Should You Kill a Burglar - Debate with Twitter User
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 01. 2018
- Date streamed: 26/11/17
Click▼
Follow Destiny
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/bigscreen
►TWITTER - / omnidestiny
►DISCORD - discordapp.com/invite/destiny
►REDDIT - / destiny
Use Destiny's affiliate link to buy stuff! www.amazon.com/?tag=des000-20
Edited by Garyukov:
► CONTACT - garyukov@gmail.com
► TWITTER - / garyukov
Music:
►OUTRO: / cc6-mastered-3-conflict
You take my sock, you get the GLOCK
Why not the cock?
Northbound Wolf cuz destiny only fucks with his socks on
I put my dick in a tube sock
You open my door and you get the M4.
yis
Destiny might as well calls his home a PVP area.
CouchPotatoWizard lmao
We don't know each other, but I love you.
Raid boss destiny dual wielding tazer, 3 *black* knights take the challenge
That's great lol
His house is a Free for All
Destiny's kid: Dad... Am I the most important thing in your life?
Destiny: *looks at Saxophone*
I really wanted to give thumbs up to this comment but it is at 666
A year later and my like got it to 777
Never throw destiny a surprise party.
Bad Taste /whoosh
I don't get it, you think hes gunna whip out a pistol and shoot the croud before he notices its a surprise party?
HushPuppySam yes because they broke into his house, but it’s a joke lol
@@viktorkc1154 r/ihavereddit r/it'swooooshwith4O's
So anyway, I started blasting
"You probably shouldn't murder a 4 year old." Destiny < 2018
if a 4 year old has broken in my house it's either an evil genius or it's bait and that baby is gettin blasted LATAA
i actually have the same verbal tic i say probably even when i mean it's 100% i think it's pretty common
susu eh I don't know, I think he's so used to arguing the skeptics he covers all his bases in every conversation. I'm sure someone could strawman a scenario where it might be okay to kill a 4 year old.
maybe if the baby is trained to shit in car engines and blow up cars Michael Bay™ it would be okay to kill the baby
depends, if he ddos me or not.
Moral of the story: Don't steal shit from Destiny.
Moral of the story: Don't steal shit from anyone who experienced danger in their life ONLY steal from upper class cucks that do not want to defend their earnings or property because they can always replace family members or buy new property because they have so much money.
"because they can always replace family members"
@@endofinfinity2406
Are you dumb, don't steal shit to begin with.
Zo King lay a hand on his saxophone yo ass gonna get clapped
Or anyone
"What if they took my saxophone"
I laughed way too hard.
He took my sax. I took his life.
that shit is so fucking expensive... you have no clue.
*Lisa Simpson has entered the chat*
@@markbales8594 Lisa would go glowy eyes if someone touched Bleeding Gums Murphy's sax and the thought would be hillarious.
I'm only ten minutes in but the simplest way to put it is this:
The one who breaks into your home assumes the risk. You, unaware of the risks, are in no position to evaluate those risks and make a sound judgment. You are very unlikely to have been fully prepared for such an uncommon and frankly stressful event. The way you respond under this stress is entirely non-negotiable because what the person stealing your shit is capable of is the only one with a full understanding or control of the situation. And despite that information, they chose to move through with their actions. They didn't find themselves there, they put themselves there. So it's less like you saying that you think your shit is worth more than their life as much as you aren't in a position to be held accountable at all, whereas they have made the decision that your stuff is worth more than their own life. THEY knew the risks and said yes, this is worth risking my life. Even if you made the argument that retreating is the moral answer, it still doesn't mean somebody who doesn't retreat would be held to your hypothetical moral standard. They are in the middle of a burglary, they aren't in the right mindset.
Exactly! I have no idea why I watched this whole thing when the women's argument basically is, "You should feel for the person breaking into the person's house." She just keeps adding on hypotheticals that still pretty much go into what you said. And the whole thing just ends with her still going, "I just don't understand why you would think that way."
@@jamesmorrison7989 I'm jealous of you... in my country the police feels sorry for the thief and not the actual owner of the house...
@@jamesmorrison7989 Shittiest country in scandinavia, also known as Sweden. Might as well be one of the worst countries in the world when it comes to our government and politics and everything.
@@jamesmorrison7989 Well in America there are FAR better rules than here in Sweden. Take a rapist for an example, people GET away with rapes in Sweden, worst case scenario they either have to do some weeks with community service or whatever, its fucking ridiculous. Meanwhile in America you could possibly go to jail/prison for having sex with someone under 18 (assuming like an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year year old) Although I don't like the fact that you'll be known as a pedophile/rapist if you have sex with someone under 18 in America, that in my eyes is ridiculous.
Point is, Sweden is fucking trash when it comes to laws, politics and our government.
@@jamesmorrison7989 Exactly, BUT if you say something like that in media in Sweden you're a racist apparently. Trust me, America will never become anything like Sweden when it comes to laws.
The burglar got DESTROOOOYED in Destiny's house.
The burglar got DESTROYED in this debate
-Nice Meme
I guess you could say, it was his destiny.
Steven "if you steal my sax, you'll get wacked" Bonnell
this is one year old but damn this comment needed more recognition.
"What if they steal my sax??"
steal my sax, get the whacks
where does he say this
Me: *has cool bendy pencil*
Friend: *takes cool bendy penc-*
Me: BLAP BLAP BLAP
How many hours did it take for you to obtain that bendy pencil?
Friend: breaks into your house in the dead of night while your sleeping and is rummaging through drawers to find the cool bendy pencil
Me: bang bang bang
@@Link-oy4ok if it’s ab a bendy pencil murder is assuredly not the right answer
All pencils are bendy pencils if you know how to wave them from the middle.
Blap blap blap sounds more like you’re clapping his cheeks rather than unloading a firearm
A tazer is extremely unreliable, the amount of clips of tazers failing is insane. I would never think of it as an actual option against a home invader.
Only people who think tazers are amazing should use them
Especially if the other person guns tazer has bullets lol
@@fungdark8270 The only people who genuinely think you should use tasers to defend yourself are retarded.
Every time a person brings up tasers I think of that one videos where the cops are tazing the old guy with a cigarette in his mouth and he is 100% unfazed and proceeds to keep verbally assaulting his woman 🤣
The stronger point for Destiny to have argued on would have been the ambiguity of the persons intent inside the house rather than their threat to property. It feels like she cornered him into arguing weaker points which he had to argue to keep continuity.
he did mention that at one point but they kinda drifted away from that argument
I mean destiny had said that even if he were to hypothetically know that the only person's intent was to steal his items that he'd STILL believe it acceptable to kill them, given that stance is much more obscure i think it'd've been better for them to go down that route
She conceded that at the start and they went on to the more difficult case of just being a threat to property
He needed to combine 3 arguments,
1)You have a right to confront someone stealing your property
2)you have a right to defend yourself with lethal force against criminals who could pose a threat to you or others
3) anyone able bodied stealing, when confronted is a potential threat
Like just say u bugel from my home and demege iT or enter ur home witout u wiling so u kan kil defens or use dedly fors on thad person sorry for my langids i’m from the nederlans but its the samein the netherlans
Dumb sexist comments here, Christ.
This woman is far smarter and more articulate than the majority of men destiny debates. This was far more of an insightful debate than something like a nobullshit vs destiny one.
Though the latter is good for memes.
So many "alpha" men saying how they would flat our murder with no regreat, rarther worrying.
Shes a naive Liberal moron in lala land and so are you. She talks nonsense because shes never experienced living in a high crime Black/Hispanic neighborhood
It was still a good debate. I went back and forth on this one. I don't have a strong position on it though.
Tenma You just need to defend the honor of 3 more maidens before you get 1 free boobie touch!
She is also super cool lol. she memes pretty fucking hard in chat and when she's left alone with chat.
Looks like santa is gonna get shot
lmao
My brudda
Commies get ventilated
I'd argue that most people understand there's a possibility of being killed when breaking into someones house. The thief is the one making the decision that my stuff is worth more than their own life.
I wish he would have made this point and he did in a way but not this clearly
if you really could hit a button and scan a burglar's brain when they enter your house, and you could determine they are not interested in killing, I'd not kill them. try to scare them off or hide, sure. but in REAL LIFE, you do not KNOW whether they are there to kill you, so I would NOT give them the benefit of the doubt, because that could be lethal.
This isn't the purge, people don't just enter your house to kill you. It would be unreeasonable to assume this. They want to steal your stuff for money. If you try to kill them your very likely to just escalate things into violence, and not even entering in other cases such as misfiring someone from your own family, mistaking someone for a burglar, etc. Just make sure the rest of your family is in security and try to avoid confrontation by running away or locking yourself up.
@@AiguilleVoodoo so you should just assume they won't attack you? Do you realise how dangerous that could be? What if you assume that but they secretly have a gun and end up killing you and/or your family. They broke into your house so you absolutely have the right to use lethal force especially if you feel threatened and there wouldn't be many situations, if any at all, where you don't feel threatened.
So you believe those convicted of breaking and entering should be put to death, right?
@jchc VV the crime is breaking and entering. Under your conditions I could break into your house and sit at your kitchen table and you are justified in killing me. The crime is the exact same if I'm caught by police and go to jail, or you shoot me. The crime is the same. The punishment is not!
@@AiguilleVoodoo lol it happens every day, you absolute clown
Debater: 'So they forfeit their right to life by stealing your saxophone?'
Destiny : 'Yeh but its my shit.'
XD
Yea I hated how he kept saying that lmao. Sounded like he was bringing emotion into it like "But its personal, its my stuff..."
Because that's an actual philosophical argument.. The value of a life vs your possessions....
Plus you probably don't want people in your society stealing. Who's to say they aren't going to go other houses, and possibly harm someone else?
@IRonIcScopez
But what happens when you're faced with a person who values the acquirement of your possessions (ie in their intent to steal it) as worth more than your life? Like their main objective was just to steal from you but they're also prepared to fight/kill you either to make sure they're able to get away with your possessions or just to not leave behind any witnesses? What happens then?
Riko1980 riiiiiiighhhht
Destiny explains like 5 times, why personal possessions are important to him, and she says she understands each time
5 minutes before the end of the conversation: "Why are random items so important to you?"
Yeah she was an idiot
Don't infringe on another person's constitutional rights and expect them to uphold yours.
Exactly. You've put it in the best, simplest terms. As soon as you violate the social contract of someone (their right to property), you lose any right to have your own contract respected (your right to life, safety from violence). How hard is it to just respect people's property?
The Lawful Neutral
@@TraumaGarden How hard is it to respect human life? Of course it isn't right if someone tries to steal your stuff and you absolutely have the right to try and stop them by force but you shouldn't go as far as to intentionally kill them unless you feel your own life or the life of others is at threat from this person. People make mistakes. There are plenty of people who were thieves at one time and then completely turned their lives around. You have no idea why they're stealing. Maybe they're in desperate need of money to provide for their children? etc.
@@F7HFL But the burglar/house invader broke the social contract of "don't do things that you wouldn't want done onto do you." There are a lot of unknown factors as well. You don't know if he has a gun, if he's homicidal, etc. If someone has the propensity to break into a house while the occupants are there, then its a safe assumption that he MIGHT have the propensity to kill you and your family. It isn't an emotional appeal, it's just a natural corollary. You're giving us all the reasons why someone would break in, but they're breaking a basic social contract
This is a matter of morality, not law.
"what if they took like my fucking saxophone" that gave me a chuckle. keep the memes coming my dude 🔥🎷🔥
Kushol Huq someone said "he took my sax, I took his life." And I lost my shit lol
my castle my dude
Just being allowed to kill someone that breaks into your house prefents alot of people even thinking about breaking into your house. If you do, that's your problem. That shouldn't be the owner's problem
I wonder what the numbers are on that topic.
I live in Texas. A home invader should assume that whatever home they break into has an armed home owner in it. And many of these invasions end in the death or wounding of the invader. But people still do it for some reason.
@@Rokaize criminals by-and-large are not smart people.
@@Rokaize probably much less in texas
Yea but a blanket ok on killing Intruders opens the door for a lot of sketchy murders.. a psychopath could lure strangers in and shoot them as they please.
@@jseden what a fucking reach
Your personal property can represent SO much. Your laptop could be your ticket to a better job, better prospects, better opportunities, etc. Someone stealing it means you have to earn the money for a new one. Someone stealing your shit can be literally setting you back years.
