[-]

PaulieHehehe@reddit

As far as I’m concerned, anyone that enters another’s home uninvited and with ill intent, especially in the dead of night, needs to assume they will be shot.

[-]

In Canada, if you even wound an intruder without giving them a warning, you will be charged. The police here once told citizens to leave their car keys by the front door so that intruders don’t venture into your house and possibly hurt you

[-]

poop-machines@reddit

That's not true. You're expected to use a reasonable amount of force.

They told people to warn them because then they much less likely to get into trouble with the law.

Tthelaundryman@reddit

https://youtu.be/Qw8IiRgSMFQ?si=CclmJNh5gmRRALHe

This is a better video. Hollow point 223 through two interior walls and one exterior wall. Still a bad idea

[-]

IudexJudy@reddit

Birdshot has 1-2 inches of penetration you are going to get shot to death in your own home

[-]

Tthelaundryman@reddit

Here’s a great content, low quality video. https://youtu.be/zaR1EVybUgc?si=pCkVxn4QPfx8dfym

[-]

Tthelaundryman@reddit

You talk like you’ve never lost your entire face in one blow

[-]

UglyInThMorning@reddit

Really the best defense against over penetration is hitting what you’re shooting at. Shooting less times helps too.

I can’t find the old test I was looking for but the numbers are all over the fucking place. I think the space between drywall layers makes a big difference because in the case of .223, the box of truth test shows significant drop that shows the tumbling bullet is slowing down substantially. Evaluating drywall layers by putting a bunch of sheets 4” apart is a terrible way to test if you want to reflect real world conditions anyway, since that’s not how houses are built.

[-]

Tthelaundryman@reddit

Termiborg@reddit

Strategy.

A solid, healthy frame of 400 pounds.

Thats like 800 kilometers to you.

[-]

TheIronGnat@reddit

Gotta Venmo me for things like that, big boy.

[-]

DumbNTough@reddit

You can even have Amazon Alexa deploy the Claymore Roomba while playing Angel by Sarah McLachlan at max volume over wireless speakers.

We truly live in a halcyon age.

[-]

TheIronGnat@reddit

Alexa intruder alert:

Say: "So you have chosen death"
Play "Slave Knight Gael" from Dark Souls III Soundtrack on Spotify
Set volume to maximum
Turn on all lights, set to red
Activate all Roombas

[-]

Grabsch@reddit

I think burglary doesn't warrant death. But if someone dies while burgling then you wont catch me being upset about it either.

If you sneak up on a sleeping lion and kick him in the balls I may find it disproportionate when you're getting mauled; but I won't feel sorry about it.

[-]

adamcmorrison@reddit

The dude didn’t kill him because he was burglaring. He killed him because it was dead of night and he’s inside his house illegally and maliciously with his family inside. That does warrant death.

[-]

logaboga@reddit

1) the post says nothing about his family

2) there’s no way to discern the intention of the perp

Smachymo@reddit

Yep, pretty much. It’s exceptionally rare to get shot just for being on someone else’s property. Hell, we used to have dumb teenagers sneak on to the back of our property to drink and never once did I think, oh I gotta go shoot these fools. But if they started giving me any sort of resistance when I told them to clear out, you’d best believe I was ready to defend myself.

[-]

indiefolkfan@reddit

Lexington, KY? Same thing happened here except said college kid was also on a cocktail of different drugs.

[-]

UglyInThMorning@reddit

This was the South Carolina one. The kid was from CT so a lot of people near me were talking about it. I think there was one in Denver a bit before that, where the guy broke through a glass door and attacked the homeowner before getting shot.

Hide your kids, hide your wife and hide your husband! Cause they rapin everybody out here!

[-]

PaulieHehehe@reddit

gif

Knives exist, and larger people can kill smaller people.

Home invasion is literally less common in the US than plenty of countries in Europe. Doesn't change the basic facts of the matter about how terrifying it is to have someone break into your home.

