On the absolute surface level, you make what seems to be a good point. I don’t think that point holds up to scrutiny, though, and such lazy (no offense meant by this; I’m not calling you lazy, only the point you’ve made) reasoning is not far removed from using “think of the chldren!” to justify an agenda.
Any dwelling that is not yours is generally assumed to be off-limits absent an invitation to enter. Ignoring that and breaking into said dwelling is implicitly a statement that you are disregarding the safety and security of the inhabitants. That further implies that you equally have no regard for the health and well-being of the inhabitants, as your actions are putting your needs or desires ahead of theirs. You have, wittingly or not, made yourself a threat to the inhabitants of the dwelling.
Responding to an immediate, credible threat against one’s life with lethal force is quite rational.
I have no doubt that this will have detrimental long-term effects on the boy. I also have no doubt that the very experience of being present during a home invasion would have had similar long-term effects.
You appear to have completely missed the point of my post and focussed on a side point. There’s a world of difference in defending yourself and thinking someone deserves death for entertaining a house.
To your other points, first off I haven’t said anything about the rights or wrongs of the child defending themselves, I’m not sure why you’re making the argument about that. I do however disagree there’s a basic assumption that anyone entering a house uninvited has no regard for the health and wellbeing of inhabitants. The rest of the post just looks like leap after leap from that point forward.
Well, no, you’ve gone from “threat” to “threat to life” that’s a leap. I’m not sure where it disagrees with my original premise, I’m not sure it has anything to do with my original premise.
On the absolute surface level, you make what seems to be a good point. I don’t think that point holds up to scrutiny, though, and such lazy (no offense meant by this; I’m not calling you lazy, only the point you’ve made) reasoning is not far removed from using “think of the chldren!” to justify an agenda.
Any dwelling that is not yours is generally assumed to be off-limits absent an invitation to enter. Ignoring that and breaking into said dwelling is implicitly a statement that you are disregarding the safety and security of the inhabitants. That further implies that you equally have no regard for the health and well-being of the inhabitants, as your actions are putting your needs or desires ahead of theirs. You have, wittingly or not, made yourself a threat to the inhabitants of the dwelling.
Responding to an immediate, credible threat against one’s life with lethal force is quite rational.
I have no doubt that this will have detrimental long-term effects on the boy. I also have no doubt that the very experience of being present during a home invasion would have had similar long-term effects.
You appear to have completely missed the point of my post and focussed on a side point. There’s a world of difference in defending yourself and thinking someone deserves death for entertaining a house.
To your other points, first off I haven’t said anything about the rights or wrongs of the child defending themselves, I’m not sure why you’re making the argument about that. I do however disagree there’s a basic assumption that anyone entering a house uninvited has no regard for the health and wellbeing of inhabitants. The rest of the post just looks like leap after leap from that point forward.
It only looks like leap after leap to you because it doesn’t agree with your basic premise.
Well, no, you’ve gone from “threat” to “threat to life” that’s a leap. I’m not sure where it disagrees with my original premise, I’m not sure it has anything to do with my original premise.