Indeed, I’ve heard Steve make this very point in another debate with big joel
But just shooting a burglar dead without even giving them a chance to surrender is kind of harsh frankly .. it takes away all chances of this burglar ever have of turning over a new leaf, that kind of reaction towards burglary make it a human mistake as grave as a murder itself but really is burglary in general as bad as murder ?
@@88feji You can look up the amount of home invasions that end in death, rape, or a gunfight.
“An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each
year on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these
burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.
In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization”
7% is not odds I’d like to play with me or my family.
@@fungdark8270
But between the chest/head VS the legs which part of the burglar would you aim for to shoot them ?
What I'm saying is that I would not aim to kill them but to injure them so they would not escape or at least to slow down their escape ..
Aiming to kill burglars is a bit excessive I think ...
@@88feji I am absolutely in the school of thought that breaking in to an occupied home is a challenge to the lives of everyone involved.
The stakes are not simply “possessions” it is at that very moment your very safety and the sanctity of your home, which is invaluable
Occupants of the home would be correct to assume the worst intentions of the intruder, and the intruder would be right to assume the occupants intentions to defend themselves with deadly force.
I can’t say exactly how I would react to specific cases, but if I was to shoot, it would be the center of mass, whatever that happened to present at the time.
My concern is someone being victimized solely because they hesitate to act forcefully.
It’s better that ten burglars die that would not have been violent than one innocent person be victimized that could have avoided it.
It is not just my RIGHT to protect my kids, it is my RESPONSIBILITY.
It is not my responsibility to protect the life of this fantasy stoner down on his luck that this person thinks is representative of the average person who breaks in a home.
Snippy Snowflake but but , what about the poor defenseless burglars feelings and right to life? D:
I like how the thief is a stoner 😂😂😂 weed obviously makes people steal
Pepe The Platypus bro saying the thief was high is like saying the thief is wearing shoes, it has absolutely nothing to do with the problem. A person stole from you, that’s about it lmao
Pepe The Platypus I smoke weed daily and I’m not stealing 😂😂😂 like tf
Destiny got burgled in this Debate
She stole his time, she has willingly offered up her life.
Name one thing that he said out of emotion and not morality... Did you even listen?
If that's what you took from it it flew way over your head, try listening again.
BlasterMaster that's absolutely not what Destiny said at all my dude? Again, did you listen to his reasoning or implant your own?
He clearly said that in his morality he only has moral consideration for people who reciprocate the same social contract. He views breaking into his house as the intruder breaking that contract, therefore he loses all moral obligation to not kill that intruder. Like he clearly stated, they are offering themselves up to the absolute risk that they will be killed. There are things that can be done on both sides to reduce the risk of death, sure, but Destiny argues that the initial act is by the intruder (breaking into the house) and therefore they are responsible for whatever chain of events occurs. That by entering his property they have said they already do not respect that, so why should Destiny assume they'll respect HIS right to life? Both sides have ways to mitigate death, but the theif that initiates the situation by violating the homeowners rights had the ultimate choice to not enter the house. He's not arguing for the legal definition of self-defense, he's arguing for the morality of Castle Doctrine, the idea that you can kill someone for entering your house.
I'd really like you to point out anywhere he actually said what you've said he did. Because he didn't say anything about "wanting" to kill them because of any emotional reason. He specifically said he doesn't want to kill anyone. He's making a moral argument, not an emotional one.
BlasterMaster I think you're completely misinterpreting his moral value system. He values the social contract above all else. He doesn't believe in inherent moral rights. He States as much in the debate, you just didn't seem to hear it. It's okay, I think I see where you're coming from, but I think your actual disagreement with him is more based on his social construct idea. He wasn't making an emotional argument at all.
You have a right to your opinion but I think if you talked to destiny about it he would pretty much say what I just said.
This is probably the best debate I've seen destiny have. Probably because the girl seems reasonable. She makes points and concedes points.
She makes no sense at all in my opinion lol
@@LL-qq4go At least she's not like NoBS or especially ABL, but still she's an idiot. If you are a criminal, this is the person you need to target, this person is a victim. She wants to be stepped all over and doesn't care if you have the capacity to take her entire families lives.
I disagree. She doesn't seem to understand the significance of not knowing the intent of a perpetrator. She concedes it but doesn't understand how hard it breaks apart her defense. The situation is that there is someone in your home and you do not know what they will do. You have the absolute moral right to protect yourself and those in your household with lethal force. Now if they are in your house and they announce "I am robbing you, but I will not harm you" then yeah maybe lethal force isn't justified, but that is so obviously absurd it hurts to imagine. The whole argument falls apart with the fact that you never know the intent even in that hypothetical as they may be lying.
lol "what right do you have to defend your own family and property?"
yes, she's a real intellectual
@@x4XDCX4x But this is a debatable point. She's not an idiot for trying to find the line between when and when not one can use lethal force in a situation that involves theft or invasion of private property. Once you state it absolutely like destiny did, there are a bunch of hpthotetic scenarios that seem illogical. She agrees that to some extent and to a certain degree lethal force may be necessary but not in every situation that involves breaking social contracts such as privacy or autonomy
I 100% consider breaking into a persons home essentially on the same level as rape. That person will never be the same again. You took away their peace of mind forever.
Especially if you are at home when it happens. I've been lucky enough to only have had my house broken into while the house was empty, but even that fucked me up for a long time.
It was on my mind constantly. I still wonder sometimes at work.
I had my car broken into and even came face to face with the person that did it. She was a 20ish year old 5’4 100lbs girl so I wasn’t physically threatened, but it still felt…gross. I found out she was living in it (I was getting it worked on at a shop, left it there for a few days) and I felt so violated. Idk if I’d compare it to something as traumatic and personal as rape, but it still fucked me up for a while. It makes me feel even worse that she never got caught. As she started to walk away I grabbed her arm and she flipped out and screamed “DONT TOUCH ME!!” and I looked so bad with all kinds of people standing around thinking I was the one violating her. Ugh, it was so fucked up.
So true. I've had my house broken in to twice. I never feel safe in my home due to that. Every sound, like a branch falling off a tree on to the roof, and I'm in adrenaline mode. And they get to be happy about all the money they got off pawning my shit, while I'm always on edge in my own home. If they ever do it while I'm at home, somebody is going down. Might be me, might be them, but its one or the other.
I wouldnt say they are on the same lvl. Definitely have some similar effects on the victims but the crimes themselves are not at all on the same lvl
You steal my Sax
You get the bash
@@lo855 I radicalised to ancom so..m
@@lo855 what happened to have changed his mind?
You forfeit your "rights" as soon as you infringe on the rights of others. Breaking into someone's home is infringing on their rights.
This is great. Best argument made by a feminist ever. Make safe spaces great again.
I agree with you. Im telling you how you make a law. If someone can think about a hole in your law its gonna be used. If its that easy to murder with your law your law is broken. Murder with no witness because they are dead is a broken law.
Wisti Johnston I think if an investigation is done into the crime, it should be possible to deem whether the person broke in to a property, and was killed for it, or it was a planned murder to look like an act of defense. I get where you are coming from, maybe there's a way to have the law cover more ground fairly but yeah.
I'm not in favour of killing people in defense for breaking into your house 100%, I mean I live in New Zealand where guns aren't very common (definitely still a thing though) and the average burglar isn't gonna be carrying a gun, so defending yourself with a weapon to stop them, that doesn't kill them, is way better as an option.
Im 100% sure we agree then. I dont think you should take a armed robbery. Kill the cunts. But theft is not murder worthy. You have to asses the robbery or you dont you might have a mental thing where you are so scared you shoot on sight. But you dont get carl blanche for killing. We investigate why you killed a robber and then we find out if it was just, or you over reacted.
In full agreement, and in reference to what the guy above was stating about forfeiting rights by forgoing others rights is situational in severity. For instance, if someone forgoes my right to live by trying to kill me, it's fair to say they surrender their right to live also allowing me to respond and kill in defence, but if someone's stealing from me, I don't think that's forgoing my rights far enough to justify murder.
Been a good chat man, all the best.
Yeah, if someone maliciously enters my property they have forfeited their right to life.
Even your family members I suppose.
@@TheWallethead *maliciously*
KindaLeftWing a family member is more likely to enter your home maliciously than a criminal... think about it
@@TheWallethead Yes, if a family member maliciously enters your home they have also forfeited their right to life, but the way you phrased your comment suggested that all family members entering your property can be killed, not just malicious ones.
@@TheWallethead yeah, and?
this argument has way too many grey areas, i think Destiny is mostly correct but the girl has some good points too.
because there's an infinite amount of scenarios in which this could go down. The burglar has already shown that they don't have respect for you your family and property if they pose a threat then by all means someone's going to learn a lesson.
@@kameronrichardson2266 You can't learn a lesson if you are dead...
@@P4MI Others contemplating it might
@@P4MI yeah you can, you just won't be around to apply it.
It really doesn’t. Anyone who can break into a house can pose a deadly threat and you have every right to kill them. There’s no way to know that someone is going to pose a physical threat or not, but it’s better to assume they will.
20 hours a slave
@@strawhatJ stfu
She needs to understand, that you cannot know what the person breaking into your house is planning to do.
Also do they have a weapon, where's my family, how far a part are we, where are when, how far into entering are they, what does them retreating look like, how much time do I have to determine a movie, how do I add this all up and prioritize any of it, etc
Especially when you live in the US where everyone's armed to the teeth and ready to snap and pop a cap in your ass at the drop of a hat.
I think it was a mistake for her to let Destiny bounce around with the point of family safety for the first 15 minutes when he would in fact kill somebody for trying to steal his saxophone in a separate shed and he said so himself. The argument isn't about uncertainty of intent, it's about property rights and whether those overshadow right to life. That's the very heart of the castle doctrine and Destiny was kind of weasel-y here to repeatedly pull the conversation away from that.
Maiev_ That's not what she's saying. She is saying that you should not kill the person when you have an alternate option like hiding in your bedroom where you are (assumed)safe and forfeiting your property to preserve a human life.
Completely agree. She is wrong.
In her world, "a chance for rehabilitation" is some kind of protection token that you can exchange for a free chance to steal someone's property without worrying about being hurt or killed.
This is the first time I've seen Destiny debate with an actually logical stranger who is only opposing him because of different values.
She's missing the core argument though. Imagine if they were arguing rape. And the roles were reversed. Would she accept that someone used her argument "you have a moral obligation to keep yourself safe"? Oh well.
@@jovonn8303 it’s analogous because it seems like she can not see that not everything has to be an “equivalent trade”. How can stuff be equivalent to life? Is not so different from how can no permanent harm to your body parts be equivalent to life? We weigh the consequences of each action and we as a society agree on the appropriate penalty. It’s a social contract that you knowingly violating my right to property with the possible risk to my life means that I can be very justified to end yours.
@Julie Fortune I would
The decision to engage in lethal violence is being made by the home invader. By being IN YOUR HOME they have already demonstrated an extreme level of aggression and a real and present threat. Unless they flee instantly once they realize you're home then the ONLY safe assumption is that you are now fighting for your life.
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor There is no decision to engage in lethal violence until... someone decides to engage in lethal violence. breaking into a house is not lethal violence.
I was wondering. Do you have the right to kill someone who's stealing your memes?
Well shit, Destiny was ready to kill when someone stole his internet. So, blast away, Karl!
Yes
Only if you worked for 20 hours on them Kappa
The difference in tone between this debate and the average rightie debate is massive.
The difference in use of force is non-existent
Unwound93 ya because now destiny sounds like the more unreasonable one.
yes, because Destiny is FAR more rational when it comes to non-political topics.
@@yay842 nah dude, destiny is all over the place with this. He said burglars don't deserve the death penalty but he's morally ok with killing someone for stealing his shit. Why does it matter if a burglar is caught in the act or arrested later? It's inconsistent logic
@@redners11 He also mentioned that you don't know if they plan to kill you too. Its only inconsistent if you ignore other parts of his argument.
the saxophone is the instrument of passion, so I will passionately defend my sax
Girl: Questions Destiny's position
Destiny: Justifies position
Girl: "Okay I completely agree with you, however I fundamentally disagree with you."
This is exactly why I unironically screamed at the screen several times listening to this.
A person's house is an extension of his body. Therefore, Destiny is justified in killing a burglar. There is NO duty to retreat. That's outrageous!
Wtf? Your house is an extension of your body?
What are you? Some kind of transformer?
@@maxwellsdemon6599 U even metaphor bro? Your rights extend to your property. Your property represents your time and energy that you put into it. All private property is in a sense an extension of the life of a person.
By invading another person's home you are aggressing against the life of that person.
