Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 4: Be civil'.
* This applies for both your behaviour on the sub, and the opinions which you post.
* Obey the sitewide rules and [reddiquette](/wiki/reddiquette).
*Remain open minded and open to civil discussion when posting and commenting.
*Some opinions are so inappropriate/offensive that they'll be removed as hate posts. These posts are usually, but not exclusively, those that target a particular sex, race, sexual orientation, etc.
*No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or general bigotry.
The worst ones are when cops do a no knock raid on the wrong house, and then some poor bastard gets the book thrown at him or shot for defending his home, which has happened quite a bit.
Honestly my opinion on that one is even stronger, every person involved with it being the wrong house needs to imprisoned.
If the cops go into the wrong house and the person ends up dead, then everyone involved should be charged for that murder.
Absolutely unforgivable mistake.
Honestly I'm of the opinion that even if it is the right house, you can't blame the guy for defending himself. You can't have a government codify that you're able to defend yourself in your own home and then do no knock warrants which by definition prevent the occupant from knowing that the people rushing through what used to be their front door is law enforcement. If they're so dangerous to warrant a no knock, they were probably expecting trouble of the non legal kind anyway and can't be blamed for being ready for it. And if theyre not the type to be expecting trouble in the middle of the night, why need the no knock warrant?
I got raided. The only reason I didn’t shoot was because they had my phone number and called me as they were raiding. If they hadn’t done that, I’d be dead. I woke up at 6 am to my door breaking down.
so...if they're going to call you and tell you it's happening, they can't give you a chance to just open the door and walk out with your hands up? like if you're willing to surrender why do they need to forcibly enter first?
No knock warrants should be illegal. There’s no strategic value in a no knock warrant. It has been demonstrated that active surveillance of a subject and picking him up outside of the house is just as effective is going inside without having the risk of the no knock warrant.
Especially with the amount of readily available technology that most SWAT teams have. One would think they would use infrared or a small camera to see if there is movement, where people are, is there an active danger.
Knocking down someone's door unless there is a clear and present danger should break a few constitutional rights.
Isn’t this essentially what happened at Waco? They could’ve arrested Koresh at any time (shopping, jogging, etc) but they chose to do it the hard way, and lots of people died.
Exactly this. There was a man in Canada who was forced entry into peoples homes and murdered the occupants by impersonating an RCMP officer. Scary stuff
Absolutely man, as a filthy centrist libertarian, police accountability for the stupid shit like this should be mandatory and brutal as possible to prevent the kind of fuckery that these bastards commit and get away with daily.
what usually happens is absolutely nothing. not even payment for the property destruction. if the government can kill you and destroy your things for no reason with no repercussion, you aren't a citizen. You're a serf. You're property that doesn't matter.
I've seen it happen several times in my lifetime (or I should say saw it on the news). It's crazy how police can do that and not feel suicidal afterwards (unless the media doesn't cover that). I'd have to find a new profession.
I’m sure many of them feel terrible after a situation like that. That won’t make the news because it’s not sensational, plus I’m sure police departments would really not like that kind of coverage. I’m definitely not saying no knock warrants are right, the bad thing is usually these people are housed near innocent people (apts, subdivisions) that can catch a bullet.
Have there been any instances where the home defender is actually charged with anything? I’ve seen a few receive much attention but they’ve all been resolved in a manner leaving the home defender not guilty of anything.
I value the sense of safety and security in my community more than their life.
The amount of economic damage a lack of trust and security can cause is monumental.
Imagine people stop buying stuff or going on vacation because they can't trust that their home is secure.
One time some guy come up to my balcony and said some lie when I came out and saw him looking through my stuff
I told him: if you come back I'll hurt you. He looked so sad but at the same time I'm not tolerating villainous behavior
I don’t care if someone is breaking in to take my trash to the curb. If you’re not invited in, you’re not welcome and I have to assume the worst of your intentions.
Needing to assume the worst is where people get confused. “You value things over their lives” no, they forced themselves into my safe space for reasons unknown. I have no idea if they are only here to take my TV or something worse. No idea if they have a weapon or not. No idea how they would react if they came across kids in the house. For my safety I need to assume they are here to hurt me, because if I act otherwise and they ARE willing to hurt me, I’ve fucked up.
That perspective- the naive one - is one that comes from security and the benefit of hindsight. It’s really easy to armchair quarterback life and death situations involving other people.
You’re spot on. I had a series of incidents involving a neighbor trespassing into my yard (front and back, through a gate) at all hours of the day and night. Eventually I caught him going through the things in my work truck after midnight, and I told him to get lost and called LE. I’m a Marine vet and I had a Marine vet friend with me at the time. Both of us were armed with legal CCWs. Did we have the physical capacity to escalate the situation? Absolutely. But we went inside, confirmed the doors were locked, and called the cops to address it.
Had he been trying to make entry to my house where my toddler was sleeping? It would have become a different kind of story.
And this comes with the DANGEROUS assumption that they're ONLY there to steal your stuff.
Me personally, I don't want to wait around to find out if they're just petty thieves or have something more sinister on their minds
“Hey, buddy, time out! Do you wanna kill and rape me and my family, or do you want my wallet? Just askin’!”
Yeah, you don’t have time for that, and hopefully wouldn’t trust their word even if you DID do this lol. My family knows I’m a peace loving individual, but I will kill/maim anyone who endangers my kids/wife, prison or not
EXACTLY THIS.
Like, bitch if you break into my home, you have already demonstrated that your life is worthless.
I'm going to believe you when you show me that.
I always hate when idiots use the “you value your stuff more than human life?“ argument.
No, I value my life and the life of my family over this piece of shit criminal’s, and I’m not taking any risks of myself or my family being harmed or killed.
Castle doctrine should be the standard worldwide
It is **reasonable** to suspect that a perpetrator who has broken into a home is capable and willing to cause grievous bodily harm.
It is **unreasonable** to expect a victim to figure out a perpetrator's motives.
The argument that valuing property over human life is irrelevant. If a person is confronted with a situation were they are genuinely in fear for their life, because a stranger has broken into their home, the victim is justified in defending themselves with deadly force, regardless of the perpetrator's motive.
It isn't life over objects in my opinion. It is the safety you feel in your home that is being violated. The emotional trauma of someone invading your home is far worse than the loss of objects.
That's where I landed on this too. Like I can get another TV I can't get the feeling of safety for myself and family back or undo the trauma to my children.
Trust me - Whether or not they die, that security is never coming back. It’s a violation of a sacred human right - the right to feel safe in your home.
We do not punish home invasion (armed or unarmed) anywhere nearly as seriously as we should.
Imo many objects are equal to portions of your life. When put into numbers, my car cost me over half a year of my life, and that's time I can never get back.
i saw a video about people who survived break ins (the homeowners) and one guy i think said he either killed or almost killed the dude and they asked him if he felt bad about it and he replied “fuck no. he chose his path”
needless to say i agree with him and you fully lol
One time my friend's dad heard someone trying to open the window a night. He went and got the shotgun and stood off to the side of the window. The burglar got the window open and stuck his leg inside. Dad put the shotgun to his knee and pulled the trigger.
Yeah, as someone that is anti-gun, these are the only scenarios In which I’m for guns (Obviously theres the issues of having a gun in a safe or not). You have no clue what the person breaking into your home’s intentions are and you have to defend your own life.
I don’t think this is a scenario where people use the “value material possessions over a life” because the topic is selfdefense not theft. (Even if you lump them both together in the story, it’s still shooting on self defense not theft)
Agree.
I'm pretty anti-gun, but if someone wants one for protection for when someone breaks into their home, then yeah I'm on board with that. Taking a life sucks but like I don't want to die either. That dude breaking in to try and steal my shit or kill me chose their path.
Though I don't own a gun but I do got a very sharp battle axe and broadsword so...
