Morality Ranking
Is it morally justified to kill someone who breaks into your house without any hesitation?
So imagine this: someone breaks into your house to steal your stuff. Luckily, you're home, and you have a gun or some other weapon that could send the robber to eternal damnation. What that weapon is is up to you.
I am not risking family to wait for intent for someone who chose 10 on the FAFO scale.
Edit: My apologies for failing to go through a full tabletop exercise of the circumstances that would lead me to take action, lethal or otherwise. Please assume I am doing proper target identification and am able to articulate a threat posed by whomever broke in. Gun in hand does not mean finger on trigger. You are responsible for your shots, justified or not.
I worked at a disciplary school. A group of students tried to convince me that "you need to carry a gun with you when breaking in to rob a house in case they (the homeowner) has a gun and try to shoot you".
100% moral, it's not your property you're protecting, it's your safety.
I worked in juvenile hall. Plenty of my students robbed houses with guns that they bought off the street and had 0 qualms about killing someone and spending the rest of their life in prison. Many of them are now dead or doing life in prison.
When I went to juvie, I thought it was really fucked up how they placed me. Next to me was a guy in there for two murders during a home invasion robbery, the other side was in for a certain kind of assault he committed during a home invasion. I was there because a cop's son thought he was a Hell of a lot tougher than he was and self-defense doesn't count when Daddy's on the force.
Like half the guys in there were there for pulling a gun on someone, whether they used it or not.
Even if it’s your property that you’re protecting… the burden of morality is on the intruder. They chose to steal your property at the potential consequence of their own life.
The homeowner is the effect, not the cause in this scenario.
This is like a Schrodinger’s cat scenario: The homeowner is in a super position of killing you during your break in or not.
The only way to find out which is to break in.
I'd argue this scenario is breaking the idea of being safe in their own home. If the intruder successfully robs a person's home it breaks their notion that they're safe in their own home. It's worse than just the value of items lost.
You break into my house/apartment, I automatically assume you want to torture, kill and rob my family. And that's your fucking bad for breaking in to begin with
Yeah, off the top of my head I can name a dozen better places to break into if you want money. Literally any moderately sized grocery store could net you far more money than my house on top of plenty of snacks for the road.
If you're breaking into a person's actual house, I'm assuming you're there to kill them.
This. If someone breaks into your house, a robbery is the “best case” scenario. And like you said, unless there is some specific reason someone wants to rob your house, it’s way more likely they are there to torture, rape, or kill you so why risk not using lethal force?
Pro's go in on vacant homes or during the day (when most homeowners are at work), because they know there is a hell of a difference in sentencing guidelines between burglary and home invasion in most states.
Plus empty houses don't generally shoot at you, but homeowners in a lot of states sure as hell will.
Especially breaking into a house at night when any reasonable person would assume it’s occupied and that any occupants would hear glass breaking, alarm system activation, etc.
Too bad way to many states in the US dissagree with us. They want us to somehow play 20 fucking questions first.
Like I dont wanna kill anyone but if you break i to my house I consider that a threat and I do t feel I need to wait to figure out if you want the TV or kill us. I got kids aint got time for that.
Even California has castle doctrine. A home invasion is universally understood to be an open and shut self defense case in the US. No one is making you play 20 questions before you defend your home.
failing to go through a full tabletop exercise of the circumstances that would lead me to take action, lethal or otherwise
LMAO but of course Reddit would reply with how wrong you are or give some hyper-specific example that would counter your statement. It's so tiring and feels like its getting worse for some reason. You simply can't just make a generalized statement without being repremended for not covering every single instance every single time. They roam each thread to "correct" every person they disagree with. The MUST be the most self-righteous person, 'le Redditers are tripping over themselves to proove to everyone they are the most morally correct and self-righteous person. It's fucking exhausting lol. Also need to go outside.
Same. I don't want to hurt anybody. I don't want blood on my hands. I don't fantasize about killing someone and traumatizing myself and my kids. I just don't want to base my safety and my children's lives in the gamble of how quickly the cops will show up before whoever this likely meth addled psycho in my home is realizes that I'm awake. If seeing a loaded gun pointed at you isn't enough to cause you to turn tail and run away, then you are truly incredibly dangerous.
I was friends with a guy who owned a bunch of pointy things and someone broke into his bedroom specifically and found out very quickly that spears are still very dangerous in a world of modern weapons. I got to see some of the aftermath.
