swords in the news

Columbob wrote:

Mr Skeletor wrote:

In Australia, if a guy breaks into your house, belts the shit out of you, takes your stuff then trips over the stairs on the way out he gets to sue you.

Same here in Canada.

Which is really why you need to aim for the head with that first shot....

Wow...the radical difference of opinion between those in the US and those outside the US are startling (though not sure of Mr. Skeletor's take). I hardly EVER chime in on political issues on the internet--esp on forums where I enjoy visiting--but I'm used to being able to go out for a beer with those that I disagree with...even vehemently.

My reaction is the polar opposite of Schwieg's. Some of the reactions decrying this action of self-defense make me worry about the future of Western Civilization. From what I understand, places like Belgium do not even allow defensive measures like Pepper Spray. That's what is scary...and only encourages further disorder and criminality.

I sympathize with Schweig's and other's concern about the ultimate value of human life---I do not rejoice in the death of the intruder; but I do not think the student with the sword fighting back in self-defense on his property is in the wrong at all (from what I have read). There's a difference between self-defense and vigilantism that is often overlooked. It is important not to conflate them.

To end on an analytical note, I believe the difference of opinion has something to do with a civilization's (or individual's) approach to self-reliance and liberty.

Mr Skeletor wrote:

In Australia, if a guy breaks into your house, belts the shit out of you, takes your stuff then trips over the stairs on the way out he gets to sue you.

I guess human rights take on a different meaning when your country starts out as a penal colony. That's very thoughtful of the authorities to take into the account the occupational hazards of burglary.

Merkles wrote:

I sympathize with Schweig's and other's concern about the ultimate value of human life---I do not rejoice in the death of the intruder; but I do not think the student with the sword fighting back in self-defense on his property is in the wrong at all (from what I have read). There's a difference between self-defense and vigilantism that is often overlooked. It is important not to conflate them.

Hey, I'm all for self defense, but this sword-wielding sicko went at the burglar with a fucking katana, cut his hand off and killed him. I mean obviously the intruder didn't pose much of a threat (no handgun), so the student might as well have knocked him unconscious with a blunt item. But that psycho was intent on killing the other guy.

Schweig! wrote:

Merkles wrote:

I sympathize with Schweig's and other's concern about the ultimate value of human life---I do not rejoice in the death of the intruder; but I do not think the student with the sword fighting back in self-defense on his property is in the wrong at all (from what I have read). There's a difference between self-defense and vigilantism that is often overlooked. It is important not to conflate them.

Hey, I'm all for self defense, but this sword-wielding sicko went at the burglar with a fucking katana, cut his hand off and killed him. I mean obviously the intruder didn't pose much of a threat (no handgun), so the student might as well have knocked him unconscious with a blunt item. But that psycho was intent on killing the other guy.

Didn't pose much of a threat? How big are YOU? I haven't seen a physical description of the burglar yet, but here's a tidbit for you--my 6'5" friend was forbidden from carrying a 4-battery flashlight when he was working a public safety ("rent-a-cop") job because it was determined he could generate deadly force with it. A flashlight...

As for your comment, you can kill someone very easily with a baseball bat to the head. One shot can be more than enough if you hit at the base of the skull. Would he still be a "psycho" if he killed him with a bat? No accident about it with a windup and a full swing, so where's the line?

Any force, properly applied, can be deadly force. Why exactly do we have to have any sympathy for the home invader? Being human means little more than having opposable thumbs and the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. It's his choice and he paid the consequences for a very very poor choice.

Schweig! wrote:

Hey, I'm all for self defense, but this sword-wielding sicko went at the burglar with a fucking katana, cut his hand off and killed him. I mean obviously the intruder didn't pose much of a threat (no handgun), so the student might as well have knocked him unconscious with a blunt item. But that psycho was intent on killing the other guy.

You're possibly picturing some suave jewel thief merely sneaking in and making off with a few choice valuables. I'm picturing home invastion:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_invasion

"Home invasion differs from burglary, which is usually defined as unlawful entry into any occupied or unoccupied building, with intent to commit one of a list of specified offences. Home invasion covers an intent to commit any crime.

"Home invasion may be accompanied by other crimes. Home invaders commit breaking and entering, and are sometimes intent on assault, robbery, rape, or murder."

