Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Esmeralda]

The basic problem with that is this: by definition one cannot be "threatened" by the unknown. If one feels threatened in that case, then that threat can only be coming from within, meaning you're being threatened by your own imagination.

This is one of the most patently stupid comments I've ever heard. When you feel resistance, stop pushing in the Q-tip. Try that and we'll work from there.

And you wonder why you're a ding bat!

LOL It's just way over MH's head.

Originally Posted by Pogo View Post
The basic problem with that is this: by definition one cannot be "threatened" by the unknown. If one feels threatened in that case, then that threat can only be coming from within, meaning you're being threatened by your own imagination.

This is the main theme of LORD OF THE FLIES. The boys feel frightented but they have nothing to be frightened of, so they create, as a group belief, the BEAST. And they begin to act more and more like primitives in order to kill the beast, which doesn't exist. They begin killing each other. They turn into primitives. It's a perfect point, Pogo, because that is what those do who think a gun is needed to survive in modern society: they feel threatened and frightened, so they create, out of their collective imagination, a BEAST. The shooting instances like this one are their desire to kill the beast. They turn on other humans, just like the boys did in LORD OF THE FLIES.

 

[Pogo]

The basic problem with that is this: by definition one cannot be "threatened" by the unknown. If one feels threatened in that case, then that threat can only be coming from within, meaning you're being threatened by your own imagination.

This is one of the most patently stupid comments I've ever heard. When you feel resistance, stop pushing in the Q-tip. Try that and we'll work from there.

And you wonder why you're a ding bat!

LOL It's just way over MH's head.

Yup. "A poor workman blames his tools".

Originally Posted by Pogo View Post
The basic problem with that is this: by definition one cannot be "threatened" by the unknown. If one feels threatened in that case, then that threat can only be coming from within, meaning you're being threatened by your own imagination.

This is the main theme of LORD OF THE FLIES. The boys feel frightented but they have nothing to be frightened of, so they create, as a group belief, the BEAST. And they begin to act more and more like primitives in order to kill the beast, which doesn't exist. They begin killing each other. They turn into primitives. It's a perfect point, Pogo, because that is what those do who think a gun is needed to survive in modern society: they feel threatened and frightened, so they create, out of their collective imagination, a BEAST. The shooting instances like this one are their desire to kill the beast. They turn on other humans, just like the boys did in LORD OF THE FLIES.

Exactly, a classical version of a story told many times over. My earlier reference was to "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street", a Twilight Zone episode from the A-bomb paranoia era where some aliens land outside a town and proceed to disable all the electrical devices -- the townspeople come out, at first united in a common search for solutions, but soon start turning on each other in suspicion. One guy who walked to the next town to get help (because cars wouldn't work) comes back, they hear a noise, can't see who it is, and shoot him dead in the street. Again, shooting at their own imagination. By the end of the story the entire town is engulfed in riots, burning each other's houses down and fighting in the street --- all because of their own imaginations. "Threats" that do not exist.

In Serling's famous closing quote he intones:
"The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs, and explosions, and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy; and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own for the children, and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is, that these things cannot be confined to the Twilight Zone.”

The purpose of these stories, in whatever form, is as a moral compass; allegories to guide us collectively as a species from those internal primitive instincts with which we would destroy ourselves. Artists keep reminding us. We keep ignoring.

 

[Meathead]

The basic problem with that is this: by definition one cannot be "threatened" by the unknown. If one feels threatened in that case, then that threat can only be coming from within, meaning you're being threatened by your own imagination.

This is one of the most patently stupid comments I've ever heard. When you feel resistance, stop pushing in the Q-tip. Try that and we'll work from there.

And you wonder why you're a ding bat!

LOL It's just way over MH's head.

You're even more simple-minded, with all "you're threatening to kill me" hyperbole. If you're in your house and hear someone else (unknown) who you know shouldn't be there and you don't feel threatened you probably shouldn't reproduce. There are far too many idiots in the world already, and intellect, like instinct, is hereditary.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The basic problem with that is this: by definition one cannot be "threatened" by the unknown. If one feels threatened in that case, then that threat can only be coming from within, meaning you're being threatened by your own imagination.

This is one of the most patently stupid comments I've ever heard. When you feel resistance, stop pushing in the Q-tip. Try that and we'll work from there.

And you wonder why you're a ding bat!

Well Pogo is using a well known scientific fact that cats of prey, criminals that prey on human beings and just carnivores of various kinds NEVER use the darkness as concealment. Why would they? What advantage could it possibly give them?

