Intruders (BnE) and Non Violence

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
dagon
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:45 am

Re: Intruders (BnE) and Non Violence

Post by dagon » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:55 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:Interesting discussion and good responses above. The one scenario I haven't seen mentioned yet is this:

What about the home invader who is not interested in stealing your money, your televisions, your jewelry. He and his accomplices break in to kill you and your family. Now the situation is changed quite a bit. It is not simply a case of letting him in, letting him take some things and leaving you and your family alone. He is coming in to kill. You can use the saw simile for yourself, but are you willing to use the saw simile for your spouse and children? Tough decisions . . .

Yes, it is rare, but it does happen. Not too long ago a group of criminals did a home invasion, raped and killed the wife and daughter of a physician. The physician was tied up in the basement and they set the house on fire. The doctor was able to escape and survived. His wife and daughter were murdered.

The obvious best course is to call the police and escape out the back with your family. But what if there is no opportunity to escape? Do you potentially use deadly force to save your family members? Perhaps you might be advanced enough to apply the saw simile for yourself, you have no selfishness; but how about your family members? Do you leave them to fend for themselves? Tough choices, with no real correct or easy answers.
For the sake of discussion: lets say that you have a gun in your house for this remote risk. Where are you going to keep it to make it accessible in such a situation. How much time do you think that you would have to get the gun in your hand and ready for use. How could you insure that you kids don't get hold of it and play with it (tragic consequences have occurred from that). How can you be sure that your gun is not stolen by criminals and used to kill others. What effect would buying a gun to potential use against another person have on you practice. There have been rare cases where the kids have taken a gun from the house and intentionaly killed other kids!!!

Personally i would prefer the risk of not having a gun in the house. I would prefer not to make myself a victim without the remote risk of that hazard occurring.

you may find this link informative
http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/ ... g-gun-home

metta

paul

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 12822
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Intruders (BnE) and Non Violence

Post by DNS » Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:11 pm

dagon wrote: you may find this link informative
http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/ ... g-gun-home
Throughout that article the author mentions, "there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces . . " which is just to say that there is evidence on the other side but the author rejects it as not credible.

The statistics are skewed by both sides on the gun debates. On the anti-gun side, statistics are used that include all crimes and accidents done by criminals. They include acts that happened in the course of criminal actions, they include acts that happened with guns obtained illegally, without permits, without gun safety classes being attended.

On the other side, they show the statistics where gun ownership prevented or stopped crimes, where gun ownership is massive and there are few accidents. In the U.S. there are some 300 million guns which is one for every person. Obviously there are millions who don't have guns, so there are also millions who own several guns. It is amazing that there are not more gun accidents considering the sheer volume, quantity of guns out there in the U.S. Those who obtain their guns legally and attend gun safety classes have far fewer accidents and far less likely to commit crimes using them.

If guns should be banned why do police and military have guns? I do believe some guns should be banned; especially those that are only designed for killing large numbers of people, such as assault weapons, machine guns, etc. Most people might answer that it is okay for police and military to have guns since they are properly trained. Civilians could be required to get this type of training too and this would eliminate most accidents. And background checks could prevent guns from being sold to those with mental illnesses, those prone to marital strife, and those with a criminal background. There are background checks in all states for those who purchase guns legally. The criminals who obtain their guns illegally didn't have to pass any background check. Unfortunately, in many states still to this day, one can legally purchase a gun after passing the background check but is not required to take any gun safety class.

daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Intruders (BnE) and Non Violence

Post by daverupa » Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:18 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:Throughout that article the author...
Nevermind the press writeup, here's the actual paper - which simply summarizes current literature on the topic. Page three goes into depth re: Benefits (of a gun in the home), and there is discussion of the credibility of certain conclusions thereby. Summing up later on,
Conclusions

There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home.... That said, for the large majority of households, having a gun in the home will not provide either health benefits or costs this year. However, for those households where having a gun or not will matter this year, the evidence indicates that the costs will widely outweigh the benefits.
---
A public health approach to the prevention of firearm violence recognizes that just as we have many motor vehicles in the United States, we also have many guns. And just as there are many types of public health problems caused by motor vehicles (e.g., injuries to pedestrians and bicyclists, side-impact collisions, rollovers, head-on crashes, and car fires) that require diverse policies in order to have a substantial effect, there are also many public health problems caused by guns (e.g., accidents, suicides, intimate-partner violence, mass shootings, gang killings, and assassinations) that require diverse policies to reduce the problem.
source