Sure, Katana Boy could have asked the perp what his intentions were, but that might not have yielded an honest or reassuring answer. Maybe the perp was bigger than the guy with the katana, and possibly carrying a gun. So taking him out quickly and efficiently was crucial. And in many countries, removing the hand of a thief would be considered a highly appropriate penalty for the crime.

This is a response to both Dogmatix' and Shellhead's comments.

First off, I do not intend to defend the intruder.

I'm not big and not a fighter. But if I'm aware that an intruder is in my house, I would pick a frying pan over a katana, even when I have no idea of the intruder's intention. However, IIRC the situation happened on campus, so I would have first and foremost called campus security. True, I'm calm now and could overreact facing such a situation, but what the student did can't be explained by overreaction. If the intruder had carried a handgun, it would've made no difference whether the student carried a katana or a frying pan. I'm also sure it would have been noted in the article if the intruder was armed. Therefore I can only assume the student grabbed his katana "to try it out".

Now, obviously the intruder was unarmed and didn't possess a black belt in any martial arts school. Against such a person, you're at an advantage even when only armed with a broom.

I know that a hit on the head with a baseball bat can be fatal, too. But why hit the intruder on the head and not against the knee for example? Yes, in my eyes the student would still be a psycho if he killed him with a baseball bat. A hit against the knee wouldn't take out the intruder quickly and efficiently, but will likely force him to surrender. Then you'd only have to wait until the police arrives.

It can also be assumed that the intruder didn't try to run away, otherwise the student couldn't have cut his hand off. So maybe the intruder was shaking his fist and threatening the student. That would make the whole cutting off the hand appear even crueler. I don't see any point in cutting of the hand, he must have really hit it with full force. Even wielding such a dangerous weapon, the student could have at least tried to inflict a less severe wound. The hit against the chest seems to have been a finishing stroke. If you assume the hit against the chest came first and was meant to be less severe, then why would the student continue and cut the hand off?

And in many countries, removing the hand of a thief would be considered a highly appropriate penalty for the crime.

You can probably guess my opinion of these countries.

A very plausible scenario: you hit the burglar in the knee with a baseball bat, and he pulls out a gun and shoots you. He had the gun in a holster or pocket so his hands would be free while he was stealing. But if you cut off a hand, that's one less hand to be grabbing for a gun, plus a whole world of pain to dissuade him from doing much of anything. More likely, he got his hand cut off when he was grabbing for the sword.

And consider this... now that you have a better idea of how some Americans feel about defending their homes, doesn't breaking and entering seem like a terribly desperate and reckless action? So somebody who is actually doing it in America is probably a reckless and desperate person, ready to literally risk their life for the chance to steal. So there is probably no good reason to handle them with anything less than ruthless force.

Shellhead wrote:

A very plausible scenario: you hit the burglar in the knee with a baseball bat, and he pulls out a gun and shoots you. He had the gun in a holster or pocket so his hands would be free while he was stealing. But if you cut off a hand, that's one less hand to be grabbing for a gun, plus a whole world of pain to dissuade him from doing much of anything. More likely, he got his hand cut off when he was grabbing for the sword.

Again, I haven't faced such a situation, but would you allow the intruder to reach into his pocket or rather demand that he keeps his hands above his head?

Most likely, he got his hand cut off while defending against the sword.

Shellhead wrote:

And consider this... now that you have a better idea of how some Americans feel about defending their homes, doesn't breaking and entering seem like a terribly desperate and reckless action? So somebody who is actually doing it is probably a reckless and desperate person, ready to literally risk their life for the chance to steal. So there is probably no good reason to handle them with anything less than ruthless force.

A person who steals mostly has its reasons for it; while most of these are unjustified, some are nevertheless plausible, like a drug addiction for example. Almost every adult has used "I was drunk" as an excuse.

A higher willingness to kill to protect one's property is definitely intimidating, but doesn't really change the personal situation a prospective robber might be in. Yes, it changes the approach, but not the cause of robbery.

I agree that a person risking its life is more dangerous and should be dealt with differently, but "an eye for an eye" was never really a sensible way of handling things.

Sagrilarus wrote:

I would walk in downtown Baltimore long before Brooklyn, East LA, or downtown New Haven.