/libtard thinking process aborted

Thus you see how a libtard thinks, and how they know in their heart of hearts that the world is not full of beasts with red tooth and bloody claw, no, all the animals of the world want to have people pet them and feed them sugar cubes. Criminals they see the same way; just being ole lovable but misunderstood people who would be the nicest huggable nice guys if we would just take the time to understand them.

The reality of course is that criminals are hardened if they have had much prison time. Most are desperate to never go back.

I had some friends back in the 80's after I got out of the Army who wanted me to go with them to get their stuff out of their current domicile. IT seems that they had been staying at this big house that had like about 8 bedrooms and they each rented a room. Some guy the night before came in while they were playing cards with this gay black guy that the entering man did not like for whatever reason. The entering man was a big brutal hardened criminal and the gay guy liked to 'push his buttons'. The gay guy said 'hi' to the dude, and the criminal said, 'Shut the fuck up! I told you to never talk to me you faggot!'

The gay guy laughed and said, 'Oh, fuck you...' when the criminal then grabbed the man by his throat and dragged him into a corner where he pulled out a boot knife and started stabbing the man till he stopped moving. My friends were like 18 yo and they fled the place, had not yet returned and were still shaking as they told me what happened. The dude got away and the last I knew he was still not yet found.

I remember the one guy asking me, 'How could he do something like that?'

I said, 'The same way a bear could, or just about any other animal. Instinct took over and he did what he thought he had to do to protect his reputation and in effect himself.'

But in the libtard universe such people do not exist except for the ones who work for government police forces and who are OK cause they are on the libtards side, they think.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is one of the most patently stupid comments I've ever heard. When you feel resistance, stop pushing in the Q-tip. Try that and we'll work from there.

And you wonder why you're a ding bat!

LOL It's just way over MH's head.

You're even more simple-minded, with all "you're threatening to kill me" hyperbole. If you're in your house and hear someone else (unknown) who you know shouldn't be there and you don't feel threatened you probably shouldn't reproduce. There are far too many idiots in the world already, and intellect, like instinct, is hereditary.

You cant essplain it to the libtards; they are too willfully stupid.

But all the same, keep trying for the sake of the lurkers, many of whom are still suing their minds to think.

 

[Pogo]

The basic problem with that is this: by definition one cannot be "threatened" by the unknown. If one feels threatened in that case, then that threat can only be coming from within, meaning you're being threatened by your own imagination.

This is one of the most patently stupid comments I've ever heard. When you feel resistance, stop pushing in the Q-tip. Try that and we'll work from there.

And you wonder why you're a ding bat!

I had some friends back in the 80's after I got out of the Army who wanted me to go with them to get their stuff out of their current domicile. IT seems that they had been staying at this big house that had like about 8 bedrooms and they each rented a room. Some guy the night before came in while they were playing cards with this gay black guy that the entering man did not like for whatever reason. The entering man was a big brutal hardened criminal and the gay guy liked to 'push his buttons'. The gay guy said 'hi' to the dude, and the criminal said, 'Shut the fuck up! I told you to never talk to me you faggot!'

The gay guy laughed and said, 'Oh, fuck you...' when the criminal then grabbed the man by his throat and dragged him into a corner where he pulled out a boot knife and started stabbing the man till he stopped moving. My friends were like 18 yo and they fled the place, had not yet returned and were still shaking as they told me what happened. The dude got away and the last I knew he was still not yet found.

I remember the one guy asking me, 'How could he do something like that?'

I said, 'The same way a bear could, or just about any other animal. Instinct took over and he did what he thought he had to do to protect his reputation and in effect himself.'

Thanks. You just underscored everything we just said by example. You're probably far too dense to even see it.

 

[Pogo]

This is one of the most patently stupid comments I've ever heard. When you feel resistance, stop pushing in the Q-tip. Try that and we'll work from there.

And you wonder why you're a ding bat!

LOL It's just way over MH's head.

You're even more simple-minded, with all "you're threatening to kill me" hyperbole. If you're in your house and hear someone else (unknown) who you know shouldn't be there and you don't feel threatened you probably shouldn't reproduce. There are far too many idiots in the world already, and intellect, like instinct, is hereditary.

Translation:

"Feel as fucked up paranoid as I do or die!"

Poster please.

 

[Kondor3]

...The basic problem with that is this: by definition one cannot be 'threatened' by the unknown...