I’m so fucking sus of people giving thieves THIS MUCH leniency. Jfc.
someone committing home invasion is already desperate, dangerous or mentally unstable. This is not a question of morality, this is a question of safety. There is absolutely no reason to assume that someone breaking into your home in the middle of the night is not armed, or not intent on harming you or your family. This is simply a case of self defense on the part of the occupant.
When I was a teenager, a guy broke into my family home in the middle of the evening, my whole family was home and about. The guy was on drugs, had wandered across town and had been walking into people's homes in the neighborhood taking purses, stuff just laying around.
I literally walked into the dining room and came face to face with this guy, just standing there in the living room, picking up my mom's purse. He turned and bolted when he saw me. I chased him out of the house and down the street a while before losing him.
I was in shock and did not think to try and get a gun in the house, but had I had it or the presence of mind to get it, I absolutely would have shot him and not felt bad about it.
Cops should shoot mentally handicapped people on first sight. Their behaviour is erratic and cannot be predicted. Safety first. They should also shoot anyone they're questioning or detaining unless they're willing to strip naked, which is the only way to ensure beyond any doubt that the person is not armed. Safety first.
+ playgrrrr I disagree with you. You have a very inhumane outlook on life. OP is on the other hand completely spot on! For real though, I don't know if you're a troll acting as a caricature of a social liberal... but you should probably look up with straw-manning and the slippery slope is. Shooting an inherently violent intruder is not the same as shooting someone who is already detained. Breaking into someone's house is inherently violent just like rape etc. and it justifies violent defence. If I was you I would start straw-manning and say that you think rapists should be allowed to rape without the fear of being shot or attacked by their victims. So think about that before you use those tactics on others.
@@Yutani_Crayven wow, calm down
@@Yutani_Crayven I know mental health is one of your triggers so how about you take a step back before you have another episode?
Simple as this if your life is worth more than a saxophone don't break into houses.
Sacrilicious Exactly.
This is as stupid as saying "If black people don't want to get shot they shouldn't commit laws lul"
@@youare5907 Yeah if you don't want to get shot not committing home invasions is a good place to start, Don't see why you're bringing race into this though.
@@diapysik How did the analogy fly past your head that fast.
@@youare5907 Nah I pretty much said the same thing you did, you can lower you chances of being shot by not committing violent crime. I just left out race because it's not relevant.
They dont lose their right to life, they implicitly forfeit it when they break into your house.
They *explicitly* loose it when they break my window.
She is every burglar wet dream, "Yeah just take my shit away, want me to make your some tea meanwhile?"
+Valesto93 How discontent with reality are you fucktards. The only reason why we even get private property is to feel safe. If someone breaks into my safe zone and try to steal my shit I have every right to subdue/kill this person. You never know what a random person is capable of!! Are you people saying we should risk the lives of our families just because to save a fucking robbers life? If they want to "continue living" then dont break into families private zones. That simple.
Valesto93 ur a fucking dork
End of Infitnity oh man Im glad this issue is that simple and you just solved it! It definitely isnt a nuanced discussion worthy of debate its just black and white! Crime is bad so criminals deserve to die! Brilliant!
Powder
he did.
I mean, that seems like an oversimplification, you have to agree that she brought up some compelling arguments.
When she stole your memes at the end, did she forfeit her right to life?
naa they were out in the barn
...so anyway, I started blasting
Aged like fine wine.
Wait what happened? Did someone break into his house?
@@R-Cade Steven hates rioters, that popped out during BLM
@@Bonirin And he's right on both counts. You have the right to defend yourself *even against a mob during a riot*
This is CRAZY. People breaking into houses represent an IMMINENT threat to life. And even if they don't kill you, that leaves permanent psychological scars and fears and they run the risk of damaging your hard-won property. Easily justifiable execution.
You should definitely try to find something else you disagree about and get this girl back, she's really good.
Lol anyone who argues with destiny on this about "just replacing" your stuff have obviously never lived below a middle class life
I have lived and extremely low class life and Destiny is wrong.
You should be allowed to defend your items with reasonable force which includes violence.
If innocent people are in danger then that's when you can kill people.
she says "hunting the person" like the average house has more than three bedrooms ? girl what
I'm half way through, really hoping he calls her out on pretending YOU are the one deciding the thief's life is worth less than your possessions/family/life, rather than the thief with FULL knowledge and foresight is the one who made that calculation
From her point of view it would not be right for the home owner to use lethal force therefore the thief is not putting himself in danger.
I agree with you and Destiny that if you break into a house the possibility of you being killed for that is a risk you are taking.
Every time he doubled down I laughed because I was thinking the same thing. "Soooo if X, you'd shoot them?" "......Yeah. Definitely."
I really dislike when people say, "there's gray area" and then want a full accounting for every hypothetical possible.
If you break into someone’s house with criminal intent, you lose your right to live. It’s that simple. I don’t know why people would think otherwise.
Muh sanctity of life...
These people are always pro abortion ironically
@@fungdark8270 pretty wild
The argument is simple. If I have to wait until they pull a gun out in me in order to determine if they’re a threat then I’m dead anyway.
Wow, you did really badly in this one compared to what you could say to defend your point. You're not even mentioning fear for your own life the first atleast 17 minutes.
He doesn't feel fear
Magic words: "Are you threatening me? Stop threatening me!"
"just shoot em in the leg bro"
+ThE HOLLow MaN XaXa, a very civilized society you have there. Not a ruthless society compared to the rest of the world, at all.
You either take responsibility for your life and kill intruders or you place your safety in the hands of a government and become a statistic.
+William Eblen, what statistic?
@@user-s9eu8ce9fw like 1 of 100 per 100,000 that gets raped/killed/assaulted. You are not individually important to your government and they will fail you and document it was what I was refering to.
shooting in the leg or arm has actually a higher chance of killing someone than shooting the person in the stomach
Haha "dont shoot, just burglarin bro"
Breaking and entering could just be a desperate individual seeking food, or it could be a fatal home invasion where you're left tied up and beat, or other various violent things. Breaking and entering isn't always the worst thing in the world, but there is a chance that it could be. Would you be willing to risk your family's lives on the good intentions of someone who's already made the decision to take everything from somebody else? Why would they stop at your valuables? Why would they stop at your life, or your wive's, or your children's lives?
If you're only sure that one thing, one decision will stop them, wouldn't you make that decision regardless of their intent?