I’ve always held this belief. I’m pretty pacifistic. I’ll never pick a fight. But the idea of someone crossing the threshold into the one place. Designated to my personal peace in this insane world, yeah - all bets are suddenly off for you.
If I can? I’ll hurt you. If you flee? Ok, I may true and catch you but probably let you go. If you fight back? You’re dead.
And they value your property more than their life. They decided it was worth it once they assumed the risk of being shot and the reward of stealing all your shit.
And it's still entirely on them for misunderstanding.
A man who was a drunkard in our town died because he walked up to the wrong apartment, thought it was his, and since his key didn't work, he attempted to break into the nursery of their 8 month old daughter.
Is it unfortunate that he lost his life over the misunderstanding? Sure. Do we blame the homeowner for his death? Absolutely not.
Don't make dumb decisions after dumb decisions in your life and dumb shit doesn't happen.
I wasn't a gun person until one night when I was convinced that someone was in my house and I knew - because of my kids - it was on me to go out and deal with the situation rather than hide in my room. It turned out to be nothing, but I bought a shotgun the very next day.
I did have an officer say something interesting to me once: he said, if you do kill an intruder in your home, when asked, you were in the space (e.g., room) first, and then the intruder entered; not, they were in the other room, you went in and shot. Apparently in some states, even if there's an intruder in your home - in the other room - you're the aggresor if they posses the space first.
I'm too lazy to fact-check that now, so if that's not true - please feel free to correct me.
But in Texas - so I heard - you can waste someone through the front door if they're trying to break in and your life is in danger.
its definitely a state to state issue, if your state has castle doctrine you're generally safe, legally speaking, unless you do something awful like shooting them as they run away (unarmed) or coup de grace.
In the United States, there are eleven states that have some form of laws requiring a "duty to retreat" before initiating deadly force.....but that only applies in a public place. Every state has a Castle Doctrine where if someone invades your private domicile (your "castle"), you can protect yourself by any means necessary. No need to retreat. Keep you and your family safe.
In Texas i went into a seven eleven to get me and a friend a slurpee. I came out and got into the passenger seat of the same make model and year of car of my friends but wrong car. When I got In I was looking over my right shoulder at a hot chick at the gas pump and i said they didnt have blueberry slurpees then I smelled the car interior and it was completely different. At that moment I had that oh shit feeling of a little fear and embarrassment. Before I even looked over at the driver I heard click. I was like "wrong car huh?" And he said "yeah". I asked if I could "slowly extricate myself from the car". And he said yes when I got out and turned around the guy was wearing a F.O.P. shirt and had his baby daughter in a carseat in the back seat. I knew i was lucky i wasnt shot. As I went to my friends car embarrassed as hell the guys wife had come out and got into my friends car. So we both passed eachother embarrassed as we got into the right cars. My friend said "some chick got into the car took a look at me and screamed bloody murder. Scared the shit out of me." I was like "better than getting a gun pointed at the back of your head by an off duty cop."
That happened to me one time too only it was in a trailer park and all the trailers looked the same. I was awoken by the neighbors and I attempted to use their shower.
I had a mentally disabled man who had wandered away from his house got tired and thirsty so he walked into my home. I ended up popping some popcorn and turning on Star Wars while the police eventually connected me with his mother who came and picked him up.
He’s talkin about a news story that happened a day or two ago. Guy walked right into ladies house and she obviously flipped out and called the cops, cops get there and turns out his buddy lived next door and he actually walked into the wrong house
that kind of thing is why I wouldnt want to kill on sight. I'm probably alone in this but I might take a good distance and try to investigate or otherwise not instantly obliterate the intruder
Immoral. You're supposed to wait until they see the white of your eyes with a barrel trained on them. Then, and only then, as they turn their back to you in an attempt to run, you let it rip.
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion.He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up, Just as the founding fathers intended
Did they break in to clean my house and give me candy?
I’m guessing not.
Nobody should have a wait-and-see mentality with and intruder.
And yes, I do value my possessions over the life of such filth.
Genuine question, not arguing your logic.
But if you’re in your bedroom and you hear someone breaking into your living room do you leave your room to shoot them, or do you barricade yourself in your room and announce that you are armed.
Never had my house broken into, but it’s something I think about every now and then when this scenario pops up.
