Self defense of the home(UK)

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Laz,



OK, fine. Why don't you post an example where a burglar doesn't constitute a lethal threat to me.

You leave your wallet on your window sill, with window open. Burglar puts hand through window, grabs wallet and runs away.

Easy-peasy. Want any more?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd
But stealing is hurting me. Further, a large number of people who will break into my house to rob me will also be more than willing to assault me. Further, someone who breaks into my house is already committing a wrong, against me - why are you focusing on the perceived wrongness in me shooting him, rather than on what he is doing?

If he's in your house and you have good reason to feel threatened, it's clear-cut self defence. Blaze away, my boy.

If he's running away out of your property, it isn't. As in the case of Tony Martin.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd
This is just absolutely unbelievable - I cannot fathom how people can have more sympathy for criminals who get shot while committing crimes than they do for the victims who defend themselves.

Hello? David Floyd? Are you paying attention?

If the victim is defending himself, there's no problem at all. However shooting a burglar as they run away from you is not self-defence.

Still find it unbelieveable?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd
But why don't we play your game for a second. Other than burglary, state one legitimate reason a person might have for breaking into my house in the middle of the night, without any attempt to knock or call first. And when I say "legitimate", I don't mean "barely within the realm of possibility". I mean something plausible. "Drunk and stupid" don't cut it.

A friend of mine sneaked out of her house after her parents had gone to bed so she could **** her boyfriend (she was 14). Unfortunately she came back in via the back door at the same time her father got up for a piss. He panicked and decked her with a good right hook.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd
And I'm also calling bull**** on the "drunk" excuse. I've never been so drunk that I've tried to unlock what I thought was my door, failed, and got into what I thought was my house by breaking in. Come on.

It happened to Robert Downey Jr.

This is fun. Come on! Challenge me some more!

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Ramo

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

when they have broken into your house, they pose that threat. The only thing you as the home owner knows, is that an intruder has forced his way into your home. He makes no announcement about his intentions, and you probably couldn't trust that if he did.

In GB these burglaries are increasingly done while people are at home, and increasingly violent towards the people in the home. And don't give me that "if only more burglaries could go right, with people cowering in their bathroom while thieves help themselves to all of their stuff." Is that how you want to live?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Whoha
In GB these burglaries are increasingly done while people are at home, and increasingly violent towards the people in the home. And don't give me that "if only more burglaries could go right, with people cowering in their bathroom while thieves help themselves to all of their stuff." Is that how you want to live?

Source?

I wouldn't normally ask, but seeing as only last week I heard on the news that burglary rates are falling (due to the increasing reluctance of the black economy to buy second-hand goods) you'll pardon my scepticism.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by David Floyd
3)Shooting a burglar is by definition self defense.

Uh huh. I assume your reasoning is:
1) Everyone has a right to property.
2) Therefore, property is part of a person.
3) Therefore, anyone who seeks to deny you property is a threat to your existence.
4) Therefore, you have the right to shoot a burglar on sight.

Now, personally, I don't care much for property, but I do like free speech a lot.
1) Everyone has a right to free speech.
2) Therefore, free speech is part of a person.
3) Therefore, anyone who seeks to deny you free speech is a threat to your existence.
4) Therefore, you have the right to shoot anyone who tells you to "shut up" the moment it's uttered.

Makes sense to me.

[Gibsie]

Telling someone to shut up is exercising your own free speech, and whoever you say it to has no obligation to follow your order. Arresting someone for what they say (Excluding standard exceptions) and gagging them would be the relavent analogy, which obviously would ruin your point. If you're going to trip up DF, you're certainly going to have to come up with something that someone like myself can't poke holes in

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Source?

I wouldn't normally ask, but seeing as only last week I heard on the news that burglary rates are falling (due to the increasing reluctance of the black economy to buy second-hand goods) you'll pardon my scepticism.

thus far I'm going with the telegraph article I've posted, which matches the figures I've seen that violent crime in the UK is 10 times that of the US per capita and my other pre-concieved notions about the British.

I can not find the source of that statistic however. It doesn't seem to be anywhere in the home office report.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004.pdf

Did the news report mention 1995 by any chance? something major happened then regarding crime, a massive spike upward, and all throughout this report its saying that things are better compared to that number.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by child of Thor

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4078747.stm

a bit more news on what might be coming to help out the homeowner in the uk.
Still politicians do like to talk.......

I missed this one while I was having fun with "Taliban Davie" Floyd. It's a great piece of vague murmering, isn't it?

You see, all that's mentioned is a "clarification" of how much force can be used, rather than leaving it up to the Common Law question of self-defence. Of course, that "clarification" could go either way, or not move at all. Or probably just muddy the waters further.

Did you know it's actually incredibly difficult to end up facing criminal charges as a result of assaulting a burglar? The high profile nature of the Tony Martin case has obscured the fact that such cases are actually very rare.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Whoha



thus far I'm going with the telegraph article I've posted, which matches the figures I've seen that violent crime in the UK is 10 times that of the US per capita and my other pre-concieved notions about the British.

I can not find the source of that statistic however. It doesn't seem to be anywhere in the home office report.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004.pdf

Did the news report mention 1995 by any chance? something major happened then regarding crime, a massive spike upward, and all throughout this report its saying that things are better compared to that number.

One crucial fact that you have to bear in mind is that crime statistics are basically voodoo. My immediate reaction on seeing a spike in any given year is to assume that the methodology changed. Don't go looking for archive news stories about anarchy on the streets of Britain in 1995- I was there and it felt just like any other year to me.

Britain's "violent crime" statistics can be unbelieveably all-encompassing. If they include the good old offence of "Common Assault" you're looking at a "violent" crime which caused no injury at all, was not carried out with a weapon, had no intent to kill, wound or endanger life, and quite possibly involved no contact at all. You're talking about knocking someone's hat off, or (in extreme cases) giving them a Chinese Burn.

Britain's got a big drinking culture, and lads on the piss tend to thump each other. I've been in a number of such fights myself. That's why our "violent crime" levels are high, but I'm buggered if I'm going to worry about it. When you look at homicide and rape stats, you realise that maybe we're not that bad at all.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ramo
Because killing people is wrong.

MURDERing people is wrong... Killing in self-defense is okay.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Yup. A British court would agree with that.

[David Floyd]

UR,

What about wife beaters? Should they be shot, too?

If the wife has a gun, absolutely she should be able to use it to defend herself. If I see a man beating his wife and causing severe harm to her, I should be able to shoot too.

I am sure firing a gun at another person with the intention to kill is considered murder in any civilised country.

Self defense isn't murder.

It's not about fairness, it's about appropiate punishment. It's grossly excessive to shoot petty thieves.

Sure, if a petty thief is put on trial, the death penalty is inappropriate. But we're not talking about due process and all that, we're talking about a burglar breaking in to someone's house, and by definition presenting a clear danger to that person. You're mixing apples and oranges.

And again, if burglars didn't, well, burglarize people to begin with, this wouldn't be an issue. They have the power to save their own lives, if they so choose.

Laz,

You leave your wallet on your window sill, with window open. Burglar puts hand through window, grabs wallet and runs away.

That isn't a case of breaking and entering, nor is it a case of a burglar entering your house. It's a different scenario.

If he's in your house and you have good reason to feel threatened, it's clear-cut self defence. Blaze away, my boy.

And my only point is that I have good reason to feel threatened AUTOMATICALLY when someone is in my house.

If the victim is defending himself, there's no problem at all. However shooting a burglar as they run away from you is not self-defence.

If they have your stuff and won't give it back, I really don't see a problem with shooting to be quite honest with you. Again, don't rob people and you won't have to worry about it.

A friend of mine sneaked out of her house after her parents had gone to bed so she could **** her boyfriend (she was 14). Unfortunately she came back in via the back door at the same time her father got up for a piss. He panicked and decked her with a good right hook.

And unfortunately, that example doesn't work either, because it is a case of someone acting like a burglar. If you act like a burglar, you get treated as such.

It happened to Robert Downey Jr.

Fair enough. It's just hard for me to fathom people being that out of control, no matter how much they've had to drink, and I speak from experience.

Yup. A British court would agree with that.

As long as you don't use a gun or a collapsable baton, of course

St. Leo,

Uh huh. I assume your reasoning is: etc.

No, my reasoning is this:
1)A burglar by definition commits a violent crime by breaking into your house.
2)As the burglar has already committed one violent crime, you have no reason to assume he won't commit another.
3)You have a valid right to self defense.
4)You don't know whether or not the burglar will kill you.
5)The situation wouldn't exist if the burglar hadn't committed a violent crime to begin with.
6)Shooting the burglar is justified, as you have a valid reason to feel that your life/health is in danger.

Gibsie,

If you're going to trip up DF, you're certainly going to have to come up with something that someone like myself can't poke holes in

Nice to see someone gives me a little bit of credit. Jesus Christ - we may disagree, but at least I don't treat people like five year olds.