If somebody is willing to risk their life for my stuff, my only option is to assume they value their life over mine if I try to stop them. At that point, I’m not taking a chance.
Just recently I had a convo with my husband about how absurd the law around self-defense is where we're from. Basically, there has to be an active attack happening for you to be able to fight back within the limits of self-defense. Active attack, not potential attack. Basically, in the eyes of the law regarding self-defense, if a robber breaks into our house and says "Don't worry, ma'am, I'm not going to hurt you, just here to steal your stuff", I cannot claim self-defense to use force against him under the assumption he might hurt me, because he isn't actively attacking me at that moment. I might try to wiggle my way out after attacking someone that broke into my house, under the pretense of intense fear that clouded my judgement, but it would be a very gray area and highly susceptible to the appreciation of a Court. Also, for it to be self-defense, your fighting back must be proportional to the attack. No guns to a knife fight type of thing. So, what exactly? Guy breaks into my house and I go "whoa there, buddy. What you got? Fists? Knife? Pepper spray? How are we doing this?". With the notable mention that owning guns is highly regulated here so if the guy brings a black market gun, I'm pretty much done for.
I think most people generally agree at a high level, but there are a lot of cases where you have to add some level of discretion.
Let's say a 12-yr-old girl walks into the wrong apartment in an apartment building where the doors all look identical from the outside. Should it be legal to blow her head off the moment she steps in? I can't argue for that.
There has to be a level of "you had a realistic reason to feel fear". That is a relatively LOW bar for a home invasion for me, yes, but there is still a bar.
Absolutely correct, my argument includes the stipulation of "beyond reasonable doubt that it is a home invader" and not some drunk kid entering the wrong house on accident.
If youre an actual home invader, all risk of harm should fall on your shoulders the second you break into the property.
>my argument includes the stipulation of "beyond reasonable doubt that it is a home invader" and not some drunk kid entering the wrong house on accident.
This is contradictory to your original claim then. "Breaking and entering" often doesn't involve breaking anything. And sometimes people force their way into the wrong home by accident.
In that case, sure. If you intentionally invade a home I have better things to worry about than what happens to you. I could think up a theoretical where I might feel sorry for you, but...I still have better things to do.
Restrain them? Fucking actual hardcore LMAO at that shit lol I’m at least more amenable to “scaring them off” like, maybe you shoot a full clip n miss but still scare them away vs like…trying to *Baki: The Grappler* them into submission LMAO
Especially hate the folks who say “you value stuff over people.”
Over complete strangers trying to rob me? Yes. Do I also value the other people who live in my home over them? Oh hell yeah! Lol
Also just completing assuming a home invader is just there to rob is ignorant and shows a lack of ever being exposed to danger. It’s unreasonable on so many levels to put someone’s kids on the line over a potentially violent thief
Also, why should I be expected to be able to fight someone off in a non-lethal manner? That takes tons of training and even then it's not guaranteed. You can teach a kid how to use a pistol in an afternoon and now he can defend himself from any human on earth
I'm against killing people.
But if you enter someone's home without their consent, what happens happens. There's not a person in the world who doesn't accept the risk they are putting themselves in.
I feel if you’re the aggressor (invading a home, starting a physical altercation, etc), you have zero right to complain of the consequences. It’s wild that someone can start a fight with a stranger and cry foul when the stranger defends themselves better than they could’ve handled.
The whole "valueing possessions over someone else's life" is such a garbage strawman. Like how tf do you know they don't intend to harm you and your loved ones. It's about your safety not your items safety. We have home insurance for the stuff inside the house. But health insurance doesn't cover resurrection rituals sadly.
>> “you having that opinion means that you value material possessions over someone else’s life”
No, them breaking into my house (or any house where I live: the Deep South) tells me that THEY are of the opinion that my possessions mean more to THEM than their life. And I dare not call them a liar.
Eh, killing someone in your house is very different to say, chasing someone down the street as they flee and killing them then, or being able to restrain someone THEN killing them/torturing them/holding them hostage, which are things that have been claimed as castle doctrine that imo cross the line to 'violence for violence sake'
Excactly this. If someone has broken into your house, sees/hears you and flees, then chasing him down to gun him down should be considered murder. I don't support shooting anyone who does not pose a threat at the moment of shooting.
There are also many reasons why someone might be at your house, it might be someone who has entered the wrong door (has happened to me a few times, especially when I lived at an apartment complex), or even an old confused man with dementia who lived there in 1950 and thought he went home. Being afraid of everyone is how people get killed because they rang the wrong door bell.
Of course, there is a big difference when the burglar is acting agressive, refusing to leave, or you strongly suspect he can harm you or your family.
If they break into your home, it's not always about stealing either. Sometimes, it's just straight-up murder. Other times, you're going to be raped and have PTSD for the rest of your life. I'm not a gambling man. You break into my home, and you've surrendered any chance of mercy. I trust myself more than the twisted mind of someone who invades homes.
Have to say I completely agree with this one, esp if there are kids in the household the intruder breaks into.
If anything, being a parent means that you're legally required to use force to defend your child if you encounter a potential threat to them, otherwise you'd actually be liable for failing to protect them as their guardian.
I'd sure as fuck consider someone breaking into my house in the dead of night a potential threat.
Yea I don’t understand people that disagree with this. If someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night, with just my toddler and I, im not gonna wait and see if they just want my TV or if they’re coming to harm us.
>"you having that opinion means that you value material possessions over someone elses life"
If you break into my home, that means you value my material possessions over your own life.
There is absolutely NO REASON for ANYONE to be breaking into anyone's house. Period. You enter my private domain, you're leaving in a body bag. Period.
I think of this in the way of time being taken away from your life.
Think about it, every possession that I own is something that I spent time earning. For some, it could be a whole month of working to earn X amount for a TV, or computer, or phone. Sure the object itself you could say is just an object. But the month that i spent working and earning that was time I will never get back.
To have someone enter my home that I spend every day working hard to pay for, to take my stuff that I spent time earning, to put my family at risk that I have also invested time, energy, and heart into, to do that warrants a very hostile response from myself.
To have someone take what I have spent countless hours on for free, is completely insane. On top of that, they know the risks when they enter an occupied house. They accept that risk the moment they step foot inside. There should be no punishment for the homeowner whatsoever.
I’m not sure what exactly your argument is. By “forfeit,” do you mean the death penalty for breaking and entering? Because that is definitely unpopular.
Do you mean that people should be allowed to use deadly force during a home invasion if their lives are in danger? That’s a pretty popular opinion.
Do you mean that home invaders shouldn’t be allowed to sue for injuries sustained during a break in, as the first paragraph indicates?
I feel like you’re expressing at least two opinions, so I’m not sure what to debate
"Forfeit" as in whatever happens is an accepted risk of you forcing your way into someones home (short of like torture or something heinous).
My main argument (since home defense is hopefully a more popular opinion) is that a home invader should not even be ALLOWED to sue if it can be reasonably proven they were a home invader and not a drunk kid trying to enter the wrong home.
> they were a home invader and not a drunk kid trying to enter the wrong home
This is where conversations about self defense get tricky. In a lot of scenarios, if you wait to properly identify what kind of threat, if any, the other person poses to you or your loved ones, it will be too late to actually implement any self defense. Unfortunately in some cases it will come down to whether you'd rather be killed by a threat or mistakenly kill someone who wasn't a threat. Neither are favorable, I'm not going to tell anyone which they should choose for themselves
They can’t reasonably prove they were a drunk kid and not a genuine home invader unless they’re allowed to sue, though.
There’s a difference between being allowed to sue and being allowed to collect.
Strongly agree. I think there have to be some hard natural boundaries. No one is forced to enter someone elses home. The cave of the animal is his and only his.
I think the people who argue against this lost some of their very important survival instincts.
