Self defense of the home(UK)

[David Floyd]

Sandman,

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.

Yet, if the person were sober, he wouldn't shoot his mother, who has a spare key. A person who is stoned out of his mind on drugs can't be considered a "reasonable person", and just like I pointed out earlier that when a drunk person gets shot for accidentally acting like a burgler, it's his responsibility, I'd say that the consequences of drug use are also the responsibility of the user.

If the drug user shoots someone who actually WAS a burgler, then the drugs don't really change anything, his action was valid. If the drug user shoots someone he thinks is a burgler because of his own voluntary use of mind altering drugs, and the person is actually someone knocking on the door, then the drug user is at fault, not the person who was simply knocking on the door, doing nothing to present himself as a burgler.

Gibsie,

David Floyd, what if a chancer gains entry into your house without breaking in, and is surprises 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?

Well, first of all, the defense of "the door was unlocked" is not a legally valid defense.

Secondly, yes, he broke into your house and surprises you in your bedroom. When you wake up, pull your gun out, and shoot him, you acted reasonably and justifiably.

As for the "big African American fellow", there is a difference between the home and the land of a person. While both are undeniably property, and you can't trespass on either, the difference relevant here is that someone who wanders across your field presents much less of a danger than someone who breaks into your home. If you wake up in the middle of the night and see someone in your cornfield, then you don't have to immediately shoot him, because there is no immediate danger to you, either real of perceived. There is a potential danger, and if the guy in the field acts in such a way as to present an immediate danger - such as breaking into your house - then you can absolutely shoot him.

[Gibsie]

What if it's a gang of really BIG, really SCARY, and worst of all, REALLY black men wandering through your fields? What if your wife, sister and two little girls are having a picnic in the next field, and if the men walk past the next hedgerow they'll see your family and turn into lust-crazed monsters* and rape them all? You don't have time to warn your family, and if you wait they could run over to them and use your family as human shields, so blast away?

*I actually heard some old people on TV once saying how Muslim immigrants might not be able to control themselves if they go down the beach and see scantily-clad girls- I'm assuming the home defender shares this kind of mindset, as the honourable Tony Martin seems to, incidentally

Another situation, a few years after Lord Floyd has passed judgement, a respectable young man's car breaks down right by the farm, and wanders off to look for help from the farmer. The man forgets to knock on the door first- the instant he turns the handle of the door to the kitchen (i.e. breaks in), he's fair game?

[David Floyd]

What if it's a gang of really BIG, really SCARY, and worst of all, REALLY black men wandering through your fields? What if your wife, sister and two little girls are having a picnic in the next field, and if the men walk past the next hedgerow they'll see your family and turn into lust-crazed monsters* and rape them all? You don't have time to warn your family, and if you wait they could run over to them and use your family as human shields, so blast away?

Another situation, a few years after Lord Floyd has passed judgement, a respectable young man's car breaks down right by the farm, and wanders off to look for help from the farmer. The man forgets to knock on the door first- the instant he turns the handle of the door to the kitchen (i.e. breaks in), he's fair game?

How many times, when asking for help from a farmer in the middle of nowhere, did you forget to knock and just walk right in?

Wait, strike that - how many times have you asked for help from a farmer in the middle of nowhere?

Your examples are both pretty ludicrous, and you know it. Neither has any basis in reality.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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.

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.

And there you have it, Mr Floyd. It's taken 7 pages of posts, but you're finally approaching the conclusion that there is actually little wrong with Britain's law of self-defence as it stands.

From a starting point of saying they were "****ing retarded" I think that progress has been made.

[Gibsie]

I'm sorry, did I forget to mention that they're hypothetical examples? I thought that was obvious- but why does something being hypothetical mean you don't have to say what's the right thing to do? You said it was ludicrous that ANYONE IN THE HISTORY OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE EVER (paraphrase) would get so drunk they'd accidentally enter someone else's home, and guess what? You were wrong there (and an @sshole to the guy who said his friend died in such a situation as well), so don't just dismiss my points.

I added the second situation specifically because it's not as ludicrous. In fact I can give you one equal example that may have actually happened: suppose he's a Japanese tourist and doesn't understand to knock, and instead shouts to the home owner to get his attention, who reacts by thinking he's an attacker and gets the gun. Does he deserve to die? Or rather, did he deserve to die?

[David Floyd]

And there you have it, Mr Floyd. It's taken 7 pages of posts, but you're finally approaching the conclusion that there is actually little wrong with Britain's law of self-defence as it stands.

Actually, this thread turned more into self-defense in general, rather than just in the UK. And there are plenty of people who were arguing with me who live nowhere near the UK.

From a starting point of saying they were "****ing retarded" I think that progress has been made.

So, UK law says that I can shoot someone who breaks into my home? If so, well and good - my general impression was that that was not the case.

Gibsie,

Yes, they are hypotheticals. The first hypothetical is so ludicrous that I won't even address it. People who are racist enough to think that black people will automatically rape their wife are probably racist enough to shoot black people on the basis of their being black, anyway.

As for your second example, and the Japanese tourist example, yelling outside of my house does not constitute an immediate and reasonable threat in the way that breaking in does. Hence, shooting someone for shouting at you is not justified.

By the way, asking if someone "deserves to die" is sort of a loaded question. A better question is, "was it reasonable for the homeowner to shoot".

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd

So, UK law says that I can shoot someone who breaks into my home? If so, well and good - my general impression was that that was not the case.

Yes. You can use force as long as it is not grossly disproportionate. If you had reasonable belief that you or anyone was in danger of death or serious injury, lethal force is perfectly acceptable.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by David Floyd
As for your second example, and the Japanese tourist example, yelling outside of my house does not constitute an immediate and reasonable threat in the way that breaking in does. Hence, shooting someone for shouting at you is not justified.

Okay then, you've clarified things quite well for me. Shooting someone acting whack inside your house = okay, shooting someone acting whack outside = bad. If the Japanese tourist was a bit confused and opened the homeowner's door to approach him and ask for directions, he'd have been justified to shoot the guy, yes?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sandman
"Trick or Treat!"

BANG!

That's not funny, it acutally happened.

[David Floyd]

Laz,

Yes. You can use force as long as it is not grossly disproportionate. If you had reasonable belief that you or anyone was in danger of death or serious injury, lethal force is perfectly acceptable.

That's fair, and precisely my belief. The only way we will likely different is where we draw the line - I automatically believe that it is reasonable to assume that a burglar poses a lethal threat.

Gibsie,

Okay then, you've clarified things quite well for me. Shooting someone acting whack inside your house = okay, shooting someone acting whack outside = bad. If the Japanese tourist was a bit confused and opened the homeowner's door to approach him and ask for directions, he'd have been justified to shoot the guy, yes?

If the tourist was in the homeowner's home, acting like a burglar, then yes, the homeowner would be justified in shooting.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's not funny, it acutally happened.

which makes the pendulum swing back to funny

[Urban Ranger]

You are sick, MRT144.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap


I wonder who came up with that immense estimate-Oh, I know, the NRA

The funny bit is that crime in those gun wielding areas continues to be much higher than in gun free parts like the Northeast. Heck, NYC with its draconian gun laws has seen a huge crime decline while gunhappy southern states see smaller declines, or slight increases in violent crime.

Actually the NRA didn't do that study, but they sure have used it to make their point. How does NYC compare to other places in the U.S.? I'd be willing to bet that Alaska has a lower violent crime rate than NYC despite the fact that its citizens are armed to the teeth in comparison. Culture, population density, and demographic factors are all more important to the violent crime and / or homocide rates than the gun ownership rate is.

A maniac can build a bomb out of readily available materials even easier than he can make a gun, and will be able to kill more people on average if he decides to. In the end trying to focus on means rather than on the desire to kill is a losing game, just as focusing on drugs rather than the desire to abuse them has proven to be a bottomless pit for government energies with no apparant effect on the basic problem.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Telepathy and precognition- all part of everyday justice in Floydville.

They apparantly are decisive in threat analysis in Bloomtown as well.

[child of Thor]

My biggest problem with all this is the 'arms race' scenario, between the householder 'victim' and the burgler 'bad guy'.

Listening to the american guys here talking fairly casualy about shooting people(or not) in these cases, i find it uncomfortable. But maybe that is just because i dont really want Britain to become as gun owning as in the USA.
Still when many criminals in britian do apparantly have access to guns - it does make you wonder what to do?

I think all i'm looking for in the Law in the UK is that if i badly injure or even kill a burglar in my home - i would like some kind of guarantee i wont get prosecuted.
Interestingly the cheif of Police has been asking for just that, he is saying that many police would welcome such a change in the law as they believe that it would have a direct result in lowering rates of burglery.

I dont think having such a law would suddenly turn most of the british public into burgler killing psycho's, but it might actually mean we will have less of the tragic deaths of burglery victims we see in the uk.

It appears to be on the political agenda at the momment, so whatever happens from this atleast it will have given people a chance to decide what the best course of action is.