---

With rod and weapon laid aside, gentle and kindly, one abides compassionate to all living beings.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: Intruders (BnE) and Non Violence

Post by seeker242 » Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:38 am

David N. Snyder wrote:Interesting discussion and good responses above. The one scenario I haven't seen mentioned yet is this:

What about the home invader who is not interested in stealing your money, your televisions, your jewelry. He and his accomplices break in to kill you and your family. Now the situation is changed quite a bit. It is not simply a case of letting him in, letting him take some things and leaving you and your family alone. He is coming in to kill. You can use the saw simile for yourself, but are you willing to use the saw simile for your spouse and children? Tough decisions . . .

Yes, it is rare, but it does happen. Not too long ago a group of criminals did a home invasion, raped and killed the wife and daughter of a physician. The physician was tied up in the basement and they set the house on fire. The doctor was able to escape and survived. His wife and daughter were murdered.

The obvious best course is to call the police and escape out the back with your family. But what if there is no opportunity to escape? Do you potentially use deadly force to save your family members? Perhaps you might be advanced enough to apply the saw simile for yourself, you have no selfishness; but how about your family members? Do you leave them to fend for themselves? Tough choices, with no real correct or easy answers.
Yes tough choices! Personally, I think this is where previous practice experience comes into play. If you have previously been making right effort to keep right action, mindfulness, intention, etc. If you understand how kamma works and you know what makes good and bad kamma. If you are able to keep right mindfulness in such a situation, then you will intuitively and automatically know what is appropriate to do or not do when the situation is presenting itself. So in other words, the very action of the situation presenting itself is the thing that is going to tell you what is appropriate or inappropriate.

For example: MN 61 says:
"Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do.
It's quite difficult to tell what action would be skillful or unskillful if you don't already have the precise particulars of the situation right in front of you playing itself out, in real time, because that is when intuition regarding the above kicks in. In the heat of the moment, so to speak, your previous practice experience will immediately tell you what is appropriate. I don't think the choice would be a difficult one because after you reflect on the above, which should only take a matter of seconds, you will automatically know what to do and choosing an action that you already know is not unskillful, is very easy because you already know it's not unskillful beforehand.

:namaste:

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 12822
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Intruders (BnE) and Non Violence

Post by DNS » Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:18 pm

seeker242 wrote: For example: MN 61 says:
"Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do.
Excellent quote, sutta. I had forgotten about that one. That Sutta with instructions to Rahula is like a "Life Meditation" instruction, so I added that to my Dhamma Wiki article:
Life Meditation

Buddhism, especially Theravada tends to be on the passive side, preferring the least confrontation. When in doubt about what to say or do, it seems the preference is to err on the side of silence. I notice I tend to do this myself in some conversations; when not sure what to say or if it might be harmful, I err on the side of silence. Usually there are fewer mistakes made that way, then for example the person who talks without thinking or reflecting on what he is saying.

It is similar with bodily actions too, it is usually better to remain passive rather than do something terribly wrong. But clearly remaining passive in all instances can be detrimental to oneself and to others. One example, is the person about to commit suicide; we don't sit idly by and send metta. Rather we implore the person to not take their life, that things will get better, the situation is impermanent, etc.

So if we apply this to the Sutta teaching above; would doing nothing ". . . lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both?" And in the example I gave, doing nothing clearly would result in self-affliction and to the affliction of others. Could we possibly receive bad kamma for stopping the assailants even if justified legally? Yes. If we refused to do something to save other family members could we possibly be acting selfishly to protect from receiving bad "kamma"? Yes.

Like I say, no easy answers.

dagon
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:45 am

Re: Intruders (BnE) and Non Violence

Post by dagon » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:28 pm

Without trying to drift any further in to the gun debate, my reasons why I do not want a gun in my home (not saying what others should do or think) are as follows.

I have not had a gun in my house since 1987, at that time I was a prison officer in a small town and my family was known to be an officer’s family. As such, my family was at a higher risk of being target than most in the community whether for purposes of revenge or attempts to influence my actions. I had extensive knowledge of firearms from military, custodial and target shooting training. I had the opportunity to get to know a lot of criminals and to find out how their various minds worked. This is what informed the decision that I made at that time. Buddhism was not a consideration in the decision.