Confrontation would be more dangerous that shoring up the defences of a particular room and having called the police. If the home invaders are aware they've been caught, the ones that aren't there to kill you (the majority) are already running.
One of the biggest deterrents to a home invader is a dog, because it's noisey, and attracts attention. Home invaders generally don't like being caught in the act.
Someone desperate for food would knock first.
I think you forfeit your life as soon you brake into someone’s home. If an adult comes in your house without consent, you do not know their intentions. Living in America it’s too easy to obtain a gun legally and illegally. Plus there’s a plethora of stories were intruders have killed people
So just hide in your room and only waste them if they come into your room
Mason Hendricks You and your partner sleep up stairs, and your kids sleep downstairs( some houses even have bedrooms located on the basement floor). What do you do? I’m blasting them personally
Mason Hendricks they’ve already broken in the home, there’s no warning system here or 3 strikes he’s out, he or she made their choice to put their life above yours for greed and deserve whatever comes at them
@@thomasthellamas9886 I like the way you think.
Where do you live, how big is your TV?
Uhh... I mean how big is MY TV??
She keeps asking for moral justification. Morals are subjective to an individual. Break into my house with the intent to steal anything or hurt anyone and you're getting shot, full stop. That's what's happening, those are my morals, there's no argument to be made.
This comment is endorsed by Mossberg and Sig Sauer
So she wants me to hide from an intruder in my own house... what does she want me to do then slide dollar bills under the doorway and beg them to leave? Yeah right.
🤣🤣🤣 "slide dollar bills under the doorway"
I genuinely hate people who care more about criminals wellbeing than about the victims.
She's 100% lying about having her home broken into.
when someone illegally enters another person's home, they have an understanding that they may get hurt or die. you aren't taking the life of an innocent person, you're taking the life of someone who understands that they may die/get hurt, and that its their fault.
Debater: "I absolutely agree with you, but here's why I don't agree with you."
That's actually a really good conversation, they completely got to the bottom of their philosophical difference here. Props to Destiny for identifying it at 1:00:10.
So basically it comes down to rights being seen as something that only exist reflexively, that is : "I recognise your rights if you recognise mines", VS" rights as intrinsic to the human person". But I think Destiny is wrong in the sense that both of these claims are compatible with the descriptive claim that "rights only exist as a social construct and are not natural by any means". I think saying "rights are social construct" does not entail "rights only exist when they are reciprocated". That's bridging the is/aught gap. Rights can very well be social constructs from a descriptive point of view, and viewed as intrinsic to a human moral person from a prescriptive point of view. That's what Human rights are. Once you recognise that, the conversation only comes down to what kind of moral system you have overall.
PS sorry if my English is bad, not my 1st language.
I can't believe you have to morally justify killing someone who's breaking into YOUR house.
I don't know dude. I come from the view that human life is extremely valuable and stuff is not worth human life.
Mason Hendricks How can you possibly tell if the person is only going to steal your stuff? What if they try to harm you or your family?
Ok. What if I stay in my room and there is no one else in the house but me.
Mason Hendricks What if they open the door to your room and kill you ?
Then you can kill them if they try to come into your room. Just don't go search them out.
"You should just let people steal your stuff" - basically the first 15 minutes of her argument
yeah it's not worth killing them over it.
eartianwerewolf it must be nice to have such a stable life that you can afford to just let people steal your stuff and not give a fuck about it
If someone violates your rights they can't expect you to respect theirs.
SDREHXC they will never understand. Unless their in that situation
How about subdue them without killing them lol why is killing them even crossing your mind? Wrestle them down or, if you have a gun, shoot them in the leg or somewhere else non lethal
Did you watch too many Steven Seagal movies? Wrestling them down? Do you think most burglars are completely unarmed? Not even a knife, yet alone a gun? How did you come to the conclusion that wrestling down a person who enters your house with malicious intent is a good idea ? Regarding the leg, you should probably consider how easy it is to hit an artery in someone's leg before you shoot them there so yeah. Maybe spend more than 30 seconds forming a counter argument.
destiny so logical he forgot his kid is a loved one
🤣🤣🤣
I agree with Destiny but honestly he argued his side horribly
because it's a bad point to have. property shouldn't be valued over a life.
turn all things to ash Well that’s why I think his argument was ridiculous. You should be able to shoot someone in your home because protecting yourself comes first, and the law should never make it harder to protect yourself. When he started arguing that his saxophone mattered more than the guy stealing it it was absurd
@@jacobslinalx89 Disagree, the female debater keeps trying to draw these very clear lines around whether you as an individual could ever reasonably conclude if someone is a threat or not. Let me give you an example:
You hear a break in, from a crack in the door you see them unplugging your tv to steal it. There is no way you could ever be certain if this person is a lethal threat. You cant approach them, you cant scare them, you cant exactly just hunker down unless youre the only person in the house. If you do any of these things and theyre armed, boom, they're shooting. Its literally kill or possibly be killed. I dont understand where in any live robbery you can ever be sure if the robber is armed or dangerous. You ALWAYS have to assume they are. This argument is absurd from her.
@@Mykulveli So you're saying that if you have a gun. and the person doesn't know that you're there you have the right to shoot him in the back?
@@Mykulveli That makes no sense if someone turns around and sees you with a gun their next action will tell you everything you need to know.
They’re placing the value of my stuff above the value of their own life if they come inside my home. This woman has no common sense.
I think she does have common sense, let's not paint her as an idiot, she held very well in the debate and has logical points whether you disagree with them or not. My main gripe, I guess you could say, is that it seems like she is disconnecting the two concepts of property (like a saxophone) and the lives at stake out of the situation and just reading it as property>life in general when it's incredibly dependant on the factors of said burglarly. She just has a very idealistic approach, and she doesn't consider the reality of the situation as much as she should. Now, if there was some way to know for sure if they are unarmed and have no intentions of harming someone, then she would be in the right.
@@adrianalicea6704 The most well intentioned burglar on the planet is still a criminal, is still hopped up on adrenaline and still has no idea how THEY will react to finding out that somebody is home/awake. It is actually insane to put the onus of responsibility on the victim in that scenario. EVEN IF the burglar has no intention of harming you at the moment they decide to break in - there is no reason to assume it will stay that way once they're inside.
When youre breaking into someone else's house/property you forfeit your right to feel safe/unharmed.