Ok, again you've looped back around to misinterpreting the comment.

Saying a home invader should "assume they'll be shot" is not the same as saying "shooting someone is the only form of self defense". It's saying "a person who breaks into a house is creating a situation where they may be shot". Entirely different statements.

[-]

moshimoshi2345@reddit

I never said americans think of shooting someone as the only form of self defense? I just said that it’s the first thing that they think of when someone is trespassing…

[-]

Taaargus@reddit

I'm seriously confused about how you're processing this.

The initial comment has nothing to do with how people think about defending themselves. It's about the situation that the home invader is causing. They are creating a situation that could lead to death or injury, and they would be solely responsible.

That's the point. It has nothing to do with how an American imagines defending themselves. It has everything to do with the type of risk the home invader is taking.

[-]

moshimoshi2345@reddit

He literally said the intruder has to assume they will be shot, not kicked, not punched, not stabbed, not getting the police called, literally being shot. How is comprehending that hard?

[-]

Taaargus@reddit

I mean when you're taking an extremely risky action you should strongly consider the worst outcome. That's the actual point being made. Idk why you're having so much trouble seeing that.

[-]

moshimoshi2345@reddit

Yeah, the point for the original comment. My comment was a side remark on how americans think of shooting someone as their first thought because of their unregulated gun law.

[-]

Taaargus@reddit

5Hjsdnujhdfu8nubi@reddit

No, I'm telling people to prioritise their own safety and not put themselves in unnecessary danger. Which is the advice everyone is given for any kind of crime.

If you are not in immediate danger, then you have no need to escalate the situation. If you can hide, hide. If you can run, run. You only do anything more if neither of those options are available.

Charging after an unknown assailant is how you turn a home insurance claim into a life insurance claim.

[-]

Taaargus@reddit

Ok. And nothing here, other than your own interpretation, is saying someone should charge at a burglar.

But plenty of people live in apartments or small homes. The idea that there's some safe place when someone has broken into your house in the middle of the night, and the only acceptable answer is to hide and you'll be completely fine, is asinine.

The home invader is in the wrong here and isn't some wonderful citizen, you understand that right? We're talking about a very extreme scenario. Extreme response is completely appropriate. Being prepared to defend yourself is completely appropriate.

[-]

5Hjsdnujhdfu8nubi@reddit

Being prepared to defend yourself is completely appropriate.

It stops being defence when you leave safety and go into the unknown with no idea who or what is out there, you get that right?

[-]

Taaargus@reddit

You're in your own fucking house dude. Are you really saying walking around your house is somehow making yourself the aggressor now?

[-]

5Hjsdnujhdfu8nubi@reddit

No, I'm saying that it's not a defensive act to walk around your house looking for an invader.

[-]

Taaargus@reddit

Again you're being fucking ridiculous. First off, it's not like a burglar announces "hey I'm in your house for your stuff" and you say "ok sure I'll hide over here take your time". You'd hear a bunch of noise and wonder what the fuck is going on and naturally go check it out.

And again you're acting like people have complexes where something happening in the kitchen is easy to hide from. If you're in a 2 or 3 room house or apartment that's not at all how reality works.

The moment someone breaks into a home they are the aggressor and anything that happens after that is self defense by the home owner. End of story. Stop being ridiculous.

[-]

5Hjsdnujhdfu8nubi@reddit

You'd hear a bunch of noise and wonder what the fuck is going on and naturally go check it out.

So,

Either you don't suspect anything bad and aren't carrying a weapon to begin with.

Or you do suspect something in which case you should be hiding.

If you're in a 2 or 3 room house or apartment that's not at all how reality works.

That is how it works. This isn't a request to get onto a completely different floor of your house or a dedicated safety room, this is just staying safe.

The moment someone breaks into a home they are the aggressor and anything that happens after that is self defense by the home owner. End of story. Stop being ridiculous.

