Ned Flanders wrote:Anyone has a right to do anything they see fit if someone breaks into their home.
If some of you think you are smart enough to talk it out with a burgler at 3 a.m., all I can say is good luck with that one.
Anyone who feels the need to visit Neddy through a window at 2 a.m. will leave with an "empty" feeling guaranteed.
Now, at this point it's worth consulting Studs Terkel on that issue.
Some years back, Terkel, at ~84 largely deaf, and a lifelong White Sox fan, was watching a game with the broadcast running til 1 or 2 a.m. TV's turned up loud, and a burglar comes in through the window, walks up behind Studs -- who hadn't heard him -- and demands money.
Terkel says 'How much do you need?" -- and, believing in the equitable distribution of wealth -- reaches into his wallet, pulls out $40, and hands it to the burglar.
"Weren't you afraid?" he was asked. "Why no!" (paraphrasing now) 'You have to understand the psychology of the burglar, vs that of the robber. The mugger/robber is engaged in confrontation; whereas the burglar is by nature nonconfrontational, and goes out of his way to avoid run-ins with the occupant. Sneaking in to evade detection vs. direct attack w/weapons or fists.'
The kicker? Studs realized he needed $20 to get across town the next morning, a Sunday. Now the burglar had $40, and he had $0. So he asks the burglar "Can I have $20?" The burglar handed him the $20, goes on his way, and Studs finishes watching the White Sox.
'Wasn't he scared to ask for the money back?,' he was asked. "Not at all. Both me and the burglar believe in the same thing: the equitable distribution of wealth. So I knew the burglar would be able to see it from my point of view, now that our roles were reversed."