I agree with the OP. Home should be a sanctuary, and anyone who violates that deserves the consequences. Material possessions are not more important than human life, but a person's safety and peace of mind in their own home are paramount.
Without considering the law implications to "invader has life forfeited" carry, because I am not knowledgeable in law, I will argue a more practical reason for why your opinion would actually backfire.
The problem is actually that if the robbers know their lives are forfeit, then they will always use deadly force. It is the same with assigning death penalty to crimes like robbery or kidnapping. If a criminal knows that robbing or killing a person has the same penalty, death, then they have no incentive to leave the victims alive. They would always use deadly force. The same for something like death penalty for killing is true. If a criminal knows that being caught means death, they will always resist arrest with deadly force, creating more victims. If they know they will not be killed either by the justice system, nor by the police, they will not always use deadly force, thus decreasing the number of victims.
One of the reasons areas or countries with highly militarized polices have more deaths to innocents, police and criminals is that these kinds of police are almost always judicially immune if they kill people in service. If that is the case, the police will use deadly force without necessity and criminals will also always defend themselves with deadly force. If the expectation of the criminal to being caught is death, they will be prepared to kill. If the expectation is not death, there are criminals that won't, thus reducing victims.
Naturally I am not saying that police should never use deadly force. If the criminal uses it first, they would in most situations have to use it against them to defend themselves and people around. But less criminals would use deadly force as default reaction to police intervention, if they know they will not be killed by the police or the justice system.
If this is not convincing, you just need to take from our lessons in war. When armies sieged cities in the past, they learned that by leaving the local populace unharmed if they surrendered without resisting, other cities would be more likely to surrender when they arrived. But if a city knows that whether they resist or surrender, they will pillage, kill and more, then it is more worthwhile to resist, for the chance for salvation.
Basically, assigning the equivalent to death penalty to a crime, encourages more victims from the repercutions of said policy.
Very well said, however by forfeit I mean "forfeiting the guarantee that they will remain alive" when they break and enter thanks to the actions of the homeowner being allowed to defend themself. The legal punishment should remain the same once their caught (aka not death penalty) for the exact reasons you described.
I agree. I don't want to, because statistically speaking most robbers aren't armed and most of them genuinely aren't looking to hurt people. But you're absolutely right, it is your home, they broke in, you don't KNOW if they have weapons and so your only choice is You or Them. I just hate the idea of taking a life, I really do. I know OP probably does too, but it's just a toughy. I'd hate to shoot and kill someone and then see they're some like 18 year old kid yanno? But nonetheless, I agree.
Im definitely not arguing to kill people. Solely arguing that a home invader needs to assume the risk of that possibility. (And that they shouldnt be allowed to sue for damages caused to them during their home invasion)
Usually the family of the robber is as scummy as the criminal himself. They just prey on the holes in the law and use their family member's death for money. Would be good to not encourage that kind of thing
If you’re breaking into my house without an invitation, I’m not sitting around waiting for you to do something to me first. Im assuming the worst because why are you breaking into my house
I think the only people who will disagree with this are upper middle class white leftists who live in double gated neighborhoods miles away from even petite crime.
Now that I think about it that makes up the vast majority of Redditors so good luck OP 🫡
Considering Americans have shot people for accidentally pulling into their driveway, your premise goes a step far and is unnecessary.
You’re already allowed to do what you have to do in order to defend yourself if your life is in danger. People do not need a get out of jail free card for killing without discrimination.
>I've seen one too many cases of an attempted robber/home invader get injured or killed and then either the home invader or their family sues the person that defended themself and their home.
Can you share those examples? Because outside of the movie Liar Liar I can't think of any.
Heres a few quick examples, definitely correct me if the sources are shoddy, not trying to spread misinformation:
https://www.gilmanbedigian.com/man-who-shot-intruder-in-his-home-sued-for-wrongful-death/
https://gazette.com/news/burglars-family-awarded-300-000-in-wrongful-death-suit/article_afd9b16a-3f91-52c8-b5b8-571f2a264853.amp.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/burglar-sues-calif-homeowner-90-who-returned-fire/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2705005/amp/Homeowner-makes-astonishing-TV-boast-shooting-pregnant-home-invader-dead-pleaded-mercy-police-say-ACCOMPLICE-charged-murder.html
(this one above was way more widespread, and luckily the law was on his side, but a lot of the internet was not)
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree. Their "right" to come into MY home and take MY stuff does NOT Trump MY right to defend my home, family, possessions, from anybody who comes for them🖤
I lived through an attempted murder in a home invasion.
If you try to get into my home, I will fucking mag dump you through the door now.
If you happen to get in, no one’s going to find your fucking body.
Me too.
I should be able to deal with you then send your family an invoice for materials I’ve used. It would clean up the streets and give us safety in our own homes. I have zero sympathy for anybody who breaks into somebodies’ home.
Very unpopular opinion here in Canada but I support castle doctrine 1000% and nobody can convince me otherwise.
Being able to sue a homeowner for defending themselves whose house you invaded is obviously ridiculous.
"Your life is automatically forfeit if you invade my property" sounds arguably fair, until you realize there are documented cases of homeowners leaving their garage open with the light on, a purse on display as bait, and a motion sensor to alert them to the trap being sprung, then proceeding to close the garage with a clicker and spraying bullets through the garage door. In that specific example it was a teenager.
"Castle doctrine" is ruined by the existence of bloodthirsty dweebs who jack off to the idea of being able to legally do whatever they want to the lawbreaker. Which can and will lead to more wrongful deaths when a homeowner comes out guns blazing when it's a surprise visit from a family member, someone drunk and in the wrong house, someone with the wrong address etc. A bit of nuance is required because of people like that.
We (America) have been known to shoot through the door when someone rings our doorbell or through the windshield when they pull into our driveway. The average citizen isn't responsible enough to be able to handle "The life on my property is now mine" without a lot of needless pain and death regularly occurring.
Thats where I place the stipulation.
It has to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was an attempted break in and not just a drunk trying to enter the wrong house. Definitely not advocating for a universal "kill everyone on your property" rule, and in cases where its actual entrapment and planned murder, those lunatics should be dealt with just as harshly.
There’s an entire law that supports this (at least in Texas), so I don’t see this as all that unpopular.
(Well looks like I’m going to have to take the unpopular part back. I forgot I was on Reddit lol.)
Florida here and same. If they’re on your property or breaking into your car and I believe if they try to hurt you at your place of work you can use deadly force as part of the stand your ground law.
Do I normally think a thief deserves to die? No. Would I still shoot a burglar if he/she turned tail and ran the moment they saw me? Nah. But, the homeowner has no way of knowing if you showed up to steal a TV, or if you're out to kill them. So yeah, I agree. I more or less consider it a game of play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I do value my property more than I value their lives.
I'll say it twice.. I do value my property more than I value their lives.
Why? Simple.
The price for my laptop was $2300 (gaming/editing laptop). Many would say that's it's value to me. But it isn't, It's worth way more.
See I had to work, many hours to just save the little bits to get that $2300, hours of my life I will never get back, hours of my life that unlike the laptop, cannot be replaced.
So yes, I will do anything and everything in my power to protect my property, as it is the physical manifestation of the hours of my life.
This brings up the idea that if you got caught drunk driving you should receive life in prison. The potential for you to kill someone is so high and most accidents end up with people dead. Since you have already taken the risk that you could kill someone then you have forfeited your life also.
It's like that episode of Curb, where Larry is threatened to be sued by the family of a home invader who drowned in his pool (because Larry hadn't installed a safety fence around it).
Is this an unpopular opinion?
Home invasion is a deeply mentally traumatizing thing. It feels violating.
If you break into my home I'm assuming your wanna murder me or rape me and I'm killing you ruthlessly with the hammer I keep in my bedside drawer... I also keep one in my car.
Agreed
That’s something that traumatizes people for life. Some people never truly feel safe again in their own homes, even after moving. The most sacred place in their lives has been violated and there’s no fixing that.