Shooting a thief in the back when they're escaping from your home does not constitute reasonable force used in self-defence in quite a few places.

both cases are dangerous and unpredictable.

Even more reason to stay out of their way then.

[-]

Unbothered_centrist@reddit

You think they will let you?

[-]

5Hjsdnujhdfu8nubi@reddit

Considering this entire conversation is about not going near them in the first place, yes.

If they deliberately are targeting people then that is a whole different discussion. Hide yourself in the corner of a room behind where the door swings across with a weapon if it comes to it.

Taaargus@reddit

You're being ridiculous. For starters, you're clearly thinking of "the world" as "America and Europe". Second, you're obviously downplaying what would be a completely terrifying scenario for anyone in the world. No one is feeling hunky dory when they have a break in in the middle of the night.

[-]

5Hjsdnujhdfu8nubi@reddit

If it's a "completely terrifying scenario" then they should be away and in hiding and not putting themselves in a position where they are forced into a kill-or-be-killed situation.

No one is feeling hunky dory when they have a break in in the middle of the night.

And yet from this post and some of these comments you'd think people are hoping for it and are just so absolutely certain they'd shoot at intruders.

[-]

Taaargus@reddit

Ah yes the only reasonable reaction is to just make life easier for the burglar. How dare the person whose actual house it is be prepared to defend themselves against an intruder. The brainrot is intense.

[-]

5Hjsdnujhdfu8nubi@reddit

Ah yes the only reasonable reaction is to just make life easier for the burglar.

Yes. That is the point of home insurance. That is the point of keeping you and your fanily safe - By not putting you or them in harm's way. Did you never listen to any advice about getting mugged? You give them whatever they ask for. Someone tries to attack you? Run from them, hide from them, only fight back as an absolute last resort.

It is not reasonable to charge down your stairs ready to attack whoever's there when you don't even know how many there are nor if they're armed nor if they're going to run from the house or kill you.

[-]

Taaargus@reddit

Which is not at all what anyone here is saying.

What about the plenty likely scenario where you hide with your family and then the invader comes upstairs and finds you there? What then? Just trust that they're stable and only there for your belongings?

You're placing massive faith in the reasonableness of a fucking home invader dude.

[-]

5Hjsdnujhdfu8nubi@reddit

That's not "plenty likely" at all. Attitude like that is starting to make it obvious why so many people advocate for shooting first to begin with. Nearly 50% of home invasions involve the criminal fleeing without confronting the occupants and a noticeable majority do not result in any injury to the occupants according to the first study I found on the topic.

Just trust that they're stable and only there for your belongings?

That is what the vast, vast majority of invasions are after yes. If they were after your life you wouldn't have time to even get ready. There's plenty of cases on that.

It is not a difficult thing - Hide with a weapon, use it if you need to. If your "home invader" opens the door to reveal an unarmed 20-something who bolts the second they see you awake and aware then you know there's no point following. If they walk in with a knife and see you have a gun then you can figure out fairly quickly if you need to shoot them or phone the police as they run off. If they have a gun and are planning to use it then they've already got the advantage, are likely to fire the second they see you and so I don't really see what is supposed to change if you run down on your own to get shot.

[-]

Taaargus@reddit

Ok so now you're just saying the same thing as everyone else. Hide with a weapon is exactly what you've been seemingly railing against this whole time.

Again you continue to act like everyone's in a mansion or something. If you're in a 1 bedroom apartment what then? You're supposed to feel safe one room over from a person who's decided to break into your home?

Home invasions are literally more common per capita in much of europe (France in particular) than the US btw.

[-]

5Hjsdnujhdfu8nubi@reddit

You're supposed to feel safe one room over from a person who's decided to break into your home?

No? You're supposed to not go into that other room.

