Bangkok burglar picks the wrong house to rob as off duty cop shoots him dead

[Bluespunk]

Whether it`s the law or against the law, if someone is breaking into your home then that means your life is at risk. No one is going to approach a burglar and ask, excuse me sir, are you armed?

If it were me, I would act first on my instincts and I think most of us would.

If, if, if...

No ones life was at risk after the first shot. That in itself was probably one shot too many. This was a man riddled by bullets by a cop with no self control. He is a lot more dangerous than the man he killed ever was.

[Yunla]

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

Ghandhi

It is a good quote, but I wonder how to apply it to this particular situation.

Example, you have four kids and wife asleep, the home invader is high as a kite on drugs and is also, for the sake of argument, a violent person who likes to injure or kill people during burglaries.

Should we quote Gandhi at him, and plead with him to just steal the DVD player and the jewellery, and not hurt our family.

How much good work will your happy and well-educated children do, when they are adults. Maybe they will be doctors, firemen. Maybe discover a cure for a disease that previously killed millions. Your children can bring so much "permanent good" [to paraphrase the Gandhi quote] to the world in the future. Is it not more important to protect them by any means?

I am an anti-war campaigner, and believe in peaceful everythings, lol. But I believe in protecting homes, and also I believe in armies defending the home nation. This is not the same as an army waging wars abroad, the same way as defending your family at home is not the same as attacking people in the street.

[Bluespunk]

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

Ghandhi

It is a good quote, but I wonder how to apply it to this particular situation.

Example, you have four kids and wife asleep, the home invader is high as a kite on drugs and is also, for the sake of argument, a violent person who likes to injure or kill people during burglaries.

Should we quote Gandhi at him, and plead with him to just steal the DVD player and the jewellery, and not hurt our family.

How much good work will your happy and well-educated children do, when they are adults. Maybe they will be doctors, firemen. Maybe discover a cure for a disease that previously killed millions. Your children can bring so much "permanent good" [to paraphrase the Gandhi quote] to the world in the future. Is it not more important to protect them by any means?

I am an anti-war campaigner, and believe in peaceful everythings, lol. But I believe in protecting homes, and also I believe in armies defending the home nation. This is not the same as an army waging wars abroad, the same way as defending your family at home is not the same as attacking people in the street.

I used it only as a counter to those posts being made that seemed to imply this man deserved to die. I find such 18th century non thinking quite nauseating.

I don't really feel sorry for the burglar in that he probably wasn't a nice person but the cop who killed him overreacted.

[D3030]

'could face charges of killing with intent'

'riddled with bullets lying in a pool of blood' and 'I shot at him until he fell down"

now if someone is burglarizing your house, aren't you allowed to protect yourself & your property ???

also, riddled with bullets means many bullets were fired ..... not exactly 'I shot at him' ???

Short answer NO YOUR NOT, well in civilised countries anyway. You can only kill someone if you have a genuine fear you life is in danger, the courts would also take into account whether you could free e.g he's coming in a window and you could reasonably escape danger by going through the front door.

I guess if he said "I" was sleeping -- but he said "WE" were sleeping"..

You expect a cop with a gun to run like a little bitch with his family still in the house?

Even if he was alone, it was justifiable homicide..

[Bluespunk]

'could face charges of killing with intent'

'riddled with bullets lying in a pool of blood' and 'I shot at him until he fell down"

now if someone is burglarizing your house, aren't you allowed to protect yourself & your property ???

also, riddled with bullets means many bullets were fired ..... not exactly 'I shot at him' ???

Short answer NO YOUR NOT, well in civilised countries anyway. You can only kill someone if you have a genuine fear you life is in danger, the courts would also take into account whether you could free e.g he's coming in a window and you could reasonably escape danger by going through the front door.

I guess if he said "I" was sleeping -- but he said "WE" were sleeping"..

You expect a cop with a gun to run like a little bitch with his family still in the house?

Even if he was alone, it was justifiable homicide..

Let's let the courts decide that, eh.

I don't see this as justifiable homicide but then again I don't know what really happened.

And neither do you.

[D3030]

'could face charges of killing with intent'

'riddled with bullets lying in a pool of blood' and 'I shot at him until he fell down"

now if someone is burglarizing your house, aren't you allowed to protect yourself & your property ???

also, riddled with bullets means many bullets were fired ..... not exactly 'I shot at him' ???

Short answer NO YOUR NOT, well in civilised countries anyway. You can only kill someone if you have a genuine fear you life is in danger, the courts would also take into account whether you could free e.g he's coming in a window and you could reasonably escape danger by going through the front door.