Exactly. Her take is such dogshit and so unrealistic.
She speaks like someone who has never been seriously threatened or had to contact the police.
She’s really under the assumption that everyone deserves life. Let’s face it, not every human deserves to be alive. Some are here just to watch the world burn. In the middle of a stressful situation she’s saying that you should be considerate of this person’s life? Bullshit! If they broke into your house you have no idea how far this person will go to get away with what they have done. This is ridiculous.
Wow, so this is what a reasonable discussion in good faith is like?!
Stealing my memes gets you the ar-15
"I don't know if that person is going to kill me, any loved ones or my kid." Poor wording there, Steven.
😅
I feel like she is missing the point that the perpetrator sacrifices their own life in these scenarios. Knowing that a result is death, they still break in to a house. Also she keeps talking about it's wrong putting value on life but literally the state already does that... so
I dont own a gun, I wouldn't kill someone who broke into my house. But I dont think it's wrong to do so either.
so every criminal counts as forfeiting their life when they commit a crime?
So pickpocket picked you wallet, boom you have the right to shoot and kill him.
A homeless guy shoplift from a store, boom kill him on the spot.
Some teen stole you hood ornaments, death.
There are many course of action you could take besides killing the person. Take note of the intruder's appearance and report to police, have security camera and alarms around your house, have house insurance, if you have a gun call the police first and hold the intruder there till the police arrive.
@@operatorlink You forgot the step where you unbuckle your own belt and grab your own ankles
@@operatorlink no every criminal is forfeiting their life when they commit a very serious crime against a person. If this intruder enters your life how do you know he aint gonna murder your family? The police is irrelevant cos they will never get there in time. You can shout or whatever but to be safe i'd just shoot them because your family and the stuff you have worked for is being threatened
Look at all these burgers madly excited at the thought of legally being able to kill someone.
lmao
God forbid we joke around. I forgot that if you joke in Europe the police will, as YOUR POLICE put it on Twitter, "track you down and make you face the consequences."
R B J yeah that's exactly what he's implying.
@David Rider Canada number 1
I'm not a burger
If you let someone punch you. And you forgive them. You are better as a moral and emotional actor. If you arrest this person and teach them anger management and then they go on to persuade 100 facepunchers from ever punching a face again. Better for you. Better for them. Better for 100 faces.
Yah but you are not morally obligated to do so.
not morality..ethics..what has the best long term effect..plenty of satisfaction there..plenty of purpose there..also i think there is a moral obligation to allow someone to try again and to do better..if all you want is to punish them for past mistakes..fine..but you give up SO much ground in terms of being a reasonable person if you are totally blind to the future..it just shows that you dont care about the principle and only the impact it has on you..which makes you small minded and incapable of leading
I normally see eye to eye with destiny on his politics but I don't think I can justify killing someone who breaks into your house unless they present a clear threat to your life. This might just be a thing deeply ingrained in American culture since I tend to see support for the castle doctrine type stuff from both right and left leaning Americans.
@@someguycalledjizz Im also not America. Self defense laws are pretty much universal and that includes the defense of your property. Also someone who breaks into your house has already showed hes willing to violate you. Good luck, thats all im going to say.
if you break into a person's house, you're automatically a threat.
Destiny was very weak in an easily winnable debate. You have the right to confront the person that’s in your house stealing your stuff, and if you confront a burglar whilst they’re stealing and their able bodied then chances are they’ll pose a threat, under these circumstances it is completely acceptable morally to get rid of a threat that has found itself in your home.
I'm almost certain it's more likely the burglar flees
@@rickross9829 Sure, but why gamble with your life?
"You're really hard on the social contract meme" but they're breaking the social contract breaking into somebody else's property....
So I remember an episode of Monk where goes home and cooks himself a meal. Turns out that he didn't live there anymore and his OCD had led him there somehow (don't expect Monk to be psychiatrically accurate). Would have been a very short series if the family had just murdered him when they returned.
They should probably not have been allowed to kill him in your scenario. But they should have been able to threaten him to leave at gunpoint. And only shoot if he is also carrying a weapon (or being a threat in any other way) or is refusing to leave. There's obviously some loopholes that likely wouldn't be there in reality. He would probably have had to break in violently since most people lock their door.
That wouldn't be murder, it would be legally - and morally - justified self defense.
IT IS NOT MY JOB to perform a psych evaluation on the stranger holding a butcher knife in my kitchen.
@@xaufy How's it different? You just got home from picking the kids up and there's a stranger holding a knife in your kitchen...
@@BigmanDogs He's in the kitchen.... using the utensils.... which are basically weapons....
She fails to wrap her head around the fact that the person breaking in is an autonomous being and the home owner isn’t taking their right to life, the person breaking in is forfeiting it at the door.
Also this mislabeled, it’s not a burglary it’s a home invasion.
burglary is breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. how is home invasion different?
@@mrsoul680 someone is home.
@@johnmorris8444 the law doesn’t make that distinction. Home invasion isn’t a legal term in any state I know of.
@@mrsoul680 it’s common parlance for a robbery taking place in your home. Burglary is when no one is present or you are attempting to enter and exit undetected like there’s 24 hour security or something. Robbery is when victims are present and alert to the crime taking place. A burglary can turn into a robbery if the home owners wake up for instance.
@@mrsoul680 actually I just looked up home invasion and it’s classified as breaking into a persons home with violent intent as opposed to just theft.
Man I really feel like this whole argument depends entirely on your geographical location. Destiny would never propose this argument if he were Living in Europe his entire life
Would you elaborate on that? I'm genuinely curious
I took germany as an example because I live there. The Laws here say that you have to use reasonable force to defend yourself (Im not gonna Glock the guy who "just" wants to steal my shit). Like when someone breaks in here it is reasonable to believe that they don't have a gun because we just don't have any in our country. So killing someone is not even considered in the slightest if you'd live here. I don't know how else to explain it, we just don't have any guns so if someone breaks into your house, thats the crime theyre commiting. Yea it sucks that they did commit that crime, but that does not give you the right to kill that person. Does that make sense?
Facts
@@Z3roBeats If a man breaks into my house and accosts me with a medieval longsword: is it reasonable for me to shoot him with a crossbow, or do I have to engage in melee?
@@timbelcijan9858 Okay, you yell "freeze or I'll shoot" and they freeze. You need both hands to hold the shotgun: what do you do now?