25 years later I have no regrets about that decision, all that has changed is that I have tried to move towards a Buddhist life style and tried to develop a better understanding of the Dhamma through living a more ethical life, study and appropriate reflection on my intentions and actions. I have examined my life and tried to see what is useful to the practice and what is not useful.

My truth (which is only applicable to me)

If I have a gun in my possession then I have the intention to kill under certain circumstances. If I buy a gun for the purpose of “defending myself, my home and my family” then I am buying a weapon – engaging in trading of weapons.

The reason that I would buy a gun is that I was living in fear and that should tell me something about my (lack) of adherence to the teachings. That if I hold such a total aversion to the unlikely events of a home invasion with the intention to kill that I am binding myself to something that I don’t want. I think that all too often we terrorize ourselves and force ourselves to live in ways that we do not want – this is no different in effect than a terrorist action against ourselves. Violence has a rebounding effect but with each rebound it gathers force – until someone of peace stops the violence in its tracks. The words from the Pali Cannon that come to mind are “stop now, no you stop now”

The irony of the discussion to me is that the only times that anyone has broken into my house with the intention of killing was a friend who intended to commit suicide. I had dinner with her last night because of a discussion on the forum about approaches to alcoholism and I remembered that I had been somewhat negligent in my support for her continuing recovery. She thanked me more times than I care to remember for saving her life (on a number of occasions). I have asked her before why she did what she did in my house and she said that “I knew my body would be treated with dignity”.

Metta
Paul

Sima
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:41 pm

Re: Intruders (BnE) and Non Violence

Post by Sima » Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:13 pm

Hi!

I signed up just today, so I hope I'm not committing any blunders posting on this thread, especially on such an emotional topic.

Others have commented on the importance of intentionality, on the one hand, and on the permissibility of "striking a blow" when the intention is "to escape." That was very well said, and I've nothing to add to any of that. Dagon's posts are particularly interesting, with his background in corrections, and I respect his decision. Also, as was pointed out earlier, the default in Theravada seems to be toward pacifism, and away from "striking a blow in order to escape."

In case it's of interest to anyone, I can comment very briefly about firearms. Going back to intentionality as the key, the question becomes, "What is your intention in having, carrying, or using a firearm?" To the average person, a firearm is made to kill, and having or using one indicates the intention to kill. That would certainly create bad karma, so anyone with that view of the matter would do most skillfully to have nothing to do with firearms.

Depending on the individual, it might be possible to carry a firearm with a different intention. I have worked in law enforcement, and I have carried a firearm. I asked a Theravada monastic in the US whether working in law enforcement could possibly be seen as "right occupation," and he gave that infuriating answer: "It depends." It depends on your intentions, and it depends what you might do when faced with circumstances that seem to call for wrong action, or wrong speech, etc.

My job in law enforcement was serving arrest warrants: my work day was spent arresting people. My intention was to protect... the people I was arresting. Another person in that job might break down the door, use excessive violence, etc. I've been able to do the job without breaking any doors, without using any violence, without harming anyone--partly, of course, because I've had the good fortune not to run into anyone who was determined to fight me. But I knew that this might happen sooner or later, and as required for the job, I carried a firearm. I did it with no intention of harming anyone. The facts that were uppermost in my mind were:
  • The likelihood of using it was slim--more than 90% of police go their entire careers without ever using their firearm in the line of duty.
  • If a situation arose in which a firearm is needed, the majority of the time no shots are ever fired. Drawing the firearm ends the confrontation.
  • If it became necessary to fire a shot, the person is unlikely to die: when police specifically try to shoot someone, about 75% of the time nobody actually dies.
  • Finally, whether or not anyone dies, my intention would be to end the conflict, not to cause death.
I won't say whether that proves I had right intentions, or that carrying the firearm was right action, and I certainly would never say that this proves that other people should do so. But perhaps it illustrates a frame of mind in which carrying a firearm might not be unskillful action. That said, I very seldom carry a firearm anymore. The more the precepts sink into my consciousness, the more I simply don't want to do so. Not that I never do, or that I've decided never to do it, but the desire to do it simply isn't present.

Metta,
Sima.