I guess if he said "I" was sleeping -- but he said "WE" were sleeping"..

You expect a cop with a gun to run like a little bitch with his family still in the house?

Even if he was alone, it was justifiable homicide..

Let's let the courts decide that, eh.

I don't see this as justifiable homicide but then again I don't know what really happened.

And neither do you.

Sure I do... He shot a man breaking into his house.. End of story..

No charges.... No trial... Mission complete.. One dead burglar!! Never to break into another house Again!!

[Bluespunk]

Ah the voice of the vigilante.

This is why we need law and order not the rule of the gun.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Bluespunk

[D3030]

Ah the voice of the vigilante.

This is why we need law and order not the rule of the gun.

Requires both..

* Laws to keep people from running a muck..

* Guns for use in this particular situation..

[Hiyaall]

Ah the voice of the vigilante.

This is why we need law and order not the rule of the gun.

Law and order is kept at the rule of a gun. It's always been that way wether it was a sword or a bow. The best way to ensure a civilized society is to create a Mexican standoff of emense proportions. Human beings are built on incentives on average no matter which way you spin it. The reason people commit violence on each other is because they feel they have something to gain. Heat of the moment violence or risk takeing violence cannot be mitigated away with legal punishments only imeadiate consequences can deal with moment to moment violence. Every peacfull person should have a duty to be well armed and well trained and encouraged to keep peace. The police mostly only mop up problems its up to the individual to ensure himself and others are safe as violence unfolds. Edited March 27, 2016 by Hiyaall

[Bluespunk]

Ah the voice of the vigilante.

This is why we need law and order not the rule of the gun.

Law and order is kept at the rule of a gun. It's always been that way wether it was a sword or a bow. The best way to ensure a civilized society is to create a Mexican standoff of emense proportions. Human beings are built on incentives on average no matter which way you spin it. The reason people commit violence on each other is because they feel they have something to gain. Heat of the moment violence or risk takeing violence cannot be mitigated away with legal punishments only imeadiate consequences can deal with moment to moment violence. Every peacfull person should have a duty to be well armed and well trained and encouraged to keep peace. The police mostly only mop up problems its up to the individual to ensure himself and others are safe as violence unfolds.

Cuckoo cuckoo

[Bluespunk]

Ah the voice of the vigilante.

This is why we need law and order not the rule of the gun.

Requires both..

* Laws to keep people from running a muck..

* Guns for use in this particular situation..

Emptying your gun into someone is running a muck.

[Hiyaall]

Ah the voice of the vigilante.

This is why we need law and order not the rule of the gun.

Law and order is kept at the rule of a gun. It's always been that way wether it was a sword or a bow. The best way to ensure a civilized society is to create a Mexican standoff of emense proportions. Human beings are built on incentives on average no matter which way you spin it. The reason people commit violence on each other is because they feel they have something to gain. Heat of the moment violence or risk takeing violence cannot be mitigated away with legal punishments only imeadiate consequences can deal with moment to moment violence. Every peacfull person should have a duty to be well armed and well trained and encouraged to keep peace. The police mostly only mop up problems its up to the individual to ensure himself and others are safe as violence unfolds.

Cuckoo cuckoo

Denying human nature will not make it go away. If you want peace, human nature must be mitigated not tugged on by heart strings.

[Bluespunk]

Utter nonsense.

I have lived as an adult for over thirty years and I been in what would be considered dangerous or bad situations a number of times, not once would having a gun would make the situation better.

Quite the reverse in fact.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Bluespunk

[Hiyaall]

Ah the voice of the vigilante.

This is why we need law and order not the rule of the gun.

Requires both..

* Laws to keep people from running a muck..

* Guns for use in this particular situation..

Emptying your gun into someone is running a muck.

Incorrect. A gun serves two purposes. To deter and then to destroy. Hopefully the first one. Once the trigger is pulled its sole purpose is to destroy. Any gun owner, military or police officer with proper training will tell you this. There is no in between. A gun is an instrument of death, not torture or maiming. A good way to get shot is to shoot somone in the leg. Split seconds is all it takes and you are the one dead. Once you start shooting you must keep your focus and your target must not be moving. Edited March 27, 2016 by Hiyaall

[Hiyaall]

Utter nonsense.

Get a masters degree in economics and come back and say that. Detailed research has been performed in psycology and game theory that shows without a doubt how the bell curve of people respond to insentives.

[Bluespunk]

Ah the voice of the vigilante.

This is why we need law and order not the rule of the gun.

Requires both..

* Laws to keep people from running a muck..

* Guns for use in this particular situation..