I fully agree with Destiny on this. Maybe it's because I have personal experience with someone trying to break into my family's house in the middle of the night when I was 14 years old, but the emotional and psychological damage it does is horrible. The main point I think is that your putting you life and/or your physical health in the hands of this person who is breaking in. You dont know whether they are just a petty thief and just want to take a few things and run without physically hurting anyone, or if they are a hardcore criminal which will assault/murder you without a thought if they find out you are awake and might impede them in stealing things; or even if they're someone breaking in solely with the purpose of murdering you.
"..your putting you life and/or your physical health in the hands of this person who is breaking in.." No you arn't, you lock yourself in a room and call the police. Don't grab a gun and think you are a cowboy and attack the person.
@@silver4831 So you're saying I am justified in killing the other person If I'm a cowboy?
@@silver4831 coward
I feel like the idea that you don't have a right to use lethal force against home invasion is an extremely upper middle class ideal. I grew up in North Miami, not using lethal force against home invasion is pretty much NOT an option. I've lived through four home invasions, in two of them the burglar got killed.
and my uncle is the chinese emperor
WUTAN Google the crime rate in North Miami and then tell me how hard that is to believe. I have drug addicted family I was living with who failed to pay debts as well amongst other things, plus my cousin was in a gang down there. I was a little kid at the time, and due to my family was probably living in a bigger magnet for burglary than most people. But you cant just write all this shit off because you're either from a more middle class area or simply wont google the crime stats.
neato
This bitches opinion legit makes me furious, so fucking naive and what a stupid fucking thing to spend time having a discussion on, shes spreading misinformation that could get someone killed. 99% of the time i can find some middle ground in stupid sjw opinions but this is too much fucking bravo.
Wether i believe your statement or not it's just anecdotal and therefore not actually relevant to any discussion. Also i don't believe you.
destiny doing the same kind of arguing he makes fun of other ppl for "so what gives your property so much value?"
"Bcuz its mai shit!"
I would make the argument that the right of self defense extends to the boundaries society recognize like the walls of your home, that barrier between your space and society space. I know he cares about the shit but I think you can argue from strictly personal safety. I'm not iron clad on the idea but what do you do with an *unknown intruder who breaks a major part of social contract for unknown reason* in the area society generally recognizes as your sanctuary.
@@cheze9733 You stun them with those long distance tasers they have (or something to that effect). Each party must have a testimony in order to optimize the mechanism of social contracts -- otherwise there's no gamesmanship at all, which is what is required for the contract to exist in the first place.
As for possessions being extensions of ones autonomy. That has tough implications. Does that mean if I steal your pencil or paper clip that I should die. Or (since corporations are considered entities, in the same way people are) if you steal a stapler at work can they hunt you down?
Or is a pencil not valuable enough? In which case, it becomes an argument about what one participant considers valuable. To some people, a mug that their parent gave them before passing away is more valuable than their car -- which means the argument of 'because it's my stuff' slithers away from even the mere pretense of objectivity and goes straight to the personal. So the OP's criticism is sound.
It cannot be a component of social contracts to undermine the gamesmanship upon which it is built or made capable to exist. It's contradictory.
@@cheze9733 But he wasn't. He made it very obvious that it wasn't an argument from self-defence but rather that he doesn't want his stuff taken from him. I mean, he literally said that taking others stuff being one of the worst things you can do to them. Clearly he's just fucked in the head on this point or he's dishonest. He thinks stealing his sax is worse than being raped, assaulted, tortured, murdered etc etc... So many things that are worse than losing your tv or sax. ~~
27:47 *flashback to losing full void and dragon claws to a god damn pjer in runescape* i agree brother... i agree
18:00
A human that does a crime is less valuable than my property.
I disagree
Fuck your property
La Gom agred
@@DDChorror fuck the horrible being who is stealing studf
Fix'd *A human that does a potentially life threatening crime is less valuable than my property.
I think she has a point. A person might not understand that their life is on the table when breaking into your home. I would let them know your intentions by shouting "You have 10 seconds to drop any of my belonging and get out of my home or I'll kill you". If they don't reciprocate then absolutely go ahead and pop 'em, rather than just killing them without hesitation.
I think Destiny values himself much higher than others, but that comes down to an interest in survival, so I don't think it's bad. We all have to be a bit selfish in order to survive.
It was a great debate.
+ Stalast "I think Destiny values himself much higher than others" It's pretty reasonable for a victim to value their safety over their abusers safety. Because that's what you mean with "others" in this instance.
+ Nick F Thank you! Robbery is an inherently violent act which provokes the victim to defend themselves with violence.
Stalast in other countries you can just walk into anyone's house and not worry about robbery or getting killed. In America, it's become so bad that we put physical possessions above human life
Smash-ter that's not true fuckhead
Bigman Dogs more like valuing his car over the robbers life.
If a woman is getting raped, does she have a right to protect herself with lethal force? The rapist is just trying to fuck, not kill her.
Burglars everywhere are searching for this woman’s house.
So if someone steals my pencil, I can just bust a cap? Got it.
@@dickyboi4956 only if the *broke into* your house
One shot does not always = death. When the robber enters a house the robber should expect to be confronted by someone. Destiny said if the robber poses as a THREAT to your LIFE then you can use lethal force. This makes sense. I agree with this.
If the person does not pose as a threat to your life, then do not use lethal force, but instead threaten them with it, to get them the fuck out of your house.
What happens if you yell at them and they just keep going to steal your shit or already stole it and now they are running. If you start yelling at them and they notice you are just gona yell they might proceed to still your things. This is of course for long range thing if thief is close to you you can't possibly know what will happen he might panic and attack you he might run away with nothing he might run away with things but you as a person being robbed dont know at the moment. And now question is if you let him run away without him stealing anything and next thing you know he run to your neighbor and he stole something from him or even worst robber panicked even more and killed someone what would you feel. We could throw theories and scenarios whole day but at the moment that someone is getting robbed no one knows what will happen.
Being in my house without my consent is a reasonable threat to my life.
The point is that the burglar is somewhere they shouldn’t be in the first place.
Touch the sax, get the axe
If you can make the leap, it actually is also an indirect violation of your bodily autonomy. By taking things of value that you had to earn via your labor, the thief is, in an indirect way, making you perform your labor FOR THEM against your will.