[-]

Kardinale@reddit

I think you need a brain scan your amygdala seems to be dysfunctional

[-]

sputnik67897@reddit

What a dumb fucking comment that you know is incorrect. What a fucking clown

[-]

ApXv@reddit

If you harm the intruder here in Norway you will likely get charged. Police have said call them and let the intruder do it's thing

[-]

Taaargus@reddit

That's not really true based on basic googling about the law. Norway allows self defense in defense of property. It does say some stuff about proportionality but there's also no indication that any harm at all would mean you're at fault.

It's also just not at all practical in a country where police may easily be a half hour away in remote areas so even if your impression is correct that's absurd and shouldn't be how it works at all.

Tell me you don't even lift without telling me you don't even lift. Bro.

[-]

QuixoticCoyote@reddit

Nah man, I just get the largest caliber handguns I can find and break my wrists after the first shot like a cool person.

Pistol seems like it would be much easier to work corners and thresholds with. I think a shortened shotgun has its merits as well.

In the end most likely familiarity and training consistently with the firearm is probably more important than the firearm itself.

[-]

PapaMoBucks@reddit

Oh, yeah, practice is key. I'd rather someone train with and use a rock to throw than keep any firearm in the house with no training behind it.

[-]

mergelong@reddit

Given that the average home intruder is unarmored, something lightweight and nimble like an épée or smallsword would likely suffice

[-]

Beowulf33232@reddit

I keep a gladius hidden by my front door.....

[-]

Karsa0rl0ng@reddit

It's not about being better, it's about sending a message.

khuranicus@reddit

Not just under Roman law - also under English and American common law originally.

[-]

Fragbob@reddit

Still law in Texas.

Robber's POV:

Though if someone is that far detached from reality, they’re so unpredictable that they’re still a pretty extreme threat.

[-]

richtofin819@reddit

Yeah if anything this is a case of the entire family not understanding consequences it seems.

I guess we know where the dead trespasser got his sense of common Sense and morals

[-]

UnevenContainer@reddit

I can imagine the kind of family it was, since they dont seem to understand consequences.

[-]

Capnmarvel76@reddit

Not understanding consequences of actions is what got the guy to the point where he was invading homes in the middle of the night.

[-]

bigpappahope@reddit

Especially in Florida

[-]

theusbismarck@reddit

Fake: anon killed someone

Gay: anon blew a man

[-]

Roaksan@reddit

The running theme among burglars I've seen confess they go when they know noone is home because it can only lead to ugliness otherwise.

Stats suggested they're generally in and out in 5-10 minutes, less if they know what they're going for.

If someone's breaking in and it's plainly obvious someone is home in that mindset, assume they ain't juat there for jewelry and luxury goods they can pocket in a hurry.

[-]

gooeydumpling@reddit

Does the perp belong to some sort of demographics notorious for committing crimes

not to mention a whole third of them aren't true christians and do shit like premarital sex.

i can count the amount of christians that properly do ash wednesday on one hand

[-]

Qloudy_sky@reddit

The first I agree but Ash Wednesday is not something you need to celebrate with my knowledge

[-]

imworthlesscum@reddit

yeah you don't NEED to, but like literally never celebrating it? not even fucking knowing it? fake ass christians

This is what I'd do, but not as eloquently.

"Why is a man who speaks for God condoning the actions of a criminal, and his family who continues to harass me?"

[-]

STEELCITY1989@reddit

"That's why I sent him to meet his maker to be judged. As I found them wanting. My flying spaghetti monster brings receipts"

[-]

SuspiciousRelation43@reddit

Being serious for a moment, I think there are ways to apologise sincerely that don’t cuck out to lawless pacifism. “Sorry I had to shoot this guy. Let’s learn from this to be more vigilant when our friends and family look like they’re about to do some dumb shit.”. Worded more thoughtfully, of course.

[-]

TheDaringScoods@reddit

“I’m sorry your idiot family member thought breaking and entering in the state of Florida, famous for its stand-your-ground laws about home defense, was a good idea.”