Emptying your gun into someone is running a muck.

Incorrect. A gun serves two purposes. To deter and then to destroy. Hopefully the first one. Once the trigger is pulled its sole purpose is to destroy. Any gun owner, military or police officer with proper training will tell you this. There is no in between. A gun is an instrument of death, not torture or maiming. A good way to get shot is to shoot somone in the leg. Split seconds is all it takes and you are the one dead. Once you start shooting you must keep your focus and your target must not be moving.

Cuckoo cuckoo.

[Hiyaall]

Utter nonsense.

I have lived as an adult for over thirty years and I been in what would be considered a dangerous or bad situations a number of times, not once would having a gun would make the situation better.

Quite the reverse in fact b

You are one sample in billions and personal anecdotes do not play into rational thought.

[Hiyaall]

Ah the voice of the vigilante.

This is why we need law and order not the rule of the gun.

Requires both..

* Laws to keep people from running a muck..

* Guns for use in this particular situation..

Emptying your gun into someone is running a muck.

Incorrect. A gun serves two purposes. To deter and then to destroy. Hopefully the first one. Once the trigger is pulled its sole purpose is to destroy. Any gun owner, military or police officer with proper training will tell you this. There is no in between. A gun is an instrument of death, not torture or maiming. A good way to get shot is to shoot somone in the leg. Split seconds is all it takes and you are the one dead. Once you start shooting you must keep your focus and your target must not be moving.

Cuckoo cuckoo.

Standard training.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Hiyaall

[Bluespunk]

Utter nonsense.

Get a masters degree in economics and come back and say that. Detailed research has been performed in psycology and game theory that shows without a doubt how the bell curve of people respond to insentives.

Might want to get to know people a bit better before trying to make out a masters makes you an expert on life.

[Hiyaall]

Utter nonsense.

Get a masters degree in economics and come back and say that. Detailed research has been performed in psycology and game theory that shows without a doubt how the bell curve of people respond to insentives.

Might want to get to know people a bit better before trying to make out a masters makes you an expert on life.

Not on life but on peer reviewed analysis of human behavior over many thousands of experiments and peer reviewed analysis. You know science... That thing that sent us to the moon. Edited March 27, 2016 by Hiyaall

[Bluespunk]

"Just because something isn't a lie does not mean that it isn't deceptive. A liar knows that he is a liar, but one who speaks mere portions of truth in order to deceive is a craftsman of destruction."

Criss Jami

[Hiyaall]

"Just because something isn't a lie does not mean that it isn't deceptive. A liar knows that he is a liar, but one who speaks mere portions of truth in order to deceive is a craftsman of destruction."

Criss Jami

I'm not trying to deceive anyone. I'm sorry you feel that way. I want peacfull societies as much as anyone else. Research does not support your approach. Humans don't have it in us on large scales to create peacfull societies without the threat of retaliation and immediate consequences. Our brains are not built to factor in low risk high consequence events. This leads to various kinds of dangerous risk taking including violence, rape, murder, theft.... Etc etc when people think they can get away with it. Just imagine for a second what the world would look like if only the US retained the the power of the atomic weapon and no other countries had it. A very good book you should read is "Obidence to Authority". An eye opener into human nature and evolutionary psycology. Edited March 27, 2016 by Hiyaall

[Bluespunk]

Not buying what you're selling, sorry.

Functioning, impartial legal systems are required for a peaceful society, not armed citizens.

In this case the cop involved overreacted and is clearly lacking in self control. He worries more than any burglar because not only he is empowered to use a weapon but has a badge/uniform to hide behind when he uses it inappropriately.

[Hiyaall]

Not buying what you're selling, sorry.

Functioning, impartial legal systems are required for a peaceful society, not armed citizens.

In this case the cop involved overreacted and is clearly lacking in self control. He worries more than any burglar because not only he is empowered to use a weapon but has a badge/uniform to hide behind when he uses it inappropriately.

He is not out of control if he was trained that way. But yes good legal systems are definantly part of the equation. Also very strong cultural memes are even more effective ( look at Japan), economic security, and health care aswell. But judicial systems are only effective for deturing crimes based on rational thought. Irrational crimes of passion or simple lak of thinking or education cannot be detured by any judicial system. They can only act after the fact and non of it would have ever made a difference. The only way to stop somone from hurting you is to be as prepared as possible. It's no different than putting on your seat belt. Edited March 27, 2016 by Hiyaall

[Bluespunk]

Again I disagree. Emptying his gun into the man was completely out of control.

I've already made it clear that I absolutely disagree society will be more peaceful if it's citizens are all armed.

It would be utter chaos.