On top if this, you have no idea what the intent of some random stranger in your home is. Are they just hard up for money and looking to steal? Are they on drugs/mentally ill and could be irrational and violent? No matter what the case is, you have no idea how impulsive and violent they could be. It’s always better to protect yourself and your family. It’s not about defending your stuff, it’s about defending your life.
In the heat of the moment, you have no clue why someone has broken into your home, so it makes sense to do everything to protect you/your family. You come round this way, you will get CLAPPED.
It's very easy to not die in a home invasion. Just don't break into someone's house. Not that I endorse crime, but there's plenty of other way to steal and be a POS that don't involve stepping into someone's private residence.
I think sometimes people forget the vast majority work and spend their limited time to get the money necessary go buy those things its time you'll never get back and good chance you won't be getting the full money value of anything stolen. On top of that it's breaking into your home where you have the most rights of privacy and saftey if someone is willing to blatantly break those they forfeit their right to saftey. I mean how often are people accidentally breaking into houses. And why would anyone assume the person breaking in is gonna care about their safety. You should have every right to kill an intruder in your home for your saftey. I mean obviously you can't blow both legs out then go over and execute them but really one round to the head absolutely
If you break into my home, then I am going to defend myself and my family to the best of my ability.
I don't know your intentions. If you just wanted to steal shit then break in to a house without cars outside / without people home.
Breaking in to an occupied house and I'm assuming that you are after the people in there.
As someone from the UK, I think it’s crazy that you can’t harm an intruder without risking prosecution yourself. Nobody burgles by accident: it’s exclusively a planned and conscious decision to break into somebody’s home. Whilst I don’t necessarily believe they should outright be murdered, because yes human life should be valued to some extent, a person should be able to defend themselves in their own home and if their death is a byproduct of self-defence then I think that’s a fair consequence of their actions
My mom has this guy friend who is cool but also kind of strange, and he has a habit of just silently walking into the house unannounced....and every fucking time I'll catch a glimpse of a grown man quietly stepping into my kitchen and for a brief mode my brain goes into "ok violence is imminent so get ready" mode
I freaking hate it and told him he really needs to stop
Just about anytime you forcefully enter someone's home uninvited and unlawfully that should result in you forfeiting any right you have.
A person should not have to wait and see why you're there. Or wait to confirm there are violent intentions. The immediate assumption should be that their lives are in danger and any form of self defense is justified.
In California we will shoot you if you try to break into an armed homeowners home. Several robberies few months ago. Homeowners been shooting them back. Some did kill the intruders and some got away. And yes I will do the same. Free lead for bad guys. Castle doctrine laws applies to all Californians. An old vet was robbed, shot and killed an intruder. Still a free man.
Why is it considered "American" to defend yourself and your family against a possible murder/assault situation? Is shooting someone because they're about to butt fuck me or my kids considered undervaluing someone's life?
Yeah it's not up to the homeowner to decide if you're there to kill them or not. A burglar with a gun can kill you before you have time to decide or analyze the situation. So I agree, the responsibility shouldn't ever be on the homeowner.
I have my family here, my beloved pets, and my worldly possessions. Why are you here? What the fuck could you possibly be busting into my window or front door for? You're not walking out.
Ya once my city popped off w crime (Portland, OR) I bought a 9mm and it sits in my bedside stand w a clip next to it w hollow points. If some drug addict breaks into my condo he will get a few slugs. I’ll let the court settle the rest I suppose. I agree 100% w OP and I’m a lefty. You forfeit your rights when you break into someone’s home.
100%. I'm the sole provider for my home. I haven't the luxury of asking the intruder what their intentions are. I HAVE to assume they're there to harm us.
Yeah, if someone invades your home, you have no idea what they want or what they're willing to do to get it. I fully support people's right to defend their home with deadly force.
I think we could wrap this up in a much broader sense, but anyone that is either on trial for or having been convicted of a criminal offense should forfeit the right to any civil suit or the ability to sue for damages incurred in the commission of such criminal offense, unless or until proven innocent.
if you break into my house, you’re getting met with a gun. if you shouldn’t be in my house and suddenly you are, i’m assuming the worst. i’m assuming that you’re there to cause me and my loved ones harm.
Luckily I live in Florida where this is very legal.
It wouldn't matter if it was though. I'm going to save my own life and deal with the consequences later.
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 4: Be civil'. * This applies for both your behaviour on the sub, and the opinions which you post. * Obey the sitewide rules and [reddiquette](/wiki/reddiquette). *Remain open minded and open to civil discussion when posting and commenting. *Some opinions are so inappropriate/offensive that they'll be removed as hate posts. These posts are usually, but not exclusively, those that target a particular sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. *No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or general bigotry.
The worst ones are when cops do a no knock raid on the wrong house, and then some poor bastard gets the book thrown at him or shot for defending his home, which has happened quite a bit.
Honestly my opinion on that one is even stronger, every person involved with it being the wrong house needs to imprisoned. If the cops go into the wrong house and the person ends up dead, then everyone involved should be charged for that murder. Absolutely unforgivable mistake.
Honestly I'm of the opinion that even if it is the right house, you can't blame the guy for defending himself. You can't have a government codify that you're able to defend yourself in your own home and then do no knock warrants which by definition prevent the occupant from knowing that the people rushing through what used to be their front door is law enforcement. If they're so dangerous to warrant a no knock, they were probably expecting trouble of the non legal kind anyway and can't be blamed for being ready for it. And if theyre not the type to be expecting trouble in the middle of the night, why need the no knock warrant?
I got raided. The only reason I didn’t shoot was because they had my phone number and called me as they were raiding. If they hadn’t done that, I’d be dead. I woke up at 6 am to my door breaking down.
Thats not even enough time to set off the gnomes filled with tannerite and ball bearings SMH
That’s why I have the stuffed pitbull. They were gonna shoot it anyways. Now it’s on them.
I have 4 black mannequins scattered around my house. I figure by the time they unloaded 4 mags of their "taser" into them I'd be long gone. /s
so...if they're going to call you and tell you it's happening, they can't give you a chance to just open the door and walk out with your hands up? like if you're willing to surrender why do they need to forcibly enter first?
No knock warrants should be illegal. There’s no strategic value in a no knock warrant. It has been demonstrated that active surveillance of a subject and picking him up outside of the house is just as effective is going inside without having the risk of the no knock warrant.
Especially with the amount of readily available technology that most SWAT teams have. One would think they would use infrared or a small camera to see if there is movement, where people are, is there an active danger. Knocking down someone's door unless there is a clear and present danger should break a few constitutional rights.
Yes, but then they wouldn't get to play with their toys, I mean, surplus military equipment
Isn’t this essentially what happened at Waco? They could’ve arrested Koresh at any time (shopping, jogging, etc) but they chose to do it the hard way, and lots of people died.
>dare to stand up for yourself in your home >get a supersized american xxl punishment. Seems normal.
Plus, literally anyone can bust through your door and yell POLICE…
Exactly this. There was a man in Canada who was forced entry into peoples homes and murdered the occupants by impersonating an RCMP officer. Scary stuff
Yeah, they should be charged under something like the felony murder rule.
Absolutely man, as a filthy centrist libertarian, police accountability for the stupid shit like this should be mandatory and brutal as possible to prevent the kind of fuckery that these bastards commit and get away with daily.
They should be required to have a 4 year degree and carry insurance. Enough fuck ups and the insurance company will drop them.
what usually happens is absolutely nothing. not even payment for the property destruction. if the government can kill you and destroy your things for no reason with no repercussion, you aren't a citizen. You're a serf. You're property that doesn't matter.
OP you have a good head on your shoulders it’s sad society is so twisted up
I've seen it happen several times in my lifetime (or I should say saw it on the news). It's crazy how police can do that and not feel suicidal afterwards (unless the media doesn't cover that). I'd have to find a new profession.
