Self defense of the home(UK)

[child of Thor]

Its about time a senior figure spoke about this, and i'm in complete agreement - i think no burgler should go into another person's house and not expect to risk death for their actions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4067681.stm

We are way to forgiving on criminals in this country. America's attitude on this makes much more sense to me, ok i dont want guns legalised here - but if i batter a thief to death in my home protecting my family, i want to be within my rights to do so.

[Pekka]

Weak systems usually.. they rely on criminals right too much. Of course criminals have rights, they have basic human rights and they can't just give them up, it's the job of our democratic freedom machine system to make sure they can't do that even if they wish so or act against us. BUT it allows us to isolate them and jail them.

ALSO major point in the weakness of few systems (justice) is that we think the criminal somehow can have the rights to be untouched when he acts. Self defense is like an entity no one really knows the boundaries of, including the justice system. Some shift the balance to the protector of his own family/property. I'm agree with this one. What I don't agree with is our style, where self defense is later on determined, if it was TOO MUCH. How can you self defense too much? Court decides after the matter, when the situation was not dangerous anymore and any action by the defendor turns into attacking by default. Court decides if your measures were too much in the beginning without clear set of rules. I like the rules to be clear, so I can defend myself, my family and my property accordingly without thinking 'oops this might send my ass to jail'.

Of course it is clear that I can not snap the neck of the attacker, if he comes and punches me in the nose in the street. But I should not be expected to take control of my attacker by few slick judo moves and hold him until the cops arrive. That's just a utopia. If the attacker keeps on coming, I should be able to trash his ass any way I see fit, until the danger is not present anymore. That includes all non-lethal methods, and if I'm bare handed, it includes all kinds of strikes or moves. The attacker gives up his right to be untouched when he lays his dirty stinking claws on me, and I have the right to protect myself. Why should I get my ass kicked because some socialist hippie judge thinks I was being too rough? I didn't attack anyone, the punk hit me.

Now, that's clear to me. Any way you can, non-lethal and possibly trying not to seriously injure the attacker, unless the situation is life and death matter, well then you can also kill. But this is always very difficult matter.

What is simple boundary though, is your own home. NO ONE has the right to come there and think they won't be shot in the back, if they're on the crime spree. It's a plus if someone warns them first. I say open fire if you want to. Hopefully you have to time and nerves to call it out, but if you don't, you don't need to be risking your life because some drug addict punk is there to steal your **** and possibly stab or shot you if you happen to get in the way. What, are you supposed to call the cops and wait them if there's 3 guys in your living room? Right, you start talking in the phone and stay put, hope they don't come next to you and smash you. What a bunch of utopias. It is consistent, that the people who demand these kind of weird rules by the defendor are people who never have been attacked, and live in places where such attacks to themselves are very unlikely. So they don't have the reality of the situation in their mind. It's scary as hell and potentially life threatning if someone comes to your house with bad intentions.

A criminal who comes into your house accepts willingly or unwillingly the possibility of getting snuffed. And they still choose to come. That tells you something about their mindset, they're locos. So you have the right to defend your own house and family by EVERY MEAN NECESSARY. What ever you think is the best way. If you want to talk them out of it, fine. If you want to run out of the backdoor and call the cops, even better. If you want to take out the big boys and blast them to the wall, OK.

[Pekka]

But in here, same rules of self defense apply in your own home. It's like there's no difference if you're in the street and some random drunk comes to grab you, or if you're in your home and at night some men in black come with guns.

I have told about the case where the gas station owner got jail sentence for shooting a burglar.. the punk came there, armed (no firearms though), smashed the window and started stealing. Well the owner happened to be inside and he had a gun and he ordered them to get the hell out. Now even the attackers had the same story, he did warn them and order them out so this is not the question. The attacker started coming towards the owner, and the owner shouted 'stop or I'll shoot'. Attacker didn't stop. And when he was close to the owner, the owner shot him in the leg. IN THE LEG! The burglar got sentenced for robbing the place out, and the owner got sentenced to a longer and bigger sentence because he shot the guy and his leg was now just a little shorter and caused the guy backpains as a result. WTF?!?!?!?