I lived in Brooklyn and am about to buy a house in New Haven. Sucks for me I guess!

Though I have to say, one time on tour we broke down in some terrible neighborhood Baltimore and it was definitely one of the sketchiest places I'd ever been. Just rows of boarded up crack houses. I guess touring in punk/hardcore bands for years, you get to visit all the shittiest parts of the big cities since that's where a lot of the venues are.

The laws about home defense are usually referred to as "castle laws" (a man's home is his castle), and vary a lot from state to state. Texas is absolutely a state where you can kill anyone trespassing on your property.

Schweig, I really hope nothing ever happens to you, but if someone does decide to go nutty and kill you, you're pretty screwed. I know some people who are totally ok with that, they'd rather die themselves than take the life of another. But that's something you need to come to peace with. If someone is jacked up on something, busts into your house and wants to kill you, a frying pan ain't gonna do jack shit besides maybe piss him off more.

Also, if we're talking about being inside a house, other than maybe a sawed off shot gun (or perhaps a non-civilian grade weapon), I'd much rather bring a knife to a gun fight. I teach self defense and blades are way, way harder to deal with in the close spaces of a home than a gun is. So yeah, a katana would be significantly better than a frying pan.

In Missouri, you can kill someone if they enter your home or you car. The law just changed in 2007.

First, it creates the presumption that criminals who unlawfully enter and remain in your home intend to do harm to you and your family. Second, the legislation removes the requirement that property owners retreat from their home, or car when someone has entered unlawfully. Finally, the bill states that a person who uses justified force against an invader is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action.

Now the state legislature is considering allowing conceal and carry on campus -- that might creep me out a little.

@ SG: That campus law a result of the Virginia Tech killings? There's been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth on both sides of the concealed carry on campus issue here in the Commonwealth since that nightmare.

@ Loter: Both my grandfathers were "knife men", so I can appreciate the value of a handy blade and basic knowledge for using it. Regarding home defense, though, you don't need to saw off the shotgun. A pump-action with birdshot and little to no choke works perfectly well as the shot won't go through the walls (at least not with killing force) and it creates a wall of pellets that is basically unavoidable inside 15 feet. A shorter "alley-sweeper" style barrel would be a plus, but isn't necessary. Birdshot may not necessarily generate guaranteed-lethal force (vice buckshot anyway), but you won't end up taking out a fist-sized chunk of wall and possibly the neighbor if you miss. Plus, the sound of the racking of a shotgun pump is unmistakeable and is usually enough to stop anyone dead in their tracks.

Edit: As I reread my posts, you'd never guess that I'm visciously anti-NRA and for extremely tight controls on handguns and rapid-fire/large-calibre weapons (particularly since Virginia seems to supply most of the guns on the street up the eastern seaboard--most legally purchased here and sold illegally elsewhere). Unless you're hunting bear on a regular basis, I've never really seen a reason to own anything other than a good shotgun and a small calibre rifle (because picking pellets out of a rabbit before you cook the little bastard just sucks).

I'm not the most short-tempered guy you're ever going to meet, but I think those of you from out of the country need to consider the lay of the land here a bit.

A crack addict in the States can get a .25 that fits in the palm of his hand for a couple of bags or $100, and can end you with it in short order. If the guy you confront turns and bolts, you can figure him for unarmed. If not, all bets are off here in the USA. Plenty of deadly force to go around and he may have some of it. Were I in the same situation and holding a sword I'd be concerned I was in the short position.

Sag.

I'd want the sawed off as the longer the gun, the harder it is to handle in a confined space. If you've got another foot or two to deal with, it's a lot harder to quickly re-aim and a lot easier for someone else to get a hand on it. All the other points you made are why I'd consider holding a shotgun rather than a blade. If a dude hears the rack and keeps coming you better be ready for war cause dude is totally nuts!

I'd much rather live in a world with no guns at all, but fuck if I'm going out like a sucker cause I decided to be the only dude in the US without a gun, or at the very least the knowledge of how to properly use one without shooting myself. And actually, I'm way way more concerned with protecting my family than myself. As for my property, if I could know 100% sure that you were just trying to jack my TV or whatever, then I'd just let it roll, but alas, most criminals can't be trusted when they bust into your homestead to just stick with the robbing and skip the raping and murdering.