Self defense of the home(UK)

[Dauphin]

Hey Floyd, do you reckon you could shoot some Jehova's witnesses who come round your place. Invite them in surreptitiously and blast them away. Tell the police you didn't invite them and claim self defence.

[David Floyd]

Sounds like the Simpson's episode where Homer finds out you can attack people in your house, so he invites Flanders over

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


What happened to the killer?

nothing. and the facts are far worse for the killer than what I've said.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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.

Actually it is burglary, and it is a case of a burglar entering your house. In "The Law According To David Floyd" what proportion of the burglar has to be inside your property before it starts to be burglary. I'm curious. And amused.

I can come up with a lot more if you're interested.

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

Feeling threatened does not, in isolation, justify self defence. If you wake up and only see their rapidly disappearing backside as they sprint away out of your property, the law would not count shooting them as seld-defence. It would count it as retribution.

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.

That's Taliban Davie. An eye for a penny. A tooth for a tin of peas. The law, however, is based around what a reasonable man would do, and that ain't you.

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.

She considered it a good reason. It's a damned good job her father didn't own a gun- and he agrees on that point.

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.

You've got a marked weakness when attempting to consider viewpoints, experiences and cultures other than your own, haven't you? We've known that for a long time.

Remember when you posted that story about spiking a girl's drinks? Bet you weren't expecting every father of a daughter to get pissed of, were you?

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

Using a gun is fine. Just don't shoot them in the back as they're running away.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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.

So you shoot at each and every "bad person", regardless of the crime?

Originally posted by David Floyd
Self defense isn't murder.

You need to show that it's self defense.

Originally posted by David Floyd
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.

How does the mere presence of a burglar in somebody's house automatically constitute a clear danger to people inside that house?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by David Floyd



Idiot.

Then again, you aren't an idiot.

Assuming you have the ability to read the English language, which I've been able to do since I was approximately 4 years old,

I'm so sorry, I don't give out awards to people who contradict themselves within the space of a few sentences, or are late starters in the battle against illiteracy.

Have fun in your endeavours to recruit more people to the ranks of the Posse Comitatus.

[Sandman]

"Trick or Treat!"

BANG!

Incidently, if I kill a posse of teenage thieves, can I harvest their organs to help pay for the trauma they've caused me?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

You big girl's blouse. You should be asking if you could skull-**** their twitching corpses through the bullet-holes.

[Sandman]

I was saving that one.

[Sandman]

Oh, and what happens if you're totally out of your mind on drugs and you mistake an obviously harmless caller for an intruder?

[David Floyd]

Laz,

Actually it is burglary, and it is a case of a burglar entering your house. In "The Law According To David Floyd" what proportion of the burglar has to be inside your property before it starts to be burglary.

Laz, I've said from the beginning that the initial violence of the burglar, and uncertainty of future violence against you, is what justifies shooting. In that way, there is a difference between reaching through an open window and grabbing your wallet, and kicking in your door. If a burglar reaches through my window and runs off, then there is OBVIOUSLY no danger to me. If a burglar breaks in, and is going through my house trying to find stuff to take, then that is a much different scenario.

Feeling threatened does not, in isolation, justify self defence. If you wake up and only see their rapidly disappearing backside as they sprint away out of your property, the law would not count shooting them as seld-defence. It would count it as retribution.

But that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about a situation in which you wake up, find a burglar in your house actively robbing you.

Now, from talking with you, it seems that you do not take the extreme view that I can NEVER shoot someone inside my house, I just can't shoot someone running away. While I can see both sides of that argument, it is at least a reasonable position, and not really incompatible with the main crux of my argument.

That's Taliban Davie. An eye for a penny. A tooth for a tin of peas. The law, however, is based around what a reasonable man would do, and that ain't you.

And if a burglar is in a "reasonable person's" house, then that person will most likely feel threatened.

She considered it a good reason. It's a damned good job her father didn't own a gun- and he agrees on that point.

Yes, and burglars considering robbing me to be a good reason, too, but it doesn't change the fact that if you act like a burglar, it's your fault if you are treated like one.

Remember when you posted that story about spiking a girl's drinks? Bet you weren't expecting every father of a daughter to get pissed of, were you?

That was a long time ago, and frankly I'm surprised you remember that, given that I had forgotten about it until you brought it up. As I recall, though, I wasn't the one doing it, people I was with were. That's neither here nor there, though.

On the other hand, to turn it around, I'm surprised that you, as a father, are arguing that it is not necessarily reasonable to feel threatened when a burglar is in your house, with your child.

Using a gun is fine. Just don't shoot them in the back as they're running away.

As I said, if that's your argument, it's perfectly reasonable, unlike the position that I should not be allowed to shoot someone who breaks into my house and is actually IN my house.

UR,

So you shoot at each and every "bad person", regardless of the crime?

No, I think it's reasonable to shoot people in self defense, to avoid death or significant bodily harm. If a guy who is 6'4", 280 pounds is assaulting me, or if someone is using a weapon, then death and/or significant bodily harm could easily happen, and I feel that it is justified to use deadly force to prevent it.

How does the mere presence of a burglar in somebody's house automatically constitute a clear danger to people inside that house?

It's an expectation of danger that most "reasonable people", as Laz puts it, will have.

[David Floyd]

Oh, and what happens if you're totally out of your mind on drugs and you mistake an obviously harmless caller for an intruder?

Well, if you shoot someone who rings your doorbell, that's murder. If you shoot someone who breaks into your house, that isn't murder. I'm not sure that whether or not you are on drugs is relevant to the actual facts of the situation, except to say that you are responsible for your actions whether or not you are drunk/stoned or sober.

[Sandman]

Well, if you shoot someone who rings your doorbell, that's murder. If you shoot someone who breaks into your house, that isn't murder. I'm not sure that whether or not you are on drugs is relevant to the actual facts of the situation, except to say that you are responsible for your actions whether or not you are drunk/stoned or sober.

It's quite relevant, since you think that a householder should be free to open fire on anyone they think is an intruder. The 'actual facts' (wrong house, family member) don't come into it. According to you, the perception of the situation by the householder is what matters. And if those perceptions are warped by drug use (or other things), well, I guess it's too bad for the window cleaner.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Sandman
"Trick or Treat!"

BANG!

Incidently, if I kill a posse of teenage thieves, can I harvest their organs to help pay for the trauma they've caused me?

it depends. do you know anything about Human Anatomy?

[Gibsie]

David Floyd, what if a chancer gains entry into your house without breaking in, and is surprised to find you in your bedroom? He's used no violence, but you wouldn't know that when you're pulling out your gun. Does that mean that instead of specifically needing to be violent to justify shooting them, they only need to be potentially dangerous in the mind of the proprety owner? And so does that mean if a redneck farmer sees a big African-American fellow wandering through his fields like a scary black man, he can get the sniper rifle out?