OK, now that's just silly.

This is not about a dictionary or textbook definition of an actual threat.

This is about the perception of threat; in this legal context, would a reasonable person feel sufficiently threatened to discharge a firearm into a darkened area.

...If one feels threatened in that case, then that threat can only be coming from within...

But of course. All perceptions come from within, including perceived threat.

...meaning you're being threatened by your own imagination...

Meaning that you perceive a threat based upon the combination of circumstances presenting (motion-sensor triggering, spy-camera movement detection and image-capture, unlit area with darkened background, sudden and loud noises from within that darkened area, etc.) at the time of the shooting.

...Who has the right to kill somebody based on their own imagination?...

Not imagination, but perceived threat, based upon presenting circumstances (see above). The only issue in this narrow context is whether that perception was sufficiently reasonable so as to legitimize the shooting.

...I believe that's happened more than a couple of times in human history-- witch burnings, holocausts, lynchings, political persecutions-- NONE of those achieved sociocultural approval; ALL of them were cases of the powerful abusing their position...

Spare us the disconnected hyperbole and faux history lesson.

...This is borne out by the fact that once the lights went on and all could be seen, indeed no threat had ever existed...

The shooter did not know this at the time the trigger was pulled.

Again, we are not dealing with actual threat, but perceived threat at the time the trigger was pulled.

Perceived threat is all, to both prosecution and defense, and will form the core upon which this case revolves; just as we see with other rules-of-engagement -centric trials.

...Which is why the most basic rule of firearm use is to see and know what one is shooting at...

Unless it can be successfully argued that hesitation on the part of the shooter, against an opponent shielded by darkness, was legitimately perceived by the shooter as an unacceptable risk to his life.

When in doubt, ties go to the homeowner-shooter.

...Suddenly that's suspended because it's inconvenient?...

Nope. I'm sure the Defense will make a strong case for hesitation posing an unnecessary risk to the homeowner. Whether that's sufficient for the jury is up to them to decide.

...And once again, there was no 'IF' in his rant; Kaarma spoke of what he was going to do and was already engaged in (the trap) -- he presented no conditions...

This is certainly going to present problems for the Defense, but, it's also entirely possible that the Defense will be able to surmount this. In the shooter's favor is the idea that he was inside the house and at-rest and not 'lying in wait' at the time his property was invaded, and that he knee-jerk-reacted by running out into the driveway, rather than taking-up a bulletproof challenge-position. Will it be enough? I dunno.

...He in fact predicted they would be 'seeing this on the fucking news'. News doesn't report IFs...

And he was right. He saw it on the news. Although the sequence of events by which that materialized was probably much different (not lying in wait) than he'd mouthed-off about.

...The only thing he was vague about was whether he was actually going to shoot a cop; he didn't quite commit to that...

Was there ever any question of Kaarma committing violence against the police?

Really? I had not heard that. Any link available in support of such speculation?

...And we know nothing could be seen, as Markus Kaarma himself described it that way and swept across the garage so as to cover everything. Is he lying about that?...

Is there any reason to suspect that Kaarma was lying about the darkened garage?

That would certainly change things, but I had not heard that, either. Got a link?

...Because if he is, meaning he could see, it means he knowingly slaughtered a kid that he knew was no threat.

His case would, indeed, suffer a 'hit', from such a revelation.

However, we both (and the rest of us, too) know that the mere fact that a room is lighted, is not ipso facto evidence that the shooter had a clear line of sight to his target, nor does it automatically and substantively prove that the shooter had definite and practical knowledge that his target was armed or unarmed.

If, for example, the target (the idiot-teen, Dede), ws hunkered-down on the other side of a car, or other object(s) in the garage, or if the view of Dede was otherwise compromised, the lit status of the garage may not prove anywhere near as problematic for the Defense as you seem to believe.

Again... when in doubt, the tie (benefit of a doubt) goes to the homeowner.

 

[Ernie S.]

You may not feel threatened by an armed or unarmed (Kaarma didn't know which) intruder entering your home around midnight, but sane and reasonable people do. Taking about what he would do if presented with such a scenario is hardly premeditation. It is a reasonable and legal plan to end a threat. Your tender feewings matter not.

Pogo is a liar and will say anything no matter how stupid to support his claim. He is full of bull shit and a waste of your time, but you are of course, free to post no matter what I think, obviously.

If it suited Pogo he might tell you that he was a billionaire with a proven track record for time traveling and was 6' 4" and looked a lot like Robert Downey Jr.