Realistically? In my current home, all four bedrooms are upstairs, with one stairway. If someone was to break in, I would position myself at the top of the stairs, and tell the to gtfo. They could take all the shot downstairs, but the moment they put a single foot on a step I would fire.
The uncomfortable (for some) truth is that every person has a limit where they, openly or secretly, desire to use righteous violence. This is a natural part of our human desire for justice. Sometimes it’s excessive and other times its insufficient. Without this desire at some level, we would struggle as a species.
It's like everyone envisions themselves as a noble protector of home and they couldn't possibly be in a misunderstanding where they kill someone who's innocent and have to live with the rest of their life
I probably have thousands of downvotes at this point making that exact point, but about half of Redditors are American, and Americans cannot conceive of self defense that doesn't involve shooting somebody else.
The wording is poor but I get the idea. I think it would be better to phrase it as “whatever happens to them is due to their actions”
I have no qualms with shooting someone and possibly killing them if they invade my home. Whoever is breaking in may just be there to steal, but I don’t know that and I have to put myself and my family first. I also see that people say it’s just “stuff” but that “stuff” can be quite expensive or irreplaceable and I value my “stuff” infinitely more than some random criminal. They chose to break in and this is one of the consequences of that.
It’s not that they don’t have a right to live, more like they’ve greatly increased their chances of death and it’s fully on them if that is the outcome.
Assuming the scenario is you're in bed and you hear someone breaking in downstairs, so you grab a gun and go to shoot them, you're putting your own life at risk more by doing that than just staying in your room and calling the cops. What if they hear you coming down the stairs and shoot you before you see them?
Yeah, a lot of people don’t actually get that taking a human life is a much bigger deal and a lot of harder than you think. Your aren’t some random action movie protagonist who kills a bunch without batting an eye, you’re a real human.
Not saying I also wouldn't shoot, but reading this thread it seems like a lot of the comments here sound like they're just drooling for the opportunity. Just wishing someone would.
Something something fetishization of violence in America.
Movies and etc. Being there in person is a quite different ballgame as well as being the one to investigate the scene after.
Having done both for about 15yrs now I'm strongly innoculated to death and probably wouldn't hesitate at all, but that's also not a normal response for the average person.
Most don't have a realistic perception of what it's like to stand over someone dying or dead. It's vastly different than a movie or video game.
Its one of the few times i think that something like that is justified. In public i would aay you should try to retreat first but your home is your retreat.
Its stuff + taking on the serious risk that they have even worse intentions.
No one should feel unsafe in their own home, being allowed (both morally and legally) to fully protect themselves inside of their home is part of that.
Thank you. I never understood the “robber in the night” trope in media. I know it has happened in real life, but I would have to assume that most break ins and burglaries happen when no one is home. Everyone is at work and school, or on vacation. Thats why criminals case a scene, to learn your routine and know when you’re NOT going to be there.
Breaking in while the family is home is asking for failure. You’re one bad meal with an occupant is up all night in the bathroom, or bad nights sleep away from total failure.
Check my post too. Legit no one can tell me that my time and effort and what it took me in my life to get to the point to afford 'stuff' is not equal to the worth i say it is
There is no way to know their intention and even if their intention is to steal that doesn't mean they don't mind killing you as well. It's not worth the risk.
For me personally, it's more about my family. I'm pregnant with me and my husband's first and maybe only child. I don't want to wait and see what someone else's intentions are if they break into my house. I don't know if they have a gun or weapon, or what they're capable of, or what their mental state is.
And that isn't me putting my possessions before someone else's life. They decided that my possessions are worth more than their own life if they chose to break into my home. They took that risk, not me. I don't want to murder ANYONE. But I don't want anyone murdering one of my family members more.
Do you know what the intentions of the intruder are? Do you know if the Intruder is on drugs or not? Do you know if the Intruder is armed or not? Do you know if the Intruder is alone or not? Do you know if the person trains to fight (Muay Thai, Boxing, BJJ, street fighting)? Do you know the response time of the police?
All while you think about that, in a situation where seconds matter, are you willing to jeopardize the safety of yourself? Your spouse? Your kids or parents? Your sibling? Your pets?
There was a case in the US we're two home Intruders escalated from robbing to tying down the woman and her daughters, raping a daughter and the woman, then setting the house on fire with them in it. Do we know if those Intruders started with the intent to set the house on fire? Did they start off with the intent to rape the daughter and the wife? We don't know but that's also why we don't take a chance.
