Show of Hands

I could be wrong, though....

To be clear, homicide is just the act of taking a life, murder involves some form of malicious intent....at least, that’s my understanding.

How do you know it was self defense? Could have shot a 10 year old girl in the back as she was climbing out the window with a box of twinkies for all we know.

“An armed intruder breaks into your home at night . . .”

It’s possible that the intruder could have been a child looking for junk food or Lassie looking for Timmy, but that would be highly unlikely.

Intruder: A person who intrudes, especially into a building with criminal intent.

You dont seem to understand self defense.

By all means, please feel free to explain it.

Perhaps you disagree that I have the right to defend myself, my interests (home), and others from the potential harm of an intruder. Normally, people who mean no harm do not break into someone else’s home while being armed. The fact that the person is armed and has broken into my home justifies my fear and my self-defense. The person has committed home invasion. Maybe you live somewhere where that is okay. I don’t.

So Shooting someone in the back falls under self defense to you? Noted.

There was a clearly defined situation of an armed intruder and you changed it to a small child looking for snacks.
Why? If that’s your question start a new poll don’t change it so you turn someone into a bad guy

Thank you @Crispy899
There was nothing about shooting someone in the back in the poll question. I would not shoot someone in the back. I would tell them to stay as they are while I called 911. If they turned around, too bad.
Learning to avoid being a home invader should not be difficult.

Step 1. Stayed seated...that about it. All It takes to not invade someone’s home

The question was if it was murder. That obviously depends on the specific details of the case.

They gave us the details

No they did not.

Ok tell me why did an armed intruder break into a house?

Good for you. Now you're seeking more details as well.

Missing the point. If an ARMED intruder broke into a house they only have one form of intention which is to do harm. You wanna twist it so some 10 year old girl has a gun to demonize someone for I don’t know what reason.

No, you're missing the point. You can't determine if the killing was justified or not without further details as my hypothetical illustrated. A 10 year old girl that used a knife to gain entry and access to said twinkies is just one example of why more information is necessary.

Armed. That should be the word you’re focused on. It’s way more likely the intruder as an adult with ill intent. You want to focus on the box of twinkies go ahead

Yeah, a ten year old armed with her pocket knife. The details matter.

And yet before the details were agreed upon what would be the most likely scenario you turned it and made it so history is now a child killer for some reason.
You want to use what’s the least likely scenario to feel superior over a stranger on the internet. Couldn’t even entertain the idea

You are advocating passing judgment based on visceral emotion rather than the actual facts.

Do you not see the hypocrisy?

Yes, I see your hypocrisy.

Jesus Christ. History said this was self defense against an intruder. History never said they would shoot a child in the back.

Then you go along putting words in history’s mouth. You say the details matter but before you agree on them you decide you know the intent of history.

You never attempted to agree on a scenario, which history tried to paint you but you are focused on your ten year old and your twinkies.

Is middle ground something you’re looking to reach or you just want to ostracize someone?

@History using you name like this sounds a bit funny

You need to settle down. If there is only one potsible answer why is there a question? No go sit down and take a deep breath you're starting to really spaz out.

So instead of having a point to make it reach middle ground you want to come after me?
😂
The last attempt huh?

Your point is that there is only one way to answer this poll and you are absolutely spazzing out over it. Why? Why are you spazzing?

Not spazzing, never said I was. That was you and if you think that’s my point then you misunderstood this whole conversation.

You're all worked up and emotional. I dont understand why you can't let it go. No need to spazz.

troll2
/trōl/Submit
noun
noun: troll; plural noun: trolls
1.
a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post.

So now I know why you don’t have a point to make

Oh, so you're just trolling. Noted.

What I should say is no, the "intent" to defend ones family and home does not meet the specifications of murder, the "armed intruder" breached the sanctity of my family's home....."Justifiable Homocide".....aka "Natural Causes" for home intruders and burglars....imo.....

This is before the law Is involved and made any determinations. Physically There is a guy you shot to death and that’s it

Innocent until proven guilty, so no.

You still intended on killing

Killing is different than murder. Murder is the *unlawful* killing. See definitions above.

Can* be different than murder, I meant to say. In other words, all murder involves killing, but not all killing involves murder.

Let not forget the Armed part, he didn’t come with a knife to butter toast and he didn’t bring a gun to brag about it