This ^^ Ernie, is the caliber of your support.

Just sayin'.

And Esmerelda and JoeB are your support. I'm glad you finally concede.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is one of the most patently stupid comments I've ever heard. When you feel resistance, stop pushing in the Q-tip. Try that and we'll work from there.

And you wonder why you're a ding bat!

I had some friends back in the 80's after I got out of the Army who wanted me to go with them to get their stuff out of their current domicile. IT seems that they had been staying at this big house that had like about 8 bedrooms and they each rented a room. Some guy the night before came in while they were playing cards with this gay black guy that the entering man did not like for whatever reason. The entering man was a big brutal hardened criminal and the gay guy liked to 'push his buttons'. The gay guy said 'hi' to the dude, and the criminal said, 'Shut the fuck up! I told you to never talk to me you faggot!'

The gay guy laughed and said, 'Oh, fuck you...' when the criminal then grabbed the man by his throat and dragged him into a corner where he pulled out a boot knife and started stabbing the man till he stopped moving. My friends were like 18 yo and they fled the place, had not yet returned and were still shaking as they told me what happened. The dude got away and the last I knew he was still not yet found.

I remember the one guy asking me, 'How could he do something like that?'

I said, 'The same way a bear could, or just about any other animal. Instinct took over and he did what he thought he had to do to protect his reputation and in effect himself.'

Thanks. You just underscored everything we just said by example. You're probably far too dense to even see it.

lol, you have to be joking, right? You make a stupid response (high on some bad shit I'm guessing) and you try to recover by playing it off like you made some point I don't understand, like maybe the criminal I referred to didn't attack the guy in the dark, lol, as if a single anecdote could disprove what everyone knows by instinct and common sense; predators stalk their prey in the dark very often and not knowing what some stranger is doing in the dark in your garage where he had no right, or permission constitutes by its own very nature a THREAT to the homeowner.

The German prick is dead, good riddance, and your tears make me happy.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Pogo is a liar and will say anything no matter how stupid to support his claim. He is full of bull shit and a waste of your time, but you are of course, free to post no matter what I think, obviously.

If it suited Pogo he might tell you that he was a billionaire with a proven track record for time traveling and was 6' 4" and looked a lot like Robert Downey Jr.

This ^^ Ernie, is the caliber of your support.

Just sayin'.

And Esmerelda and JoeB are your support. I'm glad you finally concede.

lol, thanks for the defense, Ernie

roflmao

 

[Kondor3]

"Mister Myagi... how do I defend against a front-kick?"

"Ahhhhhh, Daniel-san... best defense, no be there."

"Mister Myagi... how do I defend against getting shot while garage-hopping at night?"

"Ahhhhhh, Dede-san... best defense, no do it."

 

[JimBowie1958]

LOL It's just way over MH's head.

You're even more simple-minded, with all "you're threatening to kill me" hyperbole. If you're in your house and hear someone else (unknown) who you know shouldn't be there and you don't feel threatened you probably shouldn't reproduce. There are far too many idiots in the world already, and intellect, like instinct, is hereditary.

Translation:

"Feel as fucked up paranoid as I do or die!"

Poster please.

Lol, no, that is not what the guy said at all, you simpleton.

 

[Ernie S.]

I take anyone in my home uninvited as a threat. I HAVE to. I have a wife to protect.
The fact that Dede was found to be unarmed is irrelevant. The fact that he made himself a target by engaging in a criminal and possibly lethal act IS relevant.
Dede caused his own death.

 

[Ernie S.]

The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department is investigating a deadly home invasion that left a north side homeowner dead in his garage.

Man killed in home invasion on city?s north side | Fox 59 News ? fox59.com

 

[Pogo]

...The basic problem with that is this: by definition one cannot be 'threatened' by the unknown...

OK, now that's just silly.

This is not about a dictionary or textbook definition of an actual threat.

This is about the perception of threat; in this legal context, would a reasonable person feel sufficiently threatened to discharge a firearm into a darkened area.

That's what I just said.

...If one feels threatened in that case, then that threat can only be coming from within...

But of course. All perceptions come from within, including perceived threat.

Again...

Meaning that you perceive a threat based upon the combination of circumstances presenting (motion-sensor triggering, spy-camera movement detection and image-capture, unlit area with darkened background, sudden and loud noises from within that darkened area, etc.) at the time of the shooting.

...Who has the right to kill somebody based on their own imagination?...