So this is how it is. If the attacker has a knife, according to our logic you can have a knife too, but oyu have to let the other guy slice you first, because no one can know if they would have sliced you. The attacker can say afterwards 'I wouldn't have sliced him, I was only threatning!'. That's just WEAK! We need to kill these people if we see that fit. Then we can determine if the threat was justified enough for the slaughter or not. If that person had a weapon, it was justified. If you gave a warning shot and ordered them to leave and they came on to you bare handed, you're justified to shoot. The criminal just can't expect to have all the rights of a decent citizen if he is on the rampage. Why should hte one who is in danger be thinking about the attacker AND the judge, and who is more dangerous to them? He should be thinking how to get out of the situation, and that possibly means physical enforcing.

[Lonestar]

In the united states' it's "Immient danger." So if some ****** is within twenty feet of you (you can run twenty feet faster than you can pull a gun out of it's holster and shoot) with a knife, and ha advances, you're allowed to shoot him.

[Pekka]

We have imminent danger too but it allows you absolutely nothing extra. If someone is coming to stab you, you are allowed to take the knife away. Shoot and go to jail. Take th knife and stab him, you go to jail. The irony of the situation is, the defendors always get longer sentences than in case where no one defended anyone and attacker just beat someone silly. He gets less, but if he gave the same perfgormance while defending, he gets longer sentences .

Just from today's paper (there's these things every day), where justice was TOUGH and very fair.

A guy comes home from party, and attacks anothjer person in their way home. Punches the 17 year old kid and jumps on him. Then he drags him to teh woods next and tortures him for 5 consecutive hours. Yes, 5 hours. He ties him to a tree, kicks and punches him, smashes a beer bottle into his head, burns him with cigarettes, pokes him with a knife many time and just stabs him, for 5 hours, and then he gets tired and leaves his victim there. Attack was unprovoked. And he also chokes him unconscious few times, just for the kicks. So, the guy is able to get out from the ties and gets to the hospital. The torturer says 'I had nothing else to do'. Apparently he was bored. The victim had to quit school and all, because the guy who was year older was in the same school. He was mentally in scrambles, no wonder! And HE had to quit school, not the torturer.

So the court punished him sentencing to jail for... 2 and a half years. Now that's a tough punishment. Not to forget he gets out in a year.

That's the price you pay if you torture someone for 5 hours for no reason at all. ****ing brilliant!

[germanos]

Originally posted by Lonestar
In the united states' it's "Immient danger." So if some ****** is within twenty feet of you (you can run twenty feet faster than you can pull a gun out of it's holster and shoot) with a knife, and ha advances, you're allowed to shoot him.

If yer lucky to get out yer gun out in time

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by germanos


If yer lucky to get out yer gun out in time

Better to get it ready beforehand, and only show it if the need arises.

[Ben Kenobi]

Been broken into once when I was away. They cased the joint to make sure of this. Problem is that one of the my friends got back early in the upstairs part of the house, and they fled.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by germanos


If yer lucky to get out yer gun out in time

Presumably if you hear someone break into your house, you're going to have your gun ready and tell them to hold tight (while aiming at them) while calling the police

[David Floyd]

Yeah, UK and European self defense laws are absolutely retarded. Here in Texas, if someone's in your house, you ****ing shoot him. If someone advances on you with a deadly weapon, you ****ing shoot him. If multiple people jump you and try to beat the **** out of you, you ****ing shoot all of them. If someone stabs you, you ****ing shoot him.

Moral of the story? If you go to Texas, don't commit crimes against people and property, because you'll get ****ing shot. Some people say that isn't a deterrant to crime. I say, so what? Either Texas self defense laws result in less violent crimes, or they allow us to kill more violent criminals. That sounds like a win-win situation to me.

[Urban Ranger]

Texas is just more violent.

[:) Smiley]

What's the origin of the existing protections for burglars?

[Ted Striker]

Floyd's House:

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Either Texas self defense laws result in less violent crimes, or they allow us to kill more violent criminals. That sounds like a win-win situation to me.

Or it results in trigger happy folk who shoot anything - including burglars who surrender when looking at a full loaded gun pointing at them. However, If y'all have a big clear sign saying "trespassers will be shot" then I will retract that objection.

[Urban Ranger]

That only means burglars will only burgle while bearing guns. Or rather, only burglars who have guns will burgle. It just makes the situation more deadly.