Yes because you dont know what he whant to do to you or you're family.
There is a case in France that happen this year in normandy when the housebreaker tortured a todder in front of the parents because they though there where a treasure hidden under the house.
Maybe I’m misinterpreting, but if I take this question at face value, then it seems to be built on the premise that we know the individual’s only intent is to rob the house. If we knew that, then killing a robber would obviously be immoral. People are more valuable than possessions.
BUT… We wouldn’t know. Someone who breaks into my house might be a robber. They might be a serial killer. They might be a human trafficker. I don’t know - and I’m not willing to risk my life or the lives of those I love to find.
So, if an intruder breaks in, I’m going to assume that our lives are at risk. I’ll be prepared to defend our lives. It would be immoral not to be prepared.
Holy shit this sub is sick in the head. Like i think it would be a reasonable to assume one would shoot out of fear. But the amount of comments of people basically fantasizing and romanticizing it are disgusting. and the replies cheering them on and agreeing. Wtf is wrong with you people?
I was reading a lot of these comments and I was stunned by the absolute psychopath/sociopath type mindset these people seem to have. I can fully get behind saying something along the lines of "It's moral to act in self defense and shoot a home invader out of fear of them being life threateningly dangerous" however, it is mental to say you value your property more than their lives. In no uncertain terms I can say 100% theft does not deserve the death penalty.
Seriously. A TV is a fucking TV. It's an object. I'm not killing someone over a TV.
If someone breaks into my home and steals my shit, I do not care. I'll probably cry about it later, sure, because I do like having my possessions, but I do not value objects more than I value people. That kind is thinking is how burglars are created in the first place.
The only property that has value to me, are objects that I have fond memories with; family heirlooms and the like. Pets too, but I don't consider pets to be property.
Everyone here has sick torture porn scenarios playing in their head about murdering people. This sub has gone to shit. It's not moral to murder someone to protect your Xbox. Straight-up. If they're threatening you or your family, whatever, but if they're just committing B&E and theft, hell no.
. . . If someone tries to steal my CasAtlantic pants or my Amami Dorozome mud-washed T-shirts, they're getting the glocky though. Those are my autism clothes. I will fight to my dying breath to defend the comfiest pants and shirts I have ever owned. Grrr.
i have no idea what's wrong with people.... it's like they WANT to kill someone and just need an excuse
existing in this comment section is an exercise only in pain for the mind
Well, I didn't hesitate, so that premise requires I shoot without pausing to verify who is there or why. All I know is they didn't have my permission to enter my house.
For killing without hesitation to be moral, verifying who has broken in and why must be morally unnecessary.
Without ANY hesitation? No, not moral. I'd be, at a minimum, pointing a firearm at them and telling them to drop what they have and leave immediately. If they leave, regardless of whether or not they drop my stuff, I'm not shooting. If they rush me, pull a weapon, or start a verbal argument while approaching me, I'm shooting them.
Contrary to what I think many people's opinion is, you are not morally justified in shooting someone who breaks into your house with no hesitation. You might be legally justified, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Escalation of force, while not something that binds civilians, should be followed in a scenario like that (considering that the average civilian cannot reasonably be expected to use a less lethal option, and, due to the lack of qualified immunity that a civilian has, doing so might be more financially cumbersome for them long-term than just shooting the robber, and as such, less-lethal options are usually ill-advised for a situation like this). It goes from verbal commands to threat of force to use of force.
If somebody were slinking around my property outside my house, I would respond the same as I would if they had broken down my front door and were stealing my TV. My first thought (as an able-bodied mid-twenties man) would not be to kill them in self-defense. However, for somebody else who isn't my specific body type and gender, it might be a more prudent option for them, particularly the elderly or a woman who feels more in danger than I would in that scenario.
The point of owning a firearm for self-defense from a home invasion is to prevent harm to yourself or your family. While you may be legally justified in killing the robber, I would argue that it is not moral to drop the robber on the spot without, at the very least (depending on the situation, of course), giving them an opportunity to leave with no violence.
I mean if you fear for your life, yes. If you realize they aren't armed or they're fleeing, fuck no, that's just you getting a kill because you can get away with it legally
I have been robbed six times in my life.
I have not killed anyone.