Not imagination, but perceived threat, based upon presenting circumstances (see above). The only issue in this narrow context is whether that perception was sufficiently reasonable so as to legitimize the shooting.

"Not imagination but perceived threat" = "not imagination but imagination". You're trrying to say the same thing in different terms and claim you've said something different. Let's take it a third way: "when you turn the light off, there are monsters under the bed".

And since none of that technological feedback indicated a threat -- it wasn't anything more than imagination. Which, once again, was obviously confirmed once the light went on. I put it to you again, as it's been left unanswered: when the lights went on and all could be seen-- what had the threat been?

Exactly. Nothing but imagination. QED.

...I believe that's happened more than a couple of times in human history-- witch burnings, holocausts, lynchings, political persecutions-- NONE of those achieved sociocultural approval; ALL of them were cases of the powerful abusing their position...

Spare us the disconnected hyperbole and faux history lesson.

Why? Is the analogy inconvenient? How is it "faux"? Were witch burnings and holocausts and race prejudice NOT cases of the powerful abusing their position based on nothing more than suspicions?

...This is borne out by the fact that once the lights went on and all could be seen, indeed no threat had ever existed...

The shooter did not know this at the time the trigger was pulled. Again, we are not dealing with actual threat, but perceived threat at the time the trigger was pulled. Perceived threat is all, to both prosecution and defense, and will form the core upon which this case revolves; just as we see with other rules-of-engagement -centric trials.

We agree, the shooter did not know at the time what or who he was shooting at. Which right there, on its own removed from any other circumstances, is irresponsible action. The fact remains by definition he's shooting at his imagination. Now if you're suggesting that's all that is legally required to start mowing people down, then we need to let the Loughners and Holmeses out of jail right away, because hey, that's all they were doing too. Think about it.

...Which is why the most basic rule of firearm use is to see and know what one is shooting at...

Unless it can be successfully argued that hesitation on the part of the shooter, against an opponent shielded by darkness, was legitimately perceived by the shooter as an unacceptable risk to his life.

"Unless" nothing. You don't shoot into the unknown outside a war zone, ever. Period. What's in your imagination is irrelevant.

When in doubt, ties go to the homeowner-shooter.

Again, this is not a game. Being out at first base cannot be compared to being shot to death.

...Suddenly that's suspended because it's inconvenient?...

Nope. I'm sure the Defense will make a strong case for hesitation posing an unnecessary risk to the homeowner. Whether that's sufficient for the jury is up to them to decide.

If it's not suddenly suspended, then it still applies. You can't have it both ways....

This is certainly going to present problems for the Defense, but, it's also entirely possible that the Defense will be able to surmount this. In the shooter's favor is the idea that he was inside the house and at-rest and not 'lying in wait' at the time his property was invaded, and that he knee-jerk-reacted by running out into the driveway, rather than taking-up a bulletproof challenge-position. Will it be enough? I dunno.

And once again, there was no 'IF' in his rant; Kaarma spoke of what he was going to do and was already engaged in (the trap) -- he presented no conditions...

And he was right. He saw it on the news. Although the sequence of events by which that materialized was probably much different (not lying in wait) than he'd mouthed-off about.

Actually it matched the rant exactly. "He told the stylists he had been waiting up for three nights with his shotgun to 'shoot some fucking kid'" (directly from the criminal complaint). Want to find another way to state "lying in wait" and then claim it's different?

...The only thing he was vague about was whether he was actually going to shoot a cop; he didn't quite commit to that...

Was there ever any question of Kaarma committing violence against the police?

Really? I had not heard that. Any link available in support of such speculation?

In the same rant at the hair salon he said he'd be "glad to shoot a cop". Part of his rant was that the police were ineffective (and the first burglary had taken his bhong and garage stash so it wasn't reported). That doesn't rise to the same level of commitment as waiting up for three days with a shotgun to shoot some fucking kid" in my estimation; it's just expression of a willingness to shoot a cop.

You would not believe (I don't believe myself) how many tabs I have open to try to navigate this mess in lieu of a retainer and a secretary. I'll try to look up the original comprehensive interview, which I've already read and it's out there somewhere. Found a reference to it here on a quick search but will get back to you. Or my secretary will...

...And we know nothing could be seen, as Markus Kaarma himself described it that way and swept across the garage so as to cover everything. Is he lying about that?...

Is there any reason to suspect that Kaarma was lying about the darkened garage?

That would certainly change things, but I had not heard that, either. Got a link?

