That was the important part. You were (and still are) attacking a strawman of his position in which people are shooting blindly at stupid teenagers without determining what is required for protection. His statement was expressly qualified to scenarios where shooting is required, and you missed that.
Attacked a (crucial) detail of someone's statement is not attacking a different or altered statement, or at least I did not attempt to do so consciously. The willingness to protect one's family when it is required with lethal force is not what I was debating against (which was part of the statement), but the apparent disregard of another person's life - be it a criminal or no - by stating that one would not hesitate and one thinks his life worth more than that of the criminal (the other parts of the statement). Therefore I do not think I misrepresented the position of the other party, I merely attacked parts of their statement.
You can't just cherry-pick words out of a statement, you have to address the statement as a whole. Otherwise you're debating a straw man. Let's pretend I said: "I would not hesitate to punch someone's lights out if he and I were engaged in a boxing match." If you just cherry-pick the phrase "I would not hesitate to punch someone's lights out," and you argue that it's wrong to go around indiscriminately punching people in the face, then you're attacking a straw-man. The statement as a whole conveys a different meaning than the one you're arguing against.
Likewise, the statement you're attacking includes the important qualifier "...if killing someone is what is required for me to protect my home and my family." The statement is clearly not advocating a "shoot first, as questions later" mentality. The statement makes clear that shooting is a last resort, but that under those circumstances where no other choice is feasible (i.e. shooting is required), he wouldn't hesitate to do so. That's very different than what you've been attacking.
If shooting to defend yourself and your family is really the only option left for you and the only other alternative would otherwise be your and your loved ones' death, then I do not think pulling the trigger is the bad thing to do. I don't think I ever attacked this specific position.
At what point in your mind do you hit the "only option left" qualifier? Different people may have a different tolerance for danger. As I stated, the reaction to a shout or gun noise would be my level of information gathering. In your mind should someone HAVE to determine that the person breaking into their house IS armed before firing? Every action to try to gather more information about the intruder increases the amount of danger you and your family is in if that intruder is intent on harm.
This is why you are going to meet a lot of resistance on your wording. Saying "no other option" is an absolute that will get 99.99999% of people defending themselves thrown in jail. By saying "no other option" if you go to trial all the prosecution has to do is find any other option with the benefit of a ton of time and other people helping think of ideas and not being in a high stress situation.
If an idiot teenager wants to break into my house and then does not respond to a verbal command/threat... I'm not going to feel any worse for shooting him than if it was a burly career criminal with a gun. Either way, I would have felt my life and the lives of my family members was in danger.
Likewise, the statement you're attacking includes the important qualifier "...if killing someone is what is required for me to protect my home and my family." The statement is clearly not advocating a "shoot first, as questions later" mentality. The statement makes clear that shooting is a last resort, but that under those circumstances where no other choice is feasible (i.e. shooting is required), he wouldn't hesitate to do so. That's very different than what you've been attacking.
If someone would go into detail and explain that shooting is only a last resort option that I do not think I would have gone into debate about this subject. It seemed to me however, that for some here feeling required to shoot and actually having no other feasible alternatives were two different things. This is what I was going into; in what situations I thought other good alternatives presented themselves and for what reasons I do not think you should shoot the person breaking into your house.
If shooting to defend yourself and your family is really the only option left for you and the only other alternative would otherwise be your and your loved ones' death, then I do not think pulling the trigger is the bad thing to do. I don't think I ever attacked this specific position. However, with some I people I debated with this was not their stance. If so, then we can all agree on this subject and close the debate!
In normal English use, "required" is a mandatory statement. Food is required for survival. A cell phone requires charging to operate. "Require" implies no feasible alternatives.
Admittedly, some have argued that lethal force can be justified even when not strictly required to protect your life or the life of another. In fact, I made that argument from a devil's advocate position. But the specific statement you were attacking ("I would not hesitate") was not advancing that argument.
You can't just cherry-pick words out of a statement, you have to address the statement as a whole. Otherwise you're debating a straw man. Let's pretend I said: "I would not hesitate to punch someone's lights out if he and I were engaged in a boxing match." If you just cherry-pick the phrase "I would not hesitate to punch someone's lights out," and you argue that it's wrong to go around indiscriminately punching people in the face, then you're attacking a straw-man. The statement as a whole conveys a different meaning than the one you're arguing against.
Likewise, the statement you're attacking includes the important qualifier "...if killing someone is what is required for me to protect my home and my family." The statement is clearly not advocating a "shoot first, as questions later" mentality. The statement makes clear that shooting is a last resort, but that under those circumstances where no other choice is feasible (i.e. shooting is required), he wouldn't hesitate to do so. That's very different than what you've been attacking.
At what point in your mind do you hit the "only option left" qualifier? Different people may have a different tolerance for danger. As I stated, the reaction to a shout or gun noise would be my level of information gathering. In your mind should someone HAVE to determine that the person breaking into their house IS armed before firing? Every action to try to gather more information about the intruder increases the amount of danger you and your family is in if that intruder is intent on harm.
This is why you are going to meet a lot of resistance on your wording. Saying "no other option" is an absolute that will get 99.99999% of people defending themselves thrown in jail. By saying "no other option" if you go to trial all the prosecution has to do is find any other option with the benefit of a ton of time and other people helping think of ideas and not being in a high stress situation.
If an idiot teenager wants to break into my house and then does not respond to a verbal command/threat... I'm not going to feel any worse for shooting him than if it was a burly career criminal with a gun. Either way, I would have felt my life and the lives of my family members was in danger.
In normal English use, "required" is a mandatory statement. Food is required for survival. A cell phone requires charging to operate. "Require" implies no feasible alternatives.
Admittedly, some have argued that lethal force can be justified even when not strictly required to protect your life or the life of another. In fact, I made that argument from a devil's advocate position. But the specific statement you were attacking ("I would not hesitate") was not advancing that argument.