[-]

I_am_What_Remains@reddit

That’s the one

[-]

clotifoth@reddit

I'm having trouble seeing where you went wrong:

Being serious for a moment,

maybe here?

I think there are ways to apologise sincerely that don’t cuck out to lawless pacifism.

calling someone else a cuck for cucking out to lawless pacifism while advocating for "apologise"ing sincerely for being robbed and put in harms way

“Sorry I had to shoot this guy. Let’s learn from this to be more vigilant when our friends and family look like they’re about to do some dumb shit.”

Maybe you went wrong when you tried to "apologise" impersonating the OP. You feel so bad that there's no apology, don't you?

You'd apologize to your own murderer for resisting his violence. That's my impression

Worded more thoughtfully, of course.

Save your own breath / time.

[-]

WintersbaneGDX@reddit

The only apology here is owed to OP. He is the victim, three times over. He had to experience the crime committed against him. He now also has to carry the weight of his actions forever. Most people don't sit around hoping someone will break in, so they can shoot them down. OP was put into a position he didn't choose or consent to, and forced into an action with lifelong moral consequences. Then, the final victimization by the family and church demonizing him, and the civil suit.

[-]

SuspiciousRelation43@reddit

I will acknowledge that I kind of skipped over the part that involved harassing the guy. That being said, that by itself doesn’t refute the point I made.

OP was… forced into an action with lifelong moral consequences.

What might those consequences be? Perhaps that it’s bad for someone to die, even when killing them is the morally correct choice?

I explicitly said he didn’t need to be a cuck about it. I’m not sure why the majority of people here can’t comprehend an apology not being an immediate and total capitulation. It would be perfectly fine to use such an apology to subtly criticise all of the stalking and harassment, with some form of “I’ll be the bigger person and forgive you” spin. But according to the majority, I guess that simply isn’t possible.

[-]

WintersbaneGDX@reddit

What might those consequences be?

OP wake up that morning planning to kill someone. Taking a life, even justifiably, weighs heavily on a person. OP may need therapy. This is one of the major core experiences of his life now, and it was forced upon him.

This isn't about anyone being a "cuck" (a term so overused that its meaning is entirely subjective). A sincere apology should be predicated on feeling remorse over one's actions. Twisting it into some perversion wherein you tell them they're wrong is just pointless. Don't say "I'm sorry but this is actually on you all."

OP should tell them (if he chooses to tell them anything) that it's on them, and to stop harassing him. He shouldn't do it cowtowed via some half apology. Say it with full chest.

[-]

clotifoth@reddit

I'm having trouble seeing where you went wrong:

Being serious for a moment,

maybe here?

I think there are ways to apologise sincerely that don’t cuck out to lawless pacifism.

calling someone else a cuck for cucking out to lawless pacifism while advocating for "apologise"ing sincerely for being robbed and put in harms way

“Sorry I had to shoot this guy. Let’s learn from this to be more vigilant when our friends and family look like they’re about to do some dumb shit.”

Maybe you went wrong when you tried to "apologise" impersonating the OP. You feel so bad that there's no apology, don't you?

You'd apologize to Donald Trump for your own dissent against him. That's my impression

Worded more thoughtfully, of course.

Save your own breath / time.

[-]

Warm-Accident7231@reddit

Reddit user tries not to bring up Donald Trump challenge…IMPOSSIBLE!

[-]

clotifoth@reddit

is the trump in the room with us?

maybe u schiz?

[-]

Warm-Accident7231@reddit

Cute

[-]

clotifoth@reddit

Is the Trump in the room with us?

just schiz after all.

[-]

clotifoth@reddit

[-]

clotifoth@reddit

is the trump in the room with us?

[-]

clotifoth@reddit

It's not a political reference.

Picture someone who is against Trump.

Picture them apologizing to Trump for being against him.

Is there a more relatable image of someone being the biggest possible pussy?