...Because if he is, meaning he could see, it means he knowingly slaughtered a kid that he knew was no threat.

His case would, indeed, suffer a 'hit', from such a revelation.

However, we both (and the rest of us, too) know that the mere fact that a room is lighted, is not ipso facto evidence that the shooter had a clear line of sight to his target, nor does it automatically and substantively prove that the shooter had definite and practical knowledge that his target was armed or unarmed.

If, for example, the target (the idiot-teen, Dede), ws hunkered-down on the other side of a car, or other object(s) in the garage, or if the view of Dede was otherwise compromised, the lit status of the garage may not prove anywhere near as problematic for the Defense as you seem to believe.

There is no reason I know of to suspect Kaarma was lying about that or that there was any light in the garage; I'm speculatiing all possible possibilities. "HAD he been able to see, then...". Meaning if my opponent in this point (Ernie) wants to take that position, then it would mean, blah blah blah. In other words "EITHER he's shooting into the unknown, or he's not, and if not, here's what it means". But there's no such indication, therefore we must, for the moment, conclude that Kaarma was, as he says, shooting into the dark. And that carries its own obvious issues.

Again... when in doubt, the tie (benefit of a doubt) goes to the homeowner.

Again, if it were a play at first base that would be the rule. While a good shortstop might be described as having a "gun" for an arm, that remains a metaphor. You can't just award "benefit of the doubt" to suspend basic rules of firearms because he's the homeowner. If being a homeowner means being a sovereign citizen to which no laws apply, then we live in anarchy.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo is a liar and will say anything no matter how stupid to support his claim. He is full of bull shit and a waste of your time, but you are of course, free to post no matter what I think, obviously.

If it suited Pogo he might tell you that he was a billionaire with a proven track record for time traveling and was 6' 4" and looked a lot like Robert Downey Jr.

This ^^ Ernie, is the caliber of your support.

Just sayin'.

And Esmerelda and JoeB are your support. I'm glad you finally concede.

"Concede"?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I'll take that team over Slowie and TheNutHouse any day of any week of any year, and I'll feel guilty for beating up on you. I mean ---- just read that post above.

And if that's not silly enough, read his next one.

 

[Pogo]

I take anyone in my home uninvited as a threat. I HAVE to. I have a wife to protect.
The fact that Dede was found to be unarmed is irrelevant. The fact that he made himself a target by engaging in a criminal and possibly lethal act IS relevant.
Dede caused his own death.

By that logic, that woman who was raped was "just asking for it".

Ehh... no thanks.

 

[jc456]

I take anyone in my home uninvited as a threat. I HAVE to. I have a wife to protect.
The fact that Dede was found to be unarmed is irrelevant. The fact that he made himself a target by engaging in a criminal and possibly lethal act IS relevant.
Dede caused his own death.

By that logic, that woman who was raped was "just asking for it".

Ehh... no thanks.

Not the same thing nice try but fail!

someone where they are not invited to be is a much different scenario. The kid put himself in the garage, no one put him there. You seem to be having a really hard time with that. That's ok, you just know no difference, you walk into stranger's houses all the time right? It is what all you all do i guess, doesn't bother you, so for me means you partake in the activity. You should be careful when entering those unautorized buildings.

 

[jc456]

Any time that an intruder is present upon your premises, in a sufficiently darkened environment so that you cannot tell if the intruder is armed, and so that you cannot even locate the intruder against a darkened backdrop, you, and your family, at at-risk, and a threat exists, in any reasonable mind.

Does it really? What is it, this threat?

In this event when the light went on and all could be seen -- what did the threat turn out to have been?

More correctly stated:
Any time that an intruder is present upon your premises, in a sufficiently darkened environment so that you cannot tell if the intruder is armed, and so that you cannot even locate the intruder against a darkened backdrop, you, and your family, may be at-risk, and a threat may exist, in any reasonable mind. But if by this very definition such reasonable mind cannot see, then the existence of such threat has not been established. Which means the reality of said threat remains in the realm of the imaginary.

Since I sense I'm channeling Rod Serling stylistically, I'll refer you again to "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" (1960) for a perfect illustration of why your original rendering is fallacious. Submitted for your approval as the saying goes.

All else here is a matter of Rules of Engagement, and their reasonableness (or lack thereof), and the shooter's adherence to those Rules (or lack thereof).

Agreed.

So basically what you're trying to saying it's only a threat if you have your eyes open. Nice logic there dude.