Self defense of the home(UK)

[Ramo]

If I can't stop him without killing him, I'll let him take it and call the cops. Killing him just because you want to protect your TV is insane and should get you locked up.

[David Floyd]

You're killing him because he committed a violent crime to enter your home, and because you want to keep him from breaking into your home (or anyone else's) again. Further, you have no idea what he's going to do in your home - when a burglar breaks in, you don't have time to make a calculated threat analysis. You know that you are in danger by virtue of the fact that a (most likely armed) robber is in your home, and you don't want to become a statistic, so you shoot the mother****er.

Seriously, shooting burglars really doesn't harm society, from a utilitarian point of view - they're a blight on society, from that point of view. From my point of view, they're a blight on society, but the justification in shooting them is that they are presented a threat to your person, and already committed a violent crime in order to present that threat.

[Shi Huangdi]

Ramo

You can't pre-emptively shoot people because they might pose a threat, only if a threat is real and present.

You're killing him because he committed a violent crime to enter your home, and because you want to keep him from breaking into your home (or anyone else's) again.

Seriously, shooting burglars really doesn't harm society, from a utilitarian point of view - they're a blight on society, from that point of view.

Human life is sacred and it is not excusable to destroy it simply because you might lose some of your stuff.

[David Floyd]

You can't pre-emptively shoot people because they might pose a threat, only if a threat is real and present.

But by virtue of breaking into your house, a burglar DOES present a real threat.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by David Floyd


But by virtue of breaking into your house, a burglar DOES present a real threat.

Not nessecarily. If he doesn't have a gun and you do, there is not a real threat.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, because I won't kill anyone who isn't already trying to commit a violent crime against me. I'm just saying that if a violent criminal gets killed while committing a violent crime, I don't care, because that piece of **** won't rob or harm anyone ever again.

How is burglaring a violent crime?

Somebody sneaked in your house, grabbed a TV and some cash, and you are going to shoot him? That sounds like murder in cold blood.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by David Floyd
They are overly concerned with innocent people dying.

I think this may be a Freudian slip.


I say let's kill more innocent people.

[Chemical Ollie]

Judge Dread

[Urban Ranger]

More like The Punisher.

[molly bloom]

Nah- 'People Under the Stairs'.

[David Floyd]

Shi,

Not nessecarily. If he doesn't have a gun and you do, there is not a real threat.

But I don't have complete information, do I? That's why I get to assume the worst and shoot, and rightfully so. The criminal places himself in that position - I don't force him into anything. The easy way to avoid the predicament is - GASP - don't rob people!

UR,

How is burglaring a violent crime?

Somebody sneaked in your house, grabbed a TV and some cash, and you are going to shoot him? That sounds like murder in cold blood.

If someone smashes in my window and starts going around my house trying to find stuff to take, that is certainly a violent act, and shooting him is not murder. Again, you may not think it's fair for the death penalty to be applied to burglary, but I don't think burglary is fair, either. Simple solution? Don't break into people's houses, and there is no problem.

Surely you don't blame the homeowner for the burglary, right?

molly,

I think this may be a Freudian slip.


I say let's kill more innocent people.

What I mean is that you seem overly concerned with the few and far between incidents where some drunk idiot might get shot. Even assuming that happens, it certainly doesn't happen regularly, and remember that the law doesn't allow drunkeness as an excuse for committing a crime, so why should I be constrained in my actions to defend myself because the person MIGHT be drunk?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by David Floyd


molly,

What I mean is that you seem overly concerned with the few and far between incidents where some drunk idiot might get shot. Even assuming that happens, it certainly doesn't happen regularly, and remember that the law doesn't allow drunkeness as an excuse for committing a crime, so why should I be constrained in my actions to defend myself because the person MIGHT be drunk?

Of course that's what you mean.

I'm positive your Floydian slip didn't imply anything else.

[David Floyd]

Yes, because you actually think I'm in favor of going around shooting innocent people

If I want to say something - like, for example, burglars are pieces of **** and if they get shot then all I can say is "GOOD" - then I'll come out and say it.

[child of Thor]

Well its never a black+white situation, but i'd say from most of the sympathetic views towards the burglar expressed here, these people have never had to deal with a burgler breaking in while they and or there family are home?

Going back to the article for a second, these two men that were killed in london recently; I'm sure they were concerned for the safety of thier families(wives and small children), and did their best in the situation to protect them as best they could. Unfortunelty for them it appears the burglers(caught in the act of thier crime) were very prepared to commit murder.

This is the problem, when it happens to you, you really have no idea if you've got a 'good' or 'bad' burgler in your property.

Are you willing to possibly risk the lives of your family on the mental state of a complete stranger who has just broken into your home?
I just know what i'm prepared to do if the threat to the ones i love seems real at that momment.
I'm afraid the criminal who has in my eyes lost all his rights to be treated as a decent human being, will get no sympathy from me.

family vs criminal - i cant see that there is a choice, or should be, in a fair society?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, because you actually think I'm in favor of going around shooting innocent people

But I don't have complete information, do I? That's why I get to assume the worst and shoot, and rightfully so.

What I mean is that you seem overly concerned with the few and far between incidents where some drunk idiot might get shot.

Ah, I understand your concepts of jurisprudence and law now- innocent until proven drunk, mentally ill or mistaken in the dark.


Then it's gun law, baby!

Where is it you live, exactly? Tombstone or Deadwood Gulch ?