User avatar
Dhammabodhi
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: New Delhi, India

Re: Intruders (BnE) and Non Violence

Post by Dhammabodhi » Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:24 pm

As a case study, the story of Ajahn Sucitto getting robbed in a forest near Rajgir(old Rajgaha) is striking. Whether his response (highlighted) is right or wrong, is upto you to decide.
Rude Awakenings wrote: The bag was hanging on my left shoulder. Across my chest
was slung the water bottle and mug so that they dangled by my right
side. It was from behind me on that side that the little chap approached.
He caught hold of my mug, and as I turned, asked in Hindi where we
were going. There were others with him; they were the men who had
been sitting on top of the dead buffalo. “To the next village,” I said as he
tugged my mug urgently. “What is it? Do you want this thing? It’s only
a mug....”
Then everything blew up. Nick turned round with a menacing expression
on his face; someone was tugging my robe on one side while the
first man was hauling frantically at the mug on its strap on the other.
Three men charged at Nick who was crouched boxer-style; he wheeled
and hit them with his backpack, then ran off with the three of them in
hot pursuit. I was being lugged in two directions simultaneously by the
strap on my water bottle and on my bag, I could only try to get the stuff
off and let them have it, but their pulling on it made that impossible.We
were going round in circles, with their excitement spinning into frenzy.
I had to stop this. “Wait!Wait! Let me get this stuff off !” Momentarily
they stood still. They all had axes and staves. The leader glared at me
through twisted features and raised his axe.
Funny how your mind goes clear when the options disappear. Why
struggle against the inevitable? The only freedom was to go without
fear. I bowed my head and pointed the top of my skull toward him, drew
the blade of my hand along it from the crown of my head to the brow.
“Hit it right there.” Something shifted; he backed off,waving his axe and
muttering angrily. I stepped forward and repeated the action. Give it
away; let it all go.



You can read what happened next here (page 238): http://amaravati.org/downloads/pdf/Rude ... gs_web.pdf

:anjali:
"Take rest, take rest."-S.N.Goenka

dagon
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:45 am

Re: Intruders (BnE) and Non Violence

Post by dagon » Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:02 am

Hi Sima
Welcome to the forum – and as far as I can see your post is most appropriate and appreciated.

Sima"
My job in law enforcement was serving arrest warrants: my work day was spent arresting people. My intention was to protect... the people I was arresting. Another person in that job might break down the door, use excessive violence, etc. I've been able to do the job without breaking any doors, without using any violence, without harming anyone--partly, of course, because I've had the good fortune not to run into anyone who was determined to fight me. But I knew that this might happen sooner or later, and as required for the job, I carried a firearm. I did it with no intention of harming anyone.



The work situation you describe and your attitudes and intentions are most useful and enlightening.
Your intentions are well known to you “clients” and the behavior that they can expect under any given response by them is well known. You are in control of the situation partly by planning and partially because you are in control of yourself. You good luck was mainly of your own making – you are a professional. You have the gun accessible and are trained to use it for the purpose that you intend.

This can be contrasted with a home invasion situation where they are in control (but probably not of themselves). You are responding to the situation and maybe faced with superior numbers and or fire power. The risk to bystanders is a risk to those who you emotional want to protect. You (hopefully) don’t walk around the house with side arms strapped to your side and in all probability have the gun in another room. There is a high probability that the people that you are confronted with are affected by drugs, mental disorders or both. They are probably also subject to excitement about what they plan and fear of getting caught. This list is far from complete but serves to illustrate the point.

The figure of 75% injury without death is true but is part of my non-buddhist decision not to have guns in my house. It is NOT generated by a decision to injure and not kill rather the effectiveness of fire arm and their use in stressful situation.

metta
paul

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 12822
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Intruders (BnE) and Non Violence

Post by DNS » Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:58 am

dagon wrote: The figure of 75% injury without death is true but is part of my non-buddhist decision not to have guns in my house. It is NOT generated by a decision to injure and not kill rather the effectiveness of fire arm and their use in stressful situation.
As far as breaking and entering into one's home, typically home owners know the layout of their home much better than the home invader and can escape or if they have a weapon use it to keep the assailants guarded until the police arrive. But I am not advocating for anyone to get a gun. Guns are very dangerous. They are not for everyone. Gun owners need plenty of training. It is a personal decision a person needs to make based on their needs, their intention and other factors. Some people purchase guns strictly for target shooting. The guns are not specifically designed or intended to kill anything other than paper targets. But this is a sport choice which most people are not interested in. Most of us here probably live in areas that are not in high crime areas.
Sima wrote:
  • The likelihood of using it was slim--more than 90% of police go their entire careers without ever using their firearm in the line of duty.
  • If a situation arose in which a firearm is needed, the majority of the time no shots are ever fired. Drawing the firearm ends the confrontation.
  • If it became necessary to fire a shot, the person is unlikely to die: when police specifically try to shoot someone, about 75% of the time nobody actually dies.
  • Finally, whether or not anyone dies, my intention would be to end the conflict, not to cause death.
Hi Sima and Dagon,

