DOJ reports 1 in 3 home invasions involves violent victimization, which makes it just as common as the house fires that any prudent person considers and prepares against.
this scenario of sub-human sickos aiming to break in while your family is home and murder you happens less often than people getting struck by lightning.
While the actual rate of violent victimization during home invasion is a few orders of magnitude more prevalent than you acknowledge, your lightning analogy actually serves to demonstrate my point: As a society, we have deemed it prudent to establish extensive plans specifically to avoid getting struck by lightning. We cancel or delay sporting events, from youth soccer to major league baseball. We are taught to seek shelter indoors. If stuck outdoors, avoid tall structures. Don't stand under loan trees, or near flagpoles. If stuck in a field, lay down on the ground. We take all sorts of measures to avoid this extraordinarily rare event.
Prudent people plan for the eventualities you argue are too rare for rational people to even contemplate. Preparation for equally serious and much more prevalent emergencies is perfectly reasonable and rational.
Warning shots are not inherently illegal. . It is a myth that they are.
Where there is a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm, you are allowed to use any level of force, up to and including lethal force, necessary to stop that threat. Your lawyer will be telling the police, the prosecutor, and if necessary, the judge and a jury that you faced such a threat, and you used a degree of force you reasonably believed necessary to stop that threat. Your lawyer will explain that you didn't think any lesser use of force would have convinced them to stop, and the fact that they did stop is evidence that additional force was not necessary.
The prosecutor could potentially argue the threat wasn't sufficiently imminent, but that doesn't mean a jury will believe it.
If you do shoot the attacker, the prosecutor can feasibly argue that a lesser use of force, such as a warning shot, would have convinced the attacker to stop and run, and that your ahooting him was unnecessary. Again, though, that doesn't mean a jury will believe it.
What you don't want to do is start telling the police your whole life story. Make your complaint against the attacker, don't tell them shit about what you did, and lawyer up.
I've got my popcorn. I'm excited to hear how I am singlehandedly increasing the suicide rate.
Respirators do not filter their exhaust. They protect the individual wearing the respirator. They do not protect the public. With one exception, your advice is nonsensical.
May we never meet.
I wholeheartedly agree.
If they find out after entering people are awake and armed, they're bailing out.
Better for them to "bail out" before coming through the front door. They won't even catch a charge if they do that.
Clearly, we aren't talking about the kind of people who "bail out", so I'll invite you to think on that a moment.
If you could answer that question, you could keep 1.1 million people from trying to commit suicide every year.
Even if theynare putting a price tag on it, they are only making an "offer" on a home invader's life. It is entirely up to the home invader as to whether they want to "accept" that offer.
@Rivalarrival
@lemmy.today