h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Um, SoRB , I am going to get a bit picky here (not ‘telling granny how to suck eggs’!)...


Remember: Risk related to a certain hazard=probability*severity(of the potential consequences of the hazard.)


Hazard: Someone breaking into your house.

Consequence(worst case, of course): death

Probability(likelihood) of consequence being death: well, based on current statistics (cough): maybe once in 5 years...which is quite high

Severity of consequence: i.e. death Very High.

Therefore, risk = high * Very high =very high

Even if Probability was 'quite low' because the severity is very high the risk still comes out high.

In mitigating risk where death is a possible consequence you MUST do something to minimise or eliminate probability.


So, your statement should be:

‘My opinion is that if someone comes into your home at night uninvited, there is a finite *probability* they are there to kill you, or would be prepared to if they knew you were there. However small that probability, you must act on it and escape, or kill them first.’

This again, supports the run or kill actions.

Alfster (Anal H&S nomenclature zealot)

When grabbed by a strange man in a dark and isolated alleyway, I broke his nose (quite spectacularly - enough for him to be spotted the following day, arrested, and charged for a string of rapes/attempted rapes) which made him let go of me, which allowed me to run away as fast as I could. I was 15 at the time and the action was almost entirely unthinking. I was terrified and did everything I was able to do to get away. I have no doubt that if I came across an intruder in my home the reaction would be the same. Get away as fast as possible. I don't think I would be rational enough under those circumstances to fight, or execute any kind of plan to ensure I had killed someone. Mind you, realising there is someone in the house is less immediate and less obvious that the bloke grabbing me in an alley - perhaps my fight/flight response wouldn't be triggered?

J, when mugged a couple of years ago, instinctively fought the guy. He could have been armed - he wasn't but J didn't know that. Again his reaction was unthinking - I *think* I'd have just let my laptop go if it had been me.

When I was burgled a decade or so ago the must have been disappointed - the telly was ancient and a bit broken (they left it) the stereo was crap, old, and a bit broken (they left that) no other valuables lying around. The only thing of value to me in the place was a 9 carat gold necklace worth no more than a couple quid in monetary terms but as it was a christening gift from my nan, who had recently died, I was devastated to find that was pretty much the only thing they took. I would have been angry to discover that a drug addict had broken in to get stuff to feed a habit, but not as angry as if it had been some tosspot doing it for kicks. We'll never know as (obviously) it was never solved...

A lot of it also has to do with one's own physical strength as well as mental strength. SoRB makes the good point of being sure that you have the determination and wherewithall to carry out effective 'self defence'. I think one can pretty quickly sum up in an emergency whether or not the odds are with you or against you. If someone was quite clearly weaker than me and had broken in/ and or attacked me I'd think I probably would go for the 'kill'. But being female and not exactly confidently expert at finding someone's femoral artery, I reckon my initial strategy, would not be to attack. But I like to think if the worst came to the worst I'd show willing to fight, which might in a psychological sense make an attacker think twice.

Fatkelli I bet you felt good for spectacularly breaking your assaillant's nose. Getting over an incident is also important and not just feeling like a victim.

Alfster:

Compare:
"there is a finite risk they are there to kill you"
" there is a finite *probability* they are there to kill you"

I suggest these statements are equivalent. They are both saying that the number in question (whether probability or risk) is small. But "small" isn't good enough when the SEVERITY part of the equation is or could be "death".

SoRB

"A lot of it also has to do with one's own physical strength as well as mental strength."

I disagree. On home turf, armed, and especially with the advantage of suprise if you have it, Kylie Minogue could kill Arnold Schwarzenegger - IF she was mentally prepared and committed enough to do so.

Physical strength advantage is a nice-to-have but far from vital.

Mental attitude is non-negotiable and uncompromising, and if you don't KNOW you have it, unhestitatingly, then you probably don't and you should really make sure you have that alternate escape route.

SoRB

SoRB



I read your sentence: there is a finite risk they are there to kill you, as saying the 'the risk may be small'...which you have qualified in your answer above.

But above I have shown that the risk is in fact high and the probability is not so small once in 5years is quite high.

Therefore, as the risk, severity and probability(on a country-wide basis) is high...kill them...kill them all.

Darth Alfster

That should be "wipe them out. All of them."



SoRB

This has the makings of a really exciting reality tv I think.. And people could bet beforehand on the outcome in various scenarios. And there could be exciting showdowns between great attackers/intruders and skillful victims. Now this is what I call viewable REALITY tv. Real stabbings, lots of blood but also criminals sometimes getting away with loads a money.

What do you think Ferretbadger?

I think it sounds like Changing Rooms crossed with The Running Man.

Bring it on!

Alfster In terms of risk assesment how does something which yousay happens once every 5 years out of 30 million odd homes represent a "high" risk?

To rephrase the consequences are very bad, but the risk is much smaller.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0251031/

Because in terms of likelihood (i.e. probability) it is about the number of times over a period that is the important thing not how many homes it could happen in.

One death every 5 years(and I am coming from a chemical industry point of view) is a high probability. It doesn't matter which one of those 30million homes it may happen in it *can* happen. As such one must assume that it could happen in your house and you could be the one.

I would post some risk assessment wensites but I only keep them at work!!!



As above, the severity of the consequence is 'bad' and the likelihood is high. Therefore, the risk is high.

Ok so what we are actually talking aobut is One daeth every five years, compared to however many burglaries took place in that time when people were in the house right?

This is presumable adjusted by how the "killing" behavior is adjusted by the actions of the homeowner. What percentage of burglary deaths occured when the home owner confonted the burglar as opposed to people murdered in their sleep or unsuspecting.

I think the equation about the risk, and conclusions is more ocmplext than you are pretending.

I still think that a good hard kick in the nuts would be dibilitating enough to allow for a swift exit to be made. No death involved and no difficult questions to answer later.

I assume that most buglars are men. Speaking as a man I'd think twice about doing anything that made my nuts ache.

PP

My lord was that a poorly typed post. Sorry guys.

Note to self:-

Preview, preview, preview!!!!

>>Physical strength advantage is a nice-to-have but far from vital<<

I'd agree with this, in a surprise situation speed is probably going to be more useful. When I was younger I thought it'd be funny to play a prank on my little sister while she slept. Though I'm way bigger than her, probably just about faster than her, and I was expecting her to retaliate. However she was suprised and so incredibly fast, there is nothing I could have possibly done to avoid being kicked in the nuts.

I do however think that in a potentially fatal attack, strength would be crucial. Having tried such things on pig carcasses (I had strange moments as a kid) I know it can be difficult to drive a knife through someone's chest or skull.

I still reckon it'd be better to try and incapacitate them with the first blow.

Or better still decapitate them.

A razor sharp axe kept next to the bed might be quite useful.

Since the answers seem to take the form of 'kill them', could I ask, under what circumstances would you *not* think killing an intruder was the best solution?

What if they were actually in the house, but for all you know, they were your sister's secret lover?

And if so, what *other* than killing them, might you do?

I would probably try talking to them first.

I was thinking about this as I walked home.

A couple of years back I was staying with pals in Bristol and had gone out for couple of Jars with some other pals. The pals I lived with gave me a key so I could get in.

Now when I returned to what I thought was my pals house I went to put the key in and found the front door open. Took off my shoes and I was half way up the stairs before I realised I had tyhe wrong house and had just walked into my pals next door neighbours house.

From what I am hearing I ought to have been a goner and would have deserved it.

Christ.