[-]

Knightmare_CCI@reddit

I mean, not much point on doing it "sincerely" since there is sincerely nothing to apologise for.

[-]

plastic_addict_no420@reddit

Yeah, I can definitely tell your a cuck

[-]

TraumaPerformer@reddit

Meanwhile in Bongland

get broken into

it’s a crime to be robbed

448282847577 year prison sentence

Oi! Ewe bettah ave loicense fer avin a loicense there me ol chumbly wumbly.

That...would actually be a pretty good weapon, those can sting.

[-]

PutHisGlassesOn@reddit

Oi, you got a being a wet blanket license, bruv?

[-]

jabroniisan@reddit

Or if you're lucky it's

Get broken into

Everything gone

Evidence of who did it

Robber is bragging about it on social media

Go to police with evidence

See 14 daughter in police station filing a report because she's been groomed by middle eastern Muslim gangs

"Sorry there's nothing we can do"

"And your daughter probably deserves it"

Go get stuff back yourself

Receive massive fine for theft

Post online that you're upset that your daughter got groomed by Pakistanis

Jail for 57 thousand years

Daughter

[-]

Account324@reddit

Replace the “jail for 57 thousand years” with getting publicly shamed on social media and losing your job or something. It breaks my immersion to see prison sentences longer than 6 years.

[-]

Youre_so_damn_fat@reddit

I assume Bongland is UK?

Coz regardless of the crime there's no way they'd sentence you for that long.

Torture someone to death Get sentenced to Life (25 years) Out in 2 due to good behaviour and overcrowding

Nasapigs@reddit

Ah, good to see a fellow Londoner

[-]

DoJ-Mole@reddit

Is that your mobile phone number?

[-]

Mountain-Durian-4724@reddit

pretty sure there was more to this greentext, pretty much the pastor gassed up and preached about anon being the devil incarnate for two years straight

[-]

slenderman123425@reddit

Sorry he made bad choices

[-]

je1992@reddit

How are people in these comments justifying murder ? That's not self defense.

Dude is just robbing you, clapping back with a murder is a crime.

You fucking rednecks in the USA really need to stay where you are and rot in your backwards ass country.

[-]

BoloRoll@reddit

Why do thieves value anons stuff over their own lives?

[-]

je1992@reddit

You keep on talking about amendment bullshit, like anyone in the world outside of the USA accept and value how you handle gun in your country. Your views on gun are isolated, and insanely backward and detrimental to your citizens shown by the alarming amount of gun violence you have every single year.

The US is the laughing stock of developed countries and has always been. Even worst lately as a lot of political decisions you did highlight how uneducated and illiterate your dumbass population is.

[-]

BoloRoll@reddit

I don’t know. The UK has rape gangs, Sweden has literal grenade attacks, France has Terror Attacks, around 25 percent of Canada is foreign born and 17% is 2nd Generation. There are a lot of different reasons to laugh at a lot of different countries.

As I said earlier Gun violence pretty much only affects certain demographics. I brought up the amendments because it’s an American Issue.

I don’t know why you are so angry for a policy that doesn’t affect you. My guns have never hurt anybody, hopefully they never will.

[-]

imworthlesscum@reddit

the dude ur replying to is a pussy but france had no terror attacks since isis.

Fuck that

I'm not going to retreat in my own home

Either they retreat or they can meet God

[-]

DirtySkell@reddit

No no you don't understand. They expect you to leave your home if needed. Let them take your tv bigot.

[-]

Duc_de_Magenta@reddit

Untrue, at least on paper. Maybe in NYC?

except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is:

(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or

[-]

No-Care6414@reddit

No I'm talking about drunk people entering the wrong home

[-]

Is this real?

Because there's a very similar story that appeared in the news where an old guy shot three teens who broke into his house to rob him. All of them died, he was cleared of all charges because it was deemed as self defense but the parents of the teens tried to sue the old guy for killing their children. They even went on tv, crying, demanding at least remorse for what he did and shit.