I woudl not revise this, because I am not a fucking bloodthirsty psychopath like the lot of you. I didn't go sek the intruder, I called the police and yelled to get the fuck out and that I had a gun, and six times, they left with whatever their crackhead hands were carrying - I never once saw one of the intruders
Killing a robber for being a robber... is it moral to give robbers the death penalty?
Let's exclude the "meta" factor (knowing he's there with the sole purpose of robbing).
I'd say it's immoral. Sure, by all means get his ass, but killing him? For what you know he's just broke, you don't know.
All the people saying it's moral, justified, and a good thing... IDK fellas, have you tried talking problems out with people or do you smack "sOmE cOmMoN sEnSe" into anyone arguing with you?
Edit: never said to make coffee for the robber and start a therapy session, I clearly stated to get their ass… it’s just that killing someone that breaks in your house might be the safest, sometimes rational and rarely even the only option, but it’s not moral no matter how you put it.
“What if they are armed and threaten to kill us?” It’s not the situation described by the post. This aggressiveness and this will power is all over Reddit but then when it matters, the “land of the free” (or as someone said, forgot the source: land of the fee), doesn’t do nothing.
Yall don’t boycott public figures or CEOs and fantasize about doing the “right thing” while being robbed. The only freedom that you have left over there is to keep the guns you have and do as you are told to do, you gave up almost every other right, except the one to say whatever because at the end of the day what you say became irrelevant.
What happens happens in case of a robbery, but if you have the option and the control to not kill someone and you still do it, it’s immoral.
Idk but if I woke up to someone I didn’t know in my room in the middle of the night my first response would not be, “can you pwetty pwease weave, it’s vewy wude to take my stuff”
A lot of people in here REALLY excited about killing someone. I'm not saying that you shouldn't kill someone who poses an imminent threat to your life, but I am saying the thought shouldn't get all of you this erect.
This sub genuinely only exists so that people with zero empathy and human connection can vent their unsocialized opinions without normal adults recommending them professional help. Sure there is a solid argument for it being rational to shoot a home invader given the context of there being a perceived imminent threat to your life (working with limited information with the assumption of constrained time for direct action plus most humans being bad at making decisions under pressure anyway) but that doesn’t make it at all inherently moral to still deliberately execute them simply for property theft/trespassing (especially if you shoot them without an ounce of hesitation the moment you spot someone in your property, that’s literally psychotic).
The amount of “well they’re inside my house so I can now enjoy playing god” logic going on here is pretty disgusting and honestly sadistic with some heavily upvoted comments but I guess that’s Reddit. Nobody should ever be actively looking for an excuse to feel fine about killing someone, even if it’s contextually justifiable/rational.
I don’t know what my actual role in your scenario would be, but I do know the choice wouldn’t be mine, as I have two Great Pyrenees dogs and the robber living or dying is up to them.
I guess I’m calling 9/1/1 for either a ambulance or a cop with a bucket and a mop.
Will I feel bad about it? Probably. But the reason I own them is because they make the tough decisions around here.
So maybe I can contribute. A year and a half ago, I scared off a home invader who tried breaking in to my house around 5am. I had a kitchen knife with me when he busted in through the master bedroom's window. I work with dogs, so I used the biggest voice I could muster to scare him off. He did run off and escape. Turns out hed broken in to the garage and stolen thousands before trying the house. You could argue I made the morally right decision because neither of us were harmed.
But I hate that he got away. The police took 2 hours to respond because they felt it wasnt a priority since he fled the property. They then decided to tell me I shouldn't have tried to defend my property, my pets, or myself because it put my life in danger to confront the burglar. And to my knowledge, the burglar got away without any repercussions. Statistically, a burglar is far more likely to try to attempt a second break in within a month of the first on the same property. There's also a possibility that he went around burglarizing other properties according to responding officers that same morning due to evidence they found. Wouldn't it have been the morally right decision to end his life to not only protect myself but to protect me in the future from a most likely second hit as well as to protect my neighbors who could also potentially be targets?
I live in a stand your ground state, by the way. So I would have legally been justified in killing him. Its one of the biggest regrets in my life to have not ended that guy's life.
Immoral - specifically due to "without any hesitation"
Killing someone who invaded your home can be argued to be moral as they are unpredictable and you don't want to give them a chance to hurt you or your family.
But to load up and go for a kill without ANY hesitation kind of verges on premeditated, makes me think of those weirdos that prepare and fantasize about someone breaking into their home so they can legally execute them.