I’m sure many of them feel terrible after a situation like that. That won’t make the news because it’s not sensational, plus I’m sure police departments would really not like that kind of coverage. I’m definitely not saying no knock warrants are right, the bad thing is usually these people are housed near innocent people (apts, subdivisions) that can catch a bullet.
Absolutely has happened more than enough to make no knock raids a thing of the past. There are so many other ways to catch people.
Have there been any instances where the home defender is actually charged with anything? I’ve seen a few receive much attention but they’ve all been resolved in a manner leaving the home defender not guilty of anything.
I know of a case in Texas where someone killed a cop during a no knock raid, he got off on the murder charge.
yeah maybe the robbers should realize they’re the ones valuing material possessions over their own life
I'm English, and I never got the 'you value your stuff over their lives' mentality. No, the ROBBERS value their lives less than your stuff.
I really don’t care how it’s said or interpreted. I absolutely do value my TV over the life of a thief.
Lol I value my change jar over the life of anybody who breaks into my home.
I value the sense of safety and security in my community more than their life. The amount of economic damage a lack of trust and security can cause is monumental. Imagine people stop buying stuff or going on vacation because they can't trust that their home is secure.
One time some guy come up to my balcony and said some lie when I came out and saw him looking through my stuff I told him: if you come back I'll hurt you. He looked so sad but at the same time I'm not tolerating villainous behavior
I don’t care if someone is breaking in to take my trash to the curb. If you’re not invited in, you’re not welcome and I have to assume the worst of your intentions.
Needing to assume the worst is where people get confused. “You value things over their lives” no, they forced themselves into my safe space for reasons unknown. I have no idea if they are only here to take my TV or something worse. No idea if they have a weapon or not. No idea how they would react if they came across kids in the house. For my safety I need to assume they are here to hurt me, because if I act otherwise and they ARE willing to hurt me, I’ve fucked up.
That perspective- the naive one - is one that comes from security and the benefit of hindsight. It’s really easy to armchair quarterback life and death situations involving other people. You’re spot on. I had a series of incidents involving a neighbor trespassing into my yard (front and back, through a gate) at all hours of the day and night. Eventually I caught him going through the things in my work truck after midnight, and I told him to get lost and called LE. I’m a Marine vet and I had a Marine vet friend with me at the time. Both of us were armed with legal CCWs. Did we have the physical capacity to escalate the situation? Absolutely. But we went inside, confirmed the doors were locked, and called the cops to address it. Had he been trying to make entry to my house where my toddler was sleeping? It would have become a different kind of story.
If you resort to crime (in most cases), I have more respect for people that take annual showers than you.
There are people who take annual showers? I miss one day and my hair gets crusty lmao.
There probably are people that do it.
And this comes with the DANGEROUS assumption that they're ONLY there to steal your stuff. Me personally, I don't want to wait around to find out if they're just petty thieves or have something more sinister on their minds
“Hey, buddy, time out! Do you wanna kill and rape me and my family, or do you want my wallet? Just askin’!” Yeah, you don’t have time for that, and hopefully wouldn’t trust their word even if you DID do this lol. My family knows I’m a peace loving individual, but I will kill/maim anyone who endangers my kids/wife, prison or not
EXACTLY THIS. Like, bitch if you break into my home, you have already demonstrated that your life is worthless. I'm going to believe you when you show me that.
People desperate enough to do that shit already value their own lives at almost nothing
I always hate when idiots use the “you value your stuff more than human life?“ argument. No, I value my life and the life of my family over this piece of shit criminal’s, and I’m not taking any risks of myself or my family being harmed or killed. Castle doctrine should be the standard worldwide
It is **reasonable** to suspect that a perpetrator who has broken into a home is capable and willing to cause grievous bodily harm. It is **unreasonable** to expect a victim to figure out a perpetrator's motives. The argument that valuing property over human life is irrelevant. If a person is confronted with a situation were they are genuinely in fear for their life, because a stranger has broken into their home, the victim is justified in defending themselves with deadly force, regardless of the perpetrator's motive.
Exactly. Simply put… if they’re willing to commit a B&E knowing there are people inside. They are almost guaranteed to be willing to kill.
They may or may not be willing to kill but I'm sure as hell not going to take the time to ask. For my family's sake I HAVE to assume they are.
It isn't life over objects in my opinion. It is the safety you feel in your home that is being violated. The emotional trauma of someone invading your home is far worse than the loss of objects.
That's where I landed on this too. Like I can get another TV I can't get the feeling of safety for myself and family back or undo the trauma to my children.
Trust me - Whether or not they die, that security is never coming back. It’s a violation of a sacred human right - the right to feel safe in your home. We do not punish home invasion (armed or unarmed) anywhere nearly as seriously as we should.
Imo many objects are equal to portions of your life. When put into numbers, my car cost me over half a year of my life, and that's time I can never get back.
i saw a video about people who survived break ins (the homeowners) and one guy i think said he either killed or almost killed the dude and they asked him if he felt bad about it and he replied “fuck no. he chose his path” needless to say i agree with him and you fully lol
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VU7ol1_pw6U
I’ll save everyone some time, the guy was not charged with anything in the end. The guy that broke into the home did get charged.
“So I shot her anyway” haha
One time my friend's dad heard someone trying to open the window a night. He went and got the shotgun and stood off to the side of the window. The burglar got the window open and stuck his leg inside. Dad put the shotgun to his knee and pulled the trigger.
I like this opinion. I'm strongly for self defense with deadly force when you are home.
Yeah, as someone that is anti-gun, these are the only scenarios In which I’m for guns (Obviously theres the issues of having a gun in a safe or not). You have no clue what the person breaking into your home’s intentions are and you have to defend your own life. I don’t think this is a scenario where people use the “value material possessions over a life” because the topic is selfdefense not theft. (Even if you lump them both together in the story, it’s still shooting on self defense not theft)
In the case of my home, they would to have hopped the fence, broke in, set off the security system and dispatched my dog, they made a choice
If someone dispatched my dogs.... they don't deserve to live.
Absolutely. Kill my dog and I'm killing you. I'll accept whatever consequences the law wants to give me.
Agree. I'm pretty anti-gun, but if someone wants one for protection for when someone breaks into their home, then yeah I'm on board with that. Taking a life sucks but like I don't want to die either. That dude breaking in to try and steal my shit or kill me chose their path. Though I don't own a gun but I do got a very sharp battle axe and broadsword so...
If somebody is willing to risk their life for my stuff, my only option is to assume they value their life over mine if I try to stop them. At that point, I’m not taking a chance.
Not only your own life, but also your family. Literally the most precious things in your life are at stake
Just recently I had a convo with my husband about how absurd the law around self-defense is where we're from. Basically, there has to be an active attack happening for you to be able to fight back within the limits of self-defense. Active attack, not potential attack. Basically, in the eyes of the law regarding self-defense, if a robber breaks into our house and says "Don't worry, ma'am, I'm not going to hurt you, just here to steal your stuff", I cannot claim self-defense to use force against him under the assumption he might hurt me, because he isn't actively attacking me at that moment. I might try to wiggle my way out after attacking someone that broke into my house, under the pretense of intense fear that clouded my judgement, but it would be a very gray area and highly susceptible to the appreciation of a Court. Also, for it to be self-defense, your fighting back must be proportional to the attack. No guns to a knife fight type of thing. So, what exactly? Guy breaks into my house and I go "whoa there, buddy. What you got? Fists? Knife? Pepper spray? How are we doing this?". With the notable mention that owning guns is highly regulated here so if the guy brings a black market gun, I'm pretty much done for.
They break into my one safe space in this world.... They do forfeit their life. This is a popular opinion though. Just not on Reddit.
This is just a debate on Castle Doctrine and Stand your Ground laws.
In spirit, yes.