The judge ruled in his favor and dropped their case.

[-]

harrietford99@reddit

Goddamn the audacity lmao I’d say sorry for shooting your kid and then tell them to say sorry to their kid for raising him like shit

[-]

threeboy@reddit

It’s weird the pastor was on linked in (children aren’t allowed on that website).

[-]

Crodul@reddit

"I'm sorry your family member valued my property more than their own life"

It's been more than four hours since I read this comment and my erection still isn't going away, what should I do?

[-]

Leafeon523@reddit

winning a defamation suit without already being a billionaire

You would need to prove those comments made damage to their reputation. You can't just assume it does.

I can sit here and say "u/Spezalt4 is a child rapist" but you would need to actually prove that people read my comments, took me seriously, and had reactions to you that noticeably impacted your life.

[-]

skttlskttl@reddit

From a legal perspective

"They contacted my job." So what who cares.

"My boss told me I was a lock for a promotion, then they contacted my job and I got passed over for that promotion, and since then I've been excluded from things in a way that will prevent me from being able to get a promotion in the future." Now you have something actionable.

However even in that second case the actionable damages might be low enough to not actually be worth pursuing.

The better move IMO would be to seek a restraining order to get the family to stop talking about him. That's a much lower bar to clear.

[-]

boogashroom@reddit

That’s not always the case. Like everything legal it depends on jurisdiction, but lots of places have defamation “per se” or something similar. Statements that are inflammatory enough create a presumption of reputation damage. Calling someone a murderer would usually qualify.

At that point you just have to prove that the person made the statement, and that it is false. A jury can then award whatever monetary damage they see fit.

[-]

UglyInThMorning@reddit

and that is false

Actual malice goes off “knew it was false, or showed indifference to whether it was true or false”. The fact they continued after the dismissal of a wrongful death suit would show that they knew it was false and make proving malice trivially easy.

[-]

boogashroom@reddit

This is getting quite into the weeds for a response to a green text post, but you might not want to show “actual malice.” Again this all depends on the specific law of wherever you are. But often “actual malice” or “willful and wanton” or whatever the relevant local language is to show something goes above and beyond into the territory of intentional harm can trigger exclusions in insurance policies.

Pretty sure burden of proof in a civil trial is more likely than not. Is it more likely than not that falsely calling someone a murderer online, in church and trying to get them fired at their work has caused reputational damage?

I’d say so

No idea how a jury would value such a claim though. How do you put a dollar figure on reputational damage

[-]

Deldris@reddit

How do you put a dollar figure on reputation damage

The entire point is to prove that the reputation damage caused you to lose something. Maybe you can't put an exact $ amount, but if you can't give any estimate at all then the likely answer is you lost nothing.

[-]

Spezalt4@reddit

Assume a life long friend believes the false defamation and never speaks to you again. What is the dollar value of the lost friendship? How did you make that estimate?

[-]

Deldris@reddit

$0. Maybe you should ask yourself why your friends believe some random person with no proof over a court of law and your word.

[-]

Spezalt4@reddit

Case never went to a court of law.

[-]

Is there something smoother than a smooth brain take?

The family doesn't have shit to begin with if they raised this PoS. So you're going to go into debt on attorneys suing them for defamation, and then they'll have a judgment passed that they can't pay and you come out at a net loss.

[-]

Consistent-Throat130@reddit

Not to mention the "it's Florida" factor.

Should've given them the instant replay of him Fortnite dancing on the guy

[-]

lethatsinkin@reddit

He should go to that church and quote the bible: "If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed" - Exodus 22:2

[-]

PapierStuka@reddit

What is it with people defending criminals, that's so fucked up

[-]

CaraDePijardo@reddit (OP)

Christianity since WWII

[-]

PapierStuka@reddit

Plain wrong, just look at the US leftists, most are outspoken atheists

[-]

itwasneversafe@reddit

Says yes, goes to church

Sometimes you just gotta apologize, even if the action was justified.

