• LuxSpark@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    I get your example, and you should probably resist killing your ex. Any other rando appearing inside your house should be dealt with.

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      I don’t think you completely get it. In the example, the home owner doesn’t have to “just let them” roam around their house looking for shit. The home owner can even put hands on the person. But there are limits to what can be done, even to someone who has no business being there. It’s your right to protect yourself and (to the degree that you don’t put human life in danger) your possessions. It’s your right to evict people by force. It’s not your right to punish people who invade your home with a beating once they are not presenting danger or to inflict needless injuries with excessive force.

      Reading it again, “resist killing your ex – ‘deal with’ any other rando,” it really sounds like you are advocating to use lethal force. Come out and say it if that’s what you mean.

      • LuxSpark@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        I am advocating to do what I need to do to neutralize a home intruder. If they happen to end up dead, I don’t want to be blamed for it. Self defense is not an exact science and I think making homeowner considering the wellbeing of the intruder is ridiculous.

        • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          If they ACCIDENTALLY end up dead because you punched them too hard, that’s one thing. If you knowingly use lethal force against someone who isn’t an active threat, you deserve what you get.