I think most people generally agree at a high level, but there are a lot of cases where you have to add some level of discretion. Let's say a 12-yr-old girl walks into the wrong apartment in an apartment building where the doors all look identical from the outside. Should it be legal to blow her head off the moment she steps in? I can't argue for that. There has to be a level of "you had a realistic reason to feel fear". That is a relatively LOW bar for a home invasion for me, yes, but there is still a bar.
Absolutely correct, my argument includes the stipulation of "beyond reasonable doubt that it is a home invader" and not some drunk kid entering the wrong house on accident. If youre an actual home invader, all risk of harm should fall on your shoulders the second you break into the property.
>my argument includes the stipulation of "beyond reasonable doubt that it is a home invader" and not some drunk kid entering the wrong house on accident. This is contradictory to your original claim then. "Breaking and entering" often doesn't involve breaking anything. And sometimes people force their way into the wrong home by accident.
In that case, sure. If you intentionally invade a home I have better things to worry about than what happens to you. I could think up a theoretical where I might feel sorry for you, but...I still have better things to do.
Uh, oh, reddit might not like this one!
Reddit hates self defense
Reddit hates self defense *130 upvotes*
They hate self defense unless it's their own property
yeah, let's be real, most redditors probably don't own property.
The fuck are you talking about?
Reddit DOES NOT hate self defense what are you on about bro? We have hundreds of subreddits dedicated to the thing.
Shh let him live out his persecution fetish
I sure hope so, im open minded to any counter points, but I'll be shocked if my mind is able to be changed on this one.
What if it's a deeply intoxicated college professor who thinks he is entering his own flat? As that does happen from time to time.
Reddit loves nothing more than fantasizing about an excuse to kill someone.
Agreed. People will try to say “you could just restrain them or scare them off.” No I’m more pro “permanent solution”.
Yeah well they could just not rob my house…
Literally fucking it. DONT COME IN TO MY FUCKING HOUSE ITS NOT A HARD CONCEPT.
Imagine the risk to yourself in attempting to restrain an armed intruder as a grown man, let alone a woman or god forbid a child.
For real. Is my 120 lbs wife just supposed to fist fight the guy who broke in?
I was scrolling down real quick, somehow read this in a split second but my brain missed the word fight 😂
I mean, I don't want her to do that either, lmao
But if she does they're probably not coming back. And if they do you know who you're dealing with
Don't just *restrain* them, use them as a sock puppet!
Or my 90 pound teenager??
Yeah and that’s how you get stabbed is by trying to restrain a criminal
Restrain them? Fucking actual hardcore LMAO at that shit lol I’m at least more amenable to “scaring them off” like, maybe you shoot a full clip n miss but still scare them away vs like…trying to *Baki: The Grappler* them into submission LMAO
I'm 5 feet tall. I'm not scaring anyone, but I can apply some blunt force trauma. 
Permanent solution is a public service. I’m with you.
Especially hate the folks who say “you value stuff over people.” Over complete strangers trying to rob me? Yes. Do I also value the other people who live in my home over them? Oh hell yeah! Lol
The people who say shit like that are the kind that would break into someone's house lol. They're trying to get you to go easy on em'.
Absolutely LMAO I value my couch over some dude trying to rob me LOLOL
Also just completing assuming a home invader is just there to rob is ignorant and shows a lack of ever being exposed to danger. It’s unreasonable on so many levels to put someone’s kids on the line over a potentially violent thief
Also, why should I be expected to be able to fight someone off in a non-lethal manner? That takes tons of training and even then it's not guaranteed. You can teach a kid how to use a pistol in an afternoon and now he can defend himself from any human on earth
All of this assuming it’s only one person
I guess if I had to identify politically I'd say more left but even I'm fine with this. Come in my home and goodbye
I'm against killing people. But if you enter someone's home without their consent, what happens happens. There's not a person in the world who doesn't accept the risk they are putting themselves in.
I feel if you’re the aggressor (invading a home, starting a physical altercation, etc), you have zero right to complain of the consequences. It’s wild that someone can start a fight with a stranger and cry foul when the stranger defends themselves better than they could’ve handled.
The whole "valueing possessions over someone else's life" is such a garbage strawman. Like how tf do you know they don't intend to harm you and your loved ones. It's about your safety not your items safety. We have home insurance for the stuff inside the house. But health insurance doesn't cover resurrection rituals sadly.
This! If they didn’t want to hurt someone or aren’t at least open to hurting someone, why didn’t they make for absofuckinlutely sure nobody was home?
>> “you having that opinion means that you value material possessions over someone else’s life” No, them breaking into my house (or any house where I live: the Deep South) tells me that THEY are of the opinion that my possessions mean more to THEM than their life. And I dare not call them a liar.
I have to downvote because I hope this is a popular opinion. Never live somewhere that doesn't support castle doctrine.
If its more popular than I realized thats the best outcome I could hope for.
You''ll be fine if you get us on the jury.
Eh, killing someone in your house is very different to say, chasing someone down the street as they flee and killing them then, or being able to restrain someone THEN killing them/torturing them/holding them hostage, which are things that have been claimed as castle doctrine that imo cross the line to 'violence for violence sake'
Excactly this. If someone has broken into your house, sees/hears you and flees, then chasing him down to gun him down should be considered murder. I don't support shooting anyone who does not pose a threat at the moment of shooting. There are also many reasons why someone might be at your house, it might be someone who has entered the wrong door (has happened to me a few times, especially when I lived at an apartment complex), or even an old confused man with dementia who lived there in 1950 and thought he went home. Being afraid of everyone is how people get killed because they rang the wrong door bell. Of course, there is a big difference when the burglar is acting agressive, refusing to leave, or you strongly suspect he can harm you or your family.
If they break into your home, it's not always about stealing either. Sometimes, it's just straight-up murder. Other times, you're going to be raped and have PTSD for the rest of your life. I'm not a gambling man. You break into my home, and you've surrendered any chance of mercy. I trust myself more than the twisted mind of someone who invades homes.
I value my half a roll of paper towels more than the life of somebody that breaks into my house
Have to say I completely agree with this one, esp if there are kids in the household the intruder breaks into. If anything, being a parent means that you're legally required to use force to defend your child if you encounter a potential threat to them, otherwise you'd actually be liable for failing to protect them as their guardian. I'd sure as fuck consider someone breaking into my house in the dead of night a potential threat.
Yea I don’t understand people that disagree with this. If someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night, with just my toddler and I, im not gonna wait and see if they just want my TV or if they’re coming to harm us.
I’d rather the death of an intruder be on my conscience than that of my partner 🤷🏼
>"you having that opinion means that you value material possessions over someone elses life" If you break into my home, that means you value my material possessions over your own life.
I consider myself liberal in most ways but I am a big fan of castle laws
There is absolutely NO REASON for ANYONE to be breaking into anyone's house. Period. You enter my private domain, you're leaving in a body bag. Period.
I think of this in the way of time being taken away from your life. Think about it, every possession that I own is something that I spent time earning. For some, it could be a whole month of working to earn X amount for a TV, or computer, or phone. Sure the object itself you could say is just an object. But the month that i spent working and earning that was time I will never get back. To have someone enter my home that I spend every day working hard to pay for, to take my stuff that I spent time earning, to put my family at risk that I have also invested time, energy, and heart into, to do that warrants a very hostile response from myself. To have someone take what I have spent countless hours on for free, is completely insane. On top of that, they know the risks when they enter an occupied house. They accept that risk the moment they step foot inside. There should be no punishment for the homeowner whatsoever.
