Hmmm. The article indicates a broken window, and further ‘medical and forensic evidence’. If the broken window was the point of access, it might indicate that a lot of the cuts sustained by the alleged intruder could be traced to the broken glass. That fact would change the entire scenario. It then becomes ‘much ado about nothing’.
Try arguing in good faith.
You think my argument is not good fai to h because you’re incapable of drawing a line between excessive and reasonable force. If the law were to simply state that self defense is permissible in instances of home intrusion, how are the courts meant to differentiate? There was a case recently where someone literally woke up with a knife in their head, who managed to fight off their attacker, and send them fleeing from their property. The resident chased the intruder back to their car and proceeded to stab them to death. The courts ruled they went from being assaulted to bring the assailant and ended up guilty of murder. Do you disagree with this ruling? Do you think that any level of force is justified following an initial attack, even if that force does not end when an assailant backs off?
No. I think it’s not good faith because your argument was not in any way trying to determine what is reasonable and was instead resorting immediately to extreme edge cases.
No I do not think “any” level of force is justified.
Do I disagree with that ruling? With only the information you’ve provided, no I don’t.
I’m also not interested in adversarial debate, I’m interested in discussion. I’m not trying to win anything here, I’m trying to expand my point of view and better understand how others view the society in which we all live.
Would you then like to retract your statement that a b&e with a brandished weapon is “open season”? I definitely don’t take that as a nuanced take that is driving towards broader understanding.
Nope. If someone is inside my home and is an armed & immediate threat, I think I should be able to use whatever force necessary to protect myself and my family from that threat. If that person leaves my home, they’re no longer an immediate threat to me, are they? In the example you gave, the person that died was no longer an immediate threat.
In any case, it’s pretty clear that you aren’t interested in discussing nuance for the topic at hand, but rather “winning.” I’m done here.
Do you really want laws to be formed primarily around individual feelings of threat?
If that’s the basis of the law, if a child enters your home without permission and you feel threatened you are allowed to take any force necessary to no longer feel threatened. Using that definition you could stab an 8 year old to death and be in your legal rights.