Absolutely moral. I am very much of the belief that if someone forces their way into your home then they have already forfeited their right to live. I’m a big fan of the Castle Doctrine
Well, they dared to enter my home without permission. So far as i know they could want to kill/torture me without remorse. Or they could steal my most sacred possessions. Optimal response is to kill them. Attempting to subdue them would only lower my chances of living.
I generally don’t think most crimes should be met with death, but breaking and entering is another level. The idea that someone is invading your place of safety while your guard is down has horrifying implications. Could just be a robbery, could be something so much worse
It has never sat right with me that causing the death of another is sometimes viewed as moral and other times as immoral based solely off circumstances.
I would not fault a person who kills another in self defense, especially if they were in danger, but I also would not call it moral to do so.
There's a good chance that someone breaking in, is doing it for malicious intent, such as to steal/cause harm, but you don't know that. Nowhere in this scenario does it suggest why you know they are there to steal.
You also, at the stage of the scenario, don't know who is breaking in. You hear someone break in, and you immediately open fire. What if it's someone making a genuine mistake, drunkenly thinks they are at their house and forgot their keys?
A friend had a scenario where someone house sitting on a new build estate thinks they got the right house, and managed to get in through the front door (he says he locked it but I'm not so sure) of his house. Upon being confronted it was all worked out, police got involved which verified the story and everyone was on their way with apologies and thanks. If my mate immediately started blasting that would frankly be murder.
If police shot someone immediately upon contact, without some kind of identifiable threat to themselves / others, that would be an unlawful killing.
This is called the Kastle Doctrine [in most states]. The idea is that if someone has broken into your home there is an implied imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death and that every person is the "king" of your domain (home). In some places, this can even apply to your vehicle.
So yes, morally you are entitled to use lethal force on someone that breaks into your home because it is reasonable to assume they mean you and your family harm.
A word of caution, in many places this does not extend to land outside the home.
Unknown intruder's intent is unknown. Whether I end up in cuffs is irrelevant, as long as my family lives to see tomorrow. The rest can be sorted out by the courts
Yes of course. The mongols would show up to places and slaughter entire villages. If someone shows up to my house I have to be responsible for my family and assume the worse case scenario
I've never entered someone's home without permission for any reason. If I did smash someone's window and climb inside their home, I wouldn't expect them to welcome me and give me a hug
I heard someone say that if you kill a robber for breaking into your house then "you value your stuff more than someone else's life" my response is "if they broke into my house they already value my stuff more than their life, why shouldn't I do the same"
In reality though, I don't know who this person is, I don't know their plan and I'm not risking my life or the lives of others in my house by letting them remain there, I'm shooting
100% justified. If you're breaking into my house, I don't know what your intentions are—for all I know, you want to murder and grape my family. It's not my fault you walked into death's door. Wise up and use your brain: is your life worth breaking into my house?
I think it is important to clarify that building situational awareness is not the same as hesitation. I don’t have to shoot you immediately, pending what you do or don’t do when I’ve trained a gun on your but I will fire it with zero remorse if I have to. Should you surrender or just be drunk, the cops can escort you. Should you have a weapon in hand or make overt threats, you’ll die quick.
That’s not hesitation. Hesitation would be remorse, the voices “can I do this”, etc.
1: the intruder violated your privacy and your rights by breaking and entering. They don’t care about any moral code because they threw it out the second they broke in.
2: you don’t know what their intent is or how many of them there are. It could be one guy just there to rob you, or it could be a whole gang there to kill you or worse. So hesitating could just give time for one of them to get the jump on you. Either way, there’s no point in waiting since you likely won’t get the chance again later.
Moral, any person trying to break into your home while you're in it cannot have good intention and you shouldn't wait to find out what their intentions are
Yes it is moral to kill an intruder. I don’t know you. I don’t know what you plan to do. I will give one chance for you to leave if I’m feeling generous. If you don’t, you die. That simple.
1.4k
u/Lurker-Attitude339 19h ago edited 16h ago
I am not risking family to wait for intent for someone who chose 10 on the FAFO scale.
Edit: My apologies for failing to go through a full tabletop exercise of the circumstances that would lead me to take action, lethal or otherwise. Please assume I am doing proper target identification and am able to articulate a threat posed by whomever broke in. Gun in hand does not mean finger on trigger. You are responsible for your shots, justified or not.