This is my last on this as we clearly disagree and are just going round in circles. Respond as you will or wish.

[Hiyaall]

A guy comeing through your window who might be armed is not the time to be fumbling in your mind about looking for a weapon. I do agree with one thing though. He should not have emptied the magazine. There might have been another one comeing through another window.

[Hiyaall]

Again I disagree. Emptying his gun into the man was completely out of control.

I've already made it clear that I absolutely disagree society will be more peaceful if it's citizens are all armed.

It would be utter chaos.

This is my last on this as we clearly disagree and are just going round in circles. Respond as you will or wish.

Indeed we will disagree to disagree. But I know for a fact gun owners are trained to kill with weapons never to mame and police officers are trained to shoot on a dime for good or I'll. Don't have fault with him. Have fault with his trainers and work on changing trainig policy if you think you have a good enough argument. The poor guy should not go to prison for doing exactly what he was trained to do. Policy governing everyone should be based on hard facts, research, and statistical analysis, not feel good emotions or how people think things "should" be. Our brains only have a limited capacity to understand the reality around us. That's why we need academics and education to give us more complete pictures and we can make better decisions on governance based on actual facts and not individual perspective. Take care.

[suzannegoh]

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

Ghandhi

It is a good quote, but I wonder how to apply it to this particular situation.

Example, you have four kids and wife asleep, the home invader is high as a kite on drugs and is also, for the sake of argument, a violent person who likes to injure or kill people during burglaries.

Should we quote Gandhi at him, and plead with him to just steal the DVD player and the jewellery, and not hurt our family.

How much good work will your happy and well-educated children do, when they are adults. Maybe they will be doctors, firemen. Maybe discover a cure for a disease that previously killed millions. Your children can bring so much "permanent good" [to paraphrase the Gandhi quote] to the world in the future. Is it not more important to protect them by any means?

I am an anti-war campaigner, and believe in peaceful everythings, lol. But I believe in protecting homes, and also I believe in armies defending the home nation. This is not the same as an army waging wars abroad, the same way as defending your family at home is not the same as attacking people in the street.

I used it only as a counter to those posts being made that seemed to imply this man deserved to die. I find such 18th century non thinking quite nauseating.

I don't really feel sorry for the burglar in that he probably wasn't a nice person but the cop who killed him overreacted.

A cop might have less of an excuse because cops are trained to handle such situations. But I can tell you from firsthand experience that it is an absolutely terrifying experience when you encounter a burglar in hour house in the middle of the night. To expect any one to carefully meter their response is absolutely absurd.

[Bluespunk]

He was outside.

That said:

At no time have I defended the man killed. My point is that the cop involved overreacted. He emptied his gun into a man. He showed no judgement or self control.

Maybe it's just me but I really don't want people like that carrying guns they are legally empowered to use.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Bluespunk

[Hiyaall]

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

Ghandhi

It is a good quote, but I wonder how to apply it to this particular situation.

Example, you have four kids and wife asleep, the home invader is high as a kite on drugs and is also, for the sake of argument, a violent person who likes to injure or kill people during burglaries.

Should we quote Gandhi at him, and plead with him to just steal the DVD player and the jewellery, and not hurt our family.

How much good work will your happy and well-educated children do, when they are adults. Maybe they will be doctors, firemen. Maybe discover a cure for a disease that previously killed millions. Your children can bring so much "permanent good" [to paraphrase the Gandhi quote] to the world in the future. Is it not more important to protect them by any means?

I am an anti-war campaigner, and believe in peaceful everythings, lol. But I believe in protecting homes, and also I believe in armies defending the home nation. This is not the same as an army waging wars abroad, the same way as defending your family at home is not the same as attacking people in the street.

I used it only as a counter to those posts being made that seemed to imply this man deserved to die. I find such 18th century non thinking quite nauseating.

I don't really feel sorry for the burglar in that he probably wasn't a nice person but the cop who killed him overreacted.

A cop might have less of an excuse because cops are trained to handle such situations. But I can tell you from firsthand experience that it is an absolutely terrifying experience when you encounter a burglar in hour house in the middle of the night. To expect any one to carefully meter their response is absolutely absurd.

Police and security personal are trained to deal with threats in a much more precise and deadly fashion. A police officer that was frightened and felt threatened would have a much faster, instinctual and deadly reaction than a layman. In fact they think about it everyday. Wether it's the best aproach to train them like that is debatable, but he cannot be faulted by his governemnet ment that trained him to react like that. If Thai police are trained anything like ours all the guy had to do was twitch in a situation like that. When you are threatened there is no time for internal debate.