with criminal intent, he already knows he doesn't belong there and that a confrontation may ensue upon his discovery. Call it a "job hazard", if you will. He's not then allowed to call a "time out" because he's surprised when I actually confront him upon discovery. When the sword-enhanced confrontation does actually, really ensue and he lunges after me, my cutting off his hand and opening his chest should be one of a handful of expected results.
Do I investigate every strange noise in my home with a weapon in hand? Yep. If an intruder is in my home at 1:30 in the morning, I generally figure I'm in for a confrontation. If the noise is nothing, then no harm ... I'm walking around my house with a weapon in hand. Who cares? If the noise is something that requires response, I'm armed and ready. In reality, I live only with my wife, our dog and a gaggle of cats but we have no kids. If I wake to human movement in the house and my wife is sleeping next to me (with the dog inevitably curled up at our feet and the gaggle invariably dotting the pillows) then there is only one conclusion: someone is here who does not belong here. No last minute lunges for the weapon on the wall for me.
Do I feel that taking the burglars life is warranted? Yep. Call it a Job Hazard. I play with sharp things. I realize there is a chance I may get nicked or cut or what have you. I don't cry foul when it happens. This fellow has chosen to enter my home covertly for as of yet unknown purposes. He must realize that confrontation - violent confrontation - is a possible response by the occupants. He gambles that he'll be able to evade detection and - failing that - will be able to escape or - failing that - will be able to frighten or overpower said occupants. I'm OK with that. But he's not allowed to cry foul when that confrontation occurs.
Why a killing blow as a first response to physical confrontation? Because I have learned that in these situations, it is imperative to assume and prepare for the worst or else fall victim to events worse than those I had otherwise assumed and for which I am therefore unprepared.
Frankly, the burglar lunged at an armed man when he was clearly outnumbered four to one. He had to expect a fight because ... a sword was being openly brandished by one of his opposition. That being said, he had to have assumed that grievous bodily harm was possible because ... a sword was being openly brandished by one of his opposition. If these very clear and obvious facts somehow escaped him in the fervor, I still have little pity because he lunged at a group of four guys when ... a sword was being openly brandished by one of his opposition
The burglar was - by the article's account - an unrepentant career criminal who had gone on the prowl days after his release from prison. Aw damn ... we lost another one. The student - by the article's account - appears to have defended himself against a man who attacked him while still inside the house. I personally home he walks. Frankly, he is going to have to deal with having taken a life and while I believe he did right - again, assuming the article accurately represents the events - that is going to be interesting enough for him to deal with. I just thank the Texas legislature for the so-called "Castle Law". Just my 2 cents.
Have a good one.
David Torez
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090915/ap_on_re_us/us_samurai_sword_death?Submit
In my opinion if someone enters my home covertly and with criminal intent, he already knows he doesn't belong there and that a confrontation may ensue upon his discovery. Call it a "job hazard", if you will. He's not then allowed to call a "time out" because he's surprised when I actually confront him upon discovery. When the sword-enhanced confrontation does actually, really ensue and he lunges after me, my cutting off his hand and opening his chest should be one of a handful of expected results.
Do I investigate every strange noise in my home with a weapon in hand? Yep. If an intruder is in my home at 1:30 in the morning, I generally figure I'm in for a confrontation. If the noise is nothing, then no harm ... I'm walking around my house with a weapon in hand. Who cares? If the noise is something that requires response, I'm armed and ready. In reality, I live only with my wife, our dog and a gaggle of cats but we have no kids. If I wake to human movement in the house and my wife is sleeping next to me (with the dog inevitably curled up at our feet and the gaggle invariably dotting the pillows) then there is only one conclusion: someone is here who does not belong here. No last minute lunges for the weapon on the wall for me.
Do I feel that taking the burglars life is warranted? Yep. Call it a Job Hazard. I play with sharp things. I realize there is a chance I may get nicked or cut or what have you. I don't cry foul when it happens. This fellow has chosen to enter my home covertly for as of yet unknown purposes. He must realize that confrontation - violent confrontation - is a possible response by the occupants. He gambles that he'll be able to evade detection and - failing that - will be able to escape or - failing that - will be able to frighten or overpower said occupants. I'm OK with that. But he's not allowed to cry foul when that confrontation occurs.
Why a killing blow as a first response to physical confrontation? Because I have learned that in these situations, it is imperative to assume and prepare for the worst or else fall victim to events worse than those I had otherwise assumed and for which I am therefore unprepared.
Frankly, the burglar lunged at an armed man when he was clearly outnumbered four to one. He had to expect a fight because ... a sword was being openly brandished by one of his opposition. That being said, he had to have assumed that grievous bodily harm was possible because ... a sword was being openly brandished by one of his opposition. If these very clear and obvious facts somehow escaped him in the fervor, I still have little pity because he lunged at a group of four guys when ... a sword was being openly brandished by one of his opposition
The burglar was - by the article's account - an unrepentant career criminal who had gone on the prowl days after his release from prison. Aw damn ... we lost another one. The student - by the article's account - appears to have defended himself against a man who attacked him while still inside the house. I personally home he walks. Frankly, he is going to have to deal with having taken a life and while I believe he did right - again, assuming the article accurately represents the events - that is going to be interesting enough for him to deal with. I just thank the Texas legislature for the so-called "Castle Law". Just my 2 cents.
Have a good one.
David Torez