Guatemano - state sponsored. Chechnya - state sponsored. Also, the only 'conflict' about Guatemano was some criticism of the government, and the only 'conflict' about Chechnya was - again - some criticism of the government. Torture itself, I believe, saved many lives within the last twenty years. If, even with this, it causes more conflict than it solves, than this is simply because people were raised condemning torture, as well as because of politics. These are both solvable problems.

I think you've ignored most of my above post, but I think you've just dealt a death blow to your argument yourself.\

But naturally also, because people are sentimental and don't want to see people suffering. Also because of the fact that torture can be highly abused- which arouse conflict. People are wary of things that can be abused, even if it isn't being abused. And theres nothing you can solve about that.

Plus I just don't see the historic achievements condemning torture as something 'feasible'. You should understand that not everyone is extremist utilitarian, let alone even being utilitarian.

I myself move to allow more lieniance against the homeowner(s). A few years back in a city close to me a a burglar broke into a well respected community member's home and was severly injured when he broke in. He came in through a sky light and fell threw the floorboards. He succesfully sued the homeowner for his flooring not being up to code or something to that affect which resulted in the burgalar's injury.

Discussion wise:
Was the student justified in killing the man? Was the amount of force he used excessive or acceptable? Should charges be brought up against him by the police department? Does the criminal's history of crime make a difference here?

So the amount of force used was indeed excessive.

Well, he wasn't justified to kill him. You could argue with self defense, but one has also to consider proportionality. The way this scene was described the burglar probably just wanted to knock the student down and flee.
So the amount of force used was indeed excessive.
Bringing up charges because of this is a whole different story because for that it comes down to the student's intentions. And since he struck the burglar only once one can assume it wasn't his intention to kill him, but to injure him to stop him which would have been okay.
The criminal's history doesn't make a difference because the student didn't know it. And even if he did it's not his responsibility to execute a death sentence.

are you telling me if this criminal that broke into your house and came lunging at you your going to decide that he was only knocking you down to flee?? Boy i sure hope you don't have a gun and he rips it from your hands and kills you. It isn't up to the home owner to make a split second decision of what the buglar means to do if he is lunging at you.

I must say I'm shocked about how many of you think it is the proper course of action to kill an intruder. In my opinion killing (e.g. death sentence) is never the right thing to do if there's no imminent danger to life or if there's another way (e.g. fleeing) to come through the situation.
But I guess that's just America.

When someone breaks into your house they do mean you harm. They are not there to say hi and ask if they can come and take your stuff. If a buglar lunges at me i'm going to assume they mean me harm. I'm not going to stand there and evaluate every last detail while they lunge at me take my weapon away from me and then kill me to avoid leaving a witness.

I agree with you if i have a way to incompacitate them other than killing them i will but i'm also gona have a weapon to kill them if it doesn't work. Stun gun would be my weapon of choice if i have one available.

Often during sports, and even times during SC melee, you have to think without words in order to react to a certain situation. This happened very often to me in basketball particularly. What I mean is, at times during these sports I would have to quickly make a decision based on my surroundings, and hope that it was indeed the best decision I could have made.

Here's what would go through my head if I were in this situation, waking up and grabbing my sword: If I were walking out of my room with a samurai sword, knowing that there was an intruder, I would be hoping to have the intruder either run away or freeze and remain frozen until the police came. I would also try to get as close to the intruder as possible, since he may easily be armed with a ranged weapon. If I get close to him, I will come into control.

Now when I come around the corner and the guy is a few feet in front of me, I move towards him and he lunges at me.. I would not expect a man to lunge at me unless the man feels he can overpower or defeat me, as in, why else would the man risk his life if he didn't think he could disarm or kill me? I would immediately slash both out of surprise and fear of what the man might do, and I would slash hard. At such a small instant of time as when a person lunges at you while you have a lethal weapon, you would be thinking he was both aware of the lethality of the weapon and has some sort of reason to lunge at you in the first place, e.g. has a knife, or is attempting to disarm you, etc.

But of course, dead men tell no tales. The college student could have easily been angry beyond all reason, ran up to the guy and slashed as the man raised his arms to his face.