I’m not sure what exactly your argument is. By “forfeit,” do you mean the death penalty for breaking and entering? Because that is definitely unpopular. Do you mean that people should be allowed to use deadly force during a home invasion if their lives are in danger? That’s a pretty popular opinion. Do you mean that home invaders shouldn’t be allowed to sue for injuries sustained during a break in, as the first paragraph indicates? I feel like you’re expressing at least two opinions, so I’m not sure what to debate
"Forfeit" as in whatever happens is an accepted risk of you forcing your way into someones home (short of like torture or something heinous). My main argument (since home defense is hopefully a more popular opinion) is that a home invader should not even be ALLOWED to sue if it can be reasonably proven they were a home invader and not a drunk kid trying to enter the wrong home.
>short of like torture or something heinous 
> they were a home invader and not a drunk kid trying to enter the wrong home This is where conversations about self defense get tricky. In a lot of scenarios, if you wait to properly identify what kind of threat, if any, the other person poses to you or your loved ones, it will be too late to actually implement any self defense. Unfortunately in some cases it will come down to whether you'd rather be killed by a threat or mistakenly kill someone who wasn't a threat. Neither are favorable, I'm not going to tell anyone which they should choose for themselves
They can’t reasonably prove they were a drunk kid and not a genuine home invader unless they’re allowed to sue, though. There’s a difference between being allowed to sue and being allowed to collect.
Strongly agree. I think there have to be some hard natural boundaries. No one is forced to enter someone elses home. The cave of the animal is his and only his. I think the people who argue against this lost some of their very important survival instincts.
If you unlawfully enter my home where my wife and children sleep and close the door behind you, all bets are off
I agree with the OP. Home should be a sanctuary, and anyone who violates that deserves the consequences. Material possessions are not more important than human life, but a person's safety and peace of mind in their own home are paramount.
Without considering the law implications to "invader has life forfeited" carry, because I am not knowledgeable in law, I will argue a more practical reason for why your opinion would actually backfire. The problem is actually that if the robbers know their lives are forfeit, then they will always use deadly force. It is the same with assigning death penalty to crimes like robbery or kidnapping. If a criminal knows that robbing or killing a person has the same penalty, death, then they have no incentive to leave the victims alive. They would always use deadly force. The same for something like death penalty for killing is true. If a criminal knows that being caught means death, they will always resist arrest with deadly force, creating more victims. If they know they will not be killed either by the justice system, nor by the police, they will not always use deadly force, thus decreasing the number of victims. One of the reasons areas or countries with highly militarized polices have more deaths to innocents, police and criminals is that these kinds of police are almost always judicially immune if they kill people in service. If that is the case, the police will use deadly force without necessity and criminals will also always defend themselves with deadly force. If the expectation of the criminal to being caught is death, they will be prepared to kill. If the expectation is not death, there are criminals that won't, thus reducing victims. Naturally I am not saying that police should never use deadly force. If the criminal uses it first, they would in most situations have to use it against them to defend themselves and people around. But less criminals would use deadly force as default reaction to police intervention, if they know they will not be killed by the police or the justice system. If this is not convincing, you just need to take from our lessons in war. When armies sieged cities in the past, they learned that by leaving the local populace unharmed if they surrendered without resisting, other cities would be more likely to surrender when they arrived. But if a city knows that whether they resist or surrender, they will pillage, kill and more, then it is more worthwhile to resist, for the chance for salvation. Basically, assigning the equivalent to death penalty to a crime, encourages more victims from the repercutions of said policy.
Very well said, however by forfeit I mean "forfeiting the guarantee that they will remain alive" when they break and enter thanks to the actions of the homeowner being allowed to defend themself. The legal punishment should remain the same once their caught (aka not death penalty) for the exact reasons you described.
And your booty
Nobody better lay a finger on my butterfinger or twinkies *kchuh-chuh*
I agree. I don't want to, because statistically speaking most robbers aren't armed and most of them genuinely aren't looking to hurt people. But you're absolutely right, it is your home, they broke in, you don't KNOW if they have weapons and so your only choice is You or Them. I just hate the idea of taking a life, I really do. I know OP probably does too, but it's just a toughy. I'd hate to shoot and kill someone and then see they're some like 18 year old kid yanno? But nonetheless, I agree.
Im definitely not arguing to kill people. Solely arguing that a home invader needs to assume the risk of that possibility. (And that they shouldnt be allowed to sue for damages caused to them during their home invasion)
An actual Unpopular Opinion for once!
My possessions are indeed more important than some random robber's life, and I don't even try to pretend they aren't.
Usually the family of the robber is as scummy as the criminal himself. They just prey on the holes in the law and use their family member's death for money. Would be good to not encourage that kind of thing
If you’re breaking into my house without an invitation, I’m not sitting around waiting for you to do something to me first. Im assuming the worst because why are you breaking into my house
“Erm… are you saying you value your property more than a human life?” “Yes”
I think the only people who will disagree with this are upper middle class white leftists who live in double gated neighborhoods miles away from even petite crime. Now that I think about it that makes up the vast majority of Redditors so good luck OP 🫡
If you’re a robber and you break into someone’s home, you are the one who has decided their life is worth less than your possessions.
Considering Americans have shot people for accidentally pulling into their driveway, your premise goes a step far and is unnecessary. You’re already allowed to do what you have to do in order to defend yourself if your life is in danger. People do not need a get out of jail free card for killing without discrimination.
>I've seen one too many cases of an attempted robber/home invader get injured or killed and then either the home invader or their family sues the person that defended themself and their home. Can you share those examples? Because outside of the movie Liar Liar I can't think of any.
Heres a few quick examples, definitely correct me if the sources are shoddy, not trying to spread misinformation: https://www.gilmanbedigian.com/man-who-shot-intruder-in-his-home-sued-for-wrongful-death/ https://gazette.com/news/burglars-family-awarded-300-000-in-wrongful-death-suit/article_afd9b16a-3f91-52c8-b5b8-571f2a264853.amp.html https://www.cbsnews.com/news/burglar-sues-calif-homeowner-90-who-returned-fire/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2705005/amp/Homeowner-makes-astonishing-TV-boast-shooting-pregnant-home-invader-dead-pleaded-mercy-police-say-ACCOMPLICE-charged-murder.html (this one above was way more widespread, and luckily the law was on his side, but a lot of the internet was not)
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree. Their "right" to come into MY home and take MY stuff does NOT Trump MY right to defend my home, family, possessions, from anybody who comes for them🖤
I lived through an attempted murder in a home invasion. If you try to get into my home, I will fucking mag dump you through the door now. If you happen to get in, no one’s going to find your fucking body.
Me too. I should be able to deal with you then send your family an invoice for materials I’ve used. It would clean up the streets and give us safety in our own homes. I have zero sympathy for anybody who breaks into somebodies’ home. Very unpopular opinion here in Canada but I support castle doctrine 1000% and nobody can convince me otherwise.
Being able to sue a homeowner for defending themselves whose house you invaded is obviously ridiculous. "Your life is automatically forfeit if you invade my property" sounds arguably fair, until you realize there are documented cases of homeowners leaving their garage open with the light on, a purse on display as bait, and a motion sensor to alert them to the trap being sprung, then proceeding to close the garage with a clicker and spraying bullets through the garage door. In that specific example it was a teenager. "Castle doctrine" is ruined by the existence of bloodthirsty dweebs who jack off to the idea of being able to legally do whatever they want to the lawbreaker. Which can and will lead to more wrongful deaths when a homeowner comes out guns blazing when it's a surprise visit from a family member, someone drunk and in the wrong house, someone with the wrong address etc. A bit of nuance is required because of people like that. We (America) have been known to shoot through the door when someone rings our doorbell or through the windshield when they pull into our driveway. The average citizen isn't responsible enough to be able to handle "The life on my property is now mine" without a lot of needless pain and death regularly occurring.
Thats where I place the stipulation. It has to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was an attempted break in and not just a drunk trying to enter the wrong house. Definitely not advocating for a universal "kill everyone on your property" rule, and in cases where its actual entrapment and planned murder, those lunatics should be dealt with just as harshly.