Like the two of you, I also was in LE (law enforcement) and worked for the Federal Prison system and had weapons on me when transporting prisoners. Sima's list is very accurate. Although most of the time when the police do shoot, they miss their target, which is why 75% of the time no one dies, but that is another story for some other time. Fortunately, I never had to fire a weapon at a person and only had to use #2 above which worked; simply the drawing and sight of the firearm ended the confrontation.

Buckwheat
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: Intruders (BnE) and Non Violence

Post by Buckwheat » Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:09 am

DonnieRage wrote:"Give a blow desiring emancipation" Would this apply politically (like to those in tibet, for example)? I know the Dalai Lama advises against violence, but it seems peaceful protest and even extreme self violence (like self immolation) have very little effect overall. Throughout my life I've often thought that when it comes to situations like that you have to "speak their own language" which with totalitarian states, is normally violence :( This is actually an issue that's caused me a little bit of stress as I come from a radical anarchist background, and I'm trying to work non-violence into my life. It's obvious to me that peaceful protest works to some extent (majority of the civil rights movement) but then you're waiting around for those in rule to decide they just don't want that power anymore.

Thanks in advance for any feedback
:thanks:
In Gandhi's autobiagraphy he says (paraphrasing) that non-violent protest must not be confused for passive protest. You still have to make a stir so that people notice the protest and see the atrocity of the opposing rulers. Thus Gandhi is famous for things like making salt, which publicized to oppression of British rule.. The point is to get a large populace backing you, not to overtake them with force.
Last edited by Buckwheat on Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.

Buckwheat
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: Intruders (BnE) and Non Violence

Post by Buckwheat » Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:24 am

Ben wrote:Hi Jeff,

I think my recommendation above of mitigating risk of break-in by investing in making your home more secure and less appealing as a break-in target is probably my preferred option and is consistent with Buddhist teachings. But if you do find yourself being subject to a home invasion - I would recommend that you remove yourself and your family to outside the property and call the police. If you can't do that, then stay calm.
I might be naive but I don't think that it ever ends well when armed home-owners confront intruders. The intruder already has some very dark kamma to face as a result of the forced entry, intimidation and theft. Stepping into a situation that is highly charged and unpredictable - you leave yourself open to the possibility of reaping the bitter fruit created by acting out of intense fear and anger.
kind regards,

Ben
Even many "self-defense" gun owners here in the states will point out the first line of defense is to make yourself a difficult (not-appealing) target. Make your house the least appealing one in your neighborhood and you will probably hear about a neighbor being robbed before you are ever robbed. Crooks aim for the low-lying fruit.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.

dagon
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:45 am

Re: Intruders (BnE) and Non Violence

Post by dagon » Sun Sep 15, 2013 3:35 pm

One of the issues that i have with guns in my house is biased on the number that have been used in suicides. I believe that far more people die as a result of suicide than murder. Why have just another means of suicide laying around the house.

These are two links that those concerned by the (ummm) risk of a violent home invasion for the purpose of murder and associated gun issues.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/curr ... paper.html
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/curr ... paper.html

If we look at the more likely causes of death in the home it is shocking how under prepared we are. How many of us have real plans to deal with likely emergencies - sickness, accident, and fire to mention just 3. How well have we communicated with other that live in house what to do in such events. Surely this would be a more beneficial activity to be engaged in.

There is very little left in my house that would attract the interest of criminals because as i worked out what is important in my life a lot of what i owned has been given away. Such things as photos have been scanned and copies given to other people so if i lost every thing then i can still get back what matters to me.

My home security preparations have been to reduce the vegetation around the house which has the dual benefit of making it harder for others to hid activities on my property as well as increasing engagement with my neighbors. My neighbors are my best security when i am away from the house because they will (and have) phoned the police if they see anything suspicious occurring.

What may appear strange to other people is that when i am not there i lock my front door but leave the back door unlocked. My reason is simple - i can replace anything that is stolen without any problem but if some one damages the house it will play on my mind until i fix it.

metta
paul

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AlexBrains92, Baidu [Spider], Ceisiwr, chownah, DooDoot, Google [Bot], markandeya and 504 guests