[-]

GhostV940@reddit

I like how you can tell which culture the robber was part of by the amount of “he didndewmuffins” his loser family and fellow tribe members were doing.

[-]

pretty sure a lot of christians believe that many of the old testament rules are no longer valid because of the new testament, don't really know how they decide that or how consistent it is among different denominations, im pretty sure the commandments are pretty consistent though.

[-]

adamcmorrison@reddit

Catechism 2264: “Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life.” “Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.”

Catechism 2265: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.”

[-]

somehuman16@reddit

because we have no idea about their denomination, we can't possibly know if they think the catechism is valid

[-]

adamcmorrison@reddit

Got it. Here’s a tighter version with your style:

We may not know their denomination, but Catholicism makes up over half of all Christians, so using the Catechism as a baseline is a fair and reasonable assumption.

[-]

somehuman16@reddit

we know anon is american because of the gun

a majority of people in the Us are protestant, around 50%, while catholics make around 20%

now i may be wrong, but anytime ive ever heard the word "pastor" its been used to talk about protestants, i googled and the term is used to speak to the head of a parish, but im not sure if people commonly call them pastors or just group them in with priests.

[-]

adamcmorrison@reddit

Pastor was related to the burglar not the home owner but sure let’s assume Protestant. Roman’s 13 has you covered.

[-]

somehuman16@reddit

who the pastor was related to is irrelevant here because im not making the argument that anon should follow any christian doctrine but should not be surprised or offended that a pastor was going to act like a pastor.

the commenter than argued that the pastor doesn't know their faith well, and im now saying that its possible the pastor does understand their faith, but it's hard to determine because there's so much variety.

as for Romans 13, i can't really speak on it, im sure protestants have good arguments against it, there's just far too many people in those denominations for their entire reality to be shattered by a single bible verse.

[-]

adamcmorrison@reddit

Well it’s a whole chapter but basically there is no such thing as not justifiably defending yourself in the New Testament. Sure don’t commit murder but if you are protecting yourself and your family it’s pretty hard to argue against that even as a pastor.

[-]

CaraDePijardo@reddit (OP)

It's not his pastor, it's the family's pastor. It doesn't say the guy is Christian, fortunately he seemed to have a better head over his shoulders than that of a Christian self-flagelant

[-]

somehuman16@reddit

i didnt say it's his pastor, it doesn't matter who's it is, its a pastor, they're more or less going to agree on the fundamental aspects of the religion. whether anon is christian or not doesn't matter either, he should just know that a pastor is going to act like a pastor. he doesn't have to agree with the pastor, he just has to understand that pastor is a pastor.

he should be more mad at the family for weaponizing the pastor, but it seems like he's more mad at the pastor since he said this sent him overboard, not the civil suit, not calling his job, but calling the pastor.

its like getting mad at a gun because a serial killer used it, not the killer or the people that allow guns to end up in the hands of bad people, but just the gun.

[-]

CaraDePijardo@reddit (OP)

Ohhhh got it, got it. I had misunderstood what you meant

[-]

spottydogwoodbark@reddit

[-]

GreektheFreak123@reddit

Lives in Florida

You come into my house for any reason that I didn't open the door and let you in, be ready to get shot.

This is the dark hidden side of fake&gay, where most of the replies are themselves fake&gay too, concealing their origin within personal insecurity and intense desire to be one of the group.

Your desire to fit in is intense enough to make you give up on your fellow man and start relentlessly judging him for even the smallest misunderstandings that rest solely within your culpability.

And you didn't even make it funny!

[-]

YES he deserved to die and i hope he burns in hell"

[-]

Realistic-Duty-3874@reddit

Just message the pastor back "I have nothing to apologize for. I've done nothing wrong."

[-]

BigHatPat@reddit

Fuck

Around

Find

Out

[-]