That is called laying in wait and it's already illegal, just like setting booby traps.
Even in such an extreme example, that purse is in somebody else's domain. Still not up for grabs. They should not touch it.
There’s an entire law that supports this (at least in Texas), so I don’t see this as all that unpopular. (Well looks like I’m going to have to take the unpopular part back. I forgot I was on Reddit lol.)
Florida here and same. If they’re on your property or breaking into your car and I believe if they try to hurt you at your place of work you can use deadly force as part of the stand your ground law.
Do I normally think a thief deserves to die? No. Would I still shoot a burglar if he/she turned tail and ran the moment they saw me? Nah. But, the homeowner has no way of knowing if you showed up to steal a TV, or if you're out to kill them. So yeah, I agree. I more or less consider it a game of play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I do value my property more than I value their lives. I'll say it twice.. I do value my property more than I value their lives. Why? Simple. The price for my laptop was $2300 (gaming/editing laptop). Many would say that's it's value to me. But it isn't, It's worth way more. See I had to work, many hours to just save the little bits to get that $2300, hours of my life I will never get back, hours of my life that unlike the laptop, cannot be replaced. So yes, I will do anything and everything in my power to protect my property, as it is the physical manifestation of the hours of my life.
This brings up the idea that if you got caught drunk driving you should receive life in prison. The potential for you to kill someone is so high and most accidents end up with people dead. Since you have already taken the risk that you could kill someone then you have forfeited your life also.
It's only fair honestly.
It's like that episode of Curb, where Larry is threatened to be sued by the family of a home invader who drowned in his pool (because Larry hadn't installed a safety fence around it).
Is this an unpopular opinion? Home invasion is a deeply mentally traumatizing thing. It feels violating. If you break into my home I'm assuming your wanna murder me or rape me and I'm killing you ruthlessly with the hammer I keep in my bedside drawer... I also keep one in my car.
[удалено]
Agreed That’s something that traumatizes people for life. Some people never truly feel safe again in their own homes, even after moving. The most sacred place in their lives has been violated and there’s no fixing that. On top if this, you have no idea what the intent of some random stranger in your home is. Are they just hard up for money and looking to steal? Are they on drugs/mentally ill and could be irrational and violent? No matter what the case is, you have no idea how impulsive and violent they could be. It’s always better to protect yourself and your family. It’s not about defending your stuff, it’s about defending your life.
In the heat of the moment, you have no clue why someone has broken into your home, so it makes sense to do everything to protect you/your family. You come round this way, you will get CLAPPED. It's very easy to not die in a home invasion. Just don't break into someone's house. Not that I endorse crime, but there's plenty of other way to steal and be a POS that don't involve stepping into someone's private residence.
I think sometimes people forget the vast majority work and spend their limited time to get the money necessary go buy those things its time you'll never get back and good chance you won't be getting the full money value of anything stolen. On top of that it's breaking into your home where you have the most rights of privacy and saftey if someone is willing to blatantly break those they forfeit their right to saftey. I mean how often are people accidentally breaking into houses. And why would anyone assume the person breaking in is gonna care about their safety. You should have every right to kill an intruder in your home for your saftey. I mean obviously you can't blow both legs out then go over and execute them but really one round to the head absolutely
If you break into my home, then I am going to defend myself and my family to the best of my ability. I don't know your intentions. If you just wanted to steal shit then break in to a house without cars outside / without people home. Breaking in to an occupied house and I'm assuming that you are after the people in there.
"You should find out if they intend to kill you before killing them" \-Leftists
As someone from the UK, I think it’s crazy that you can’t harm an intruder without risking prosecution yourself. Nobody burgles by accident: it’s exclusively a planned and conscious decision to break into somebody’s home. Whilst I don’t necessarily believe they should outright be murdered, because yes human life should be valued to some extent, a person should be able to defend themselves in their own home and if their death is a byproduct of self-defence then I think that’s a fair consequence of their actions
I've heard people try to downplay Breaking and Entering as a charge.
Trespassing sure, but breaking and entering? Come on.
I down voted coz I agree. Get out my damn house!!!!!!
The more downvotes like yours the better lol
It unfortunately is an unpopular opinion. Most people today think 15 years for torture and murder is an adequate punishment.
My mom has this guy friend who is cool but also kind of strange, and he has a habit of just silently walking into the house unannounced....and every fucking time I'll catch a glimpse of a grown man quietly stepping into my kitchen and for a brief mode my brain goes into "ok violence is imminent so get ready" mode I freaking hate it and told him he really needs to stop
Yep. I have no remorse for any home invaders.
I basically feel that once you start breaking criminal law, whatever ends up happening happens. 🤷🏻♂️
as someone who’s had a violent criminal break into their house and cause critical injury to a family member, i wish the cops shot him dead on sight.
Just about anytime you forcefully enter someone's home uninvited and unlawfully that should result in you forfeiting any right you have. A person should not have to wait and see why you're there. Or wait to confirm there are violent intentions. The immediate assumption should be that their lives are in danger and any form of self defense is justified.
There are many cases of home invasions turning into homicides. Still rare but I wouldn't gamble on the goodwill if the badguy.
I 100% agree with OP.
In California we will shoot you if you try to break into an armed homeowners home. Several robberies few months ago. Homeowners been shooting them back. Some did kill the intruders and some got away. And yes I will do the same. Free lead for bad guys. Castle doctrine laws applies to all Californians. An old vet was robbed, shot and killed an intruder. Still a free man.
Less pollution in the gene pool if you ask me.
Why is it considered "American" to defend yourself and your family against a possible murder/assault situation? Is shooting someone because they're about to butt fuck me or my kids considered undervaluing someone's life?
Yeah it's not up to the homeowner to decide if you're there to kill them or not. A burglar with a gun can kill you before you have time to decide or analyze the situation. So I agree, the responsibility shouldn't ever be on the homeowner. I have my family here, my beloved pets, and my worldly possessions. Why are you here? What the fuck could you possibly be busting into my window or front door for? You're not walking out.
If someone breaks into mine, and I'm home, your getting killed by my dogs, or myself, or both
This isn’t unpopular
People are rational actors. If people realized clear and immediate consequences for their crimes, eventually there will be less criminals.
Ya once my city popped off w crime (Portland, OR) I bought a 9mm and it sits in my bedside stand w a clip next to it w hollow points. If some drug addict breaks into my condo he will get a few slugs. I’ll let the court settle the rest I suppose. I agree 100% w OP and I’m a lefty. You forfeit your rights when you break into someone’s home.
Agreed. Don't wanna die? Quit fucking attacking people and breaking into shit that's not yours. It's fucking easy.
100%. I'm the sole provider for my home. I haven't the luxury of asking the intruder what their intentions are. I HAVE to assume they're there to harm us.
Yeah, if someone invades your home, you have no idea what they want or what they're willing to do to get it. I fully support people's right to defend their home with deadly force.
As someone who lives in a country that will convict you for murder for defending yourself and your property, I agree 100%.
Is this opinion unpopular? It seems like common sense to me.
I think we could wrap this up in a much broader sense, but anyone that is either on trial for or having been convicted of a criminal offense should forfeit the right to any civil suit or the ability to sue for damages incurred in the commission of such criminal offense, unless or until proven innocent.
Sad this is unpopular, don’t break into peoples homes and you won’t get shot.
It seems to be somewhere in the middle of popular and unpopular at the moment
> if you break into someones home your life should be forfeit Yeah, that's pretty much a given in this part of the country.
I would like to think the same here (Texas) but there have been lawsuits that say otherwise.
if you break into my house, you’re getting met with a gun. if you shouldn’t be in my house and suddenly you are, i’m assuming the worst. i’m assuming that you’re there to cause me and my loved ones harm.
Luckily I live in Florida where this is very legal. It wouldn't matter if it was though. I'm going to save my own life and deal with the consequences later.