Self defense of the home(UK)

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Smiley
What's the origin of the existing protections for burglars?

The Common Law principles surrounding culpability. If you kill a burglar who is attacking you, you're fine. If you shoot a burglar in the back while he's running away and screaming for his mummy, you'll go to prison.

Sounds fair enough to me.

[Patroklos]

If you violate my house, you have no rights. Does that mean we should have left Germany alone when they were retreating back to the fatherland?

Macro example but the same thing. Just because the guy found out he bit off more than he can chew doesn't mean he is magically untouchable.

There are no time outs or forfiets in life.

Besides, I use hollow points so neighbors are safe, it is just me and the criminal

[Pekka]

Patrokolos is right. Just because the soon to be a victim turned out to be someone who is able to turn the situation arond does not change the fact that he was been a victim. A man's house is the ultimate boundaries what should not be crossed. ****, many times even criminals respect that when fighting each other. Well not always, but sometimes. There's jusit something magical to it.

a house is a sanctuary for many. The only place they can rest. Entertain themselves, watch some TV, sleep and eat. Have their family raised in there and make love to their wives and husbands. That's just a sacred place, everyone knows it. You don't go to someone's house and start being an *******. Especially if it's your first time there, no you are humble and see how they do things so you can do the same, if they take their shoes off then you take them off etc.

So for someone to think, that it's just ordinary crime to come in and steal something from there is not the thing. The major crime that happens is the crossing of the line, that is home. Then the criminal violates that sacred code and rule. It's not that he might steal some worthless crap, it's the physical and mental violation.

I don't see any reason why a man should be afraid in his own house. Why he should be gambling with his life if some who knows how violent criminal is in his house. He might be armed, and willing to kill you. Who knows, he might kill your family. It happens. You have a gun. What do you do? call 911? Nah.... you sneak in and make sure he's the only one inside, and either shoot him point blank or order him to freeze or alternatively to get out. And then you call 911. That's it. A man should have the right to take the lowest risk he feels, if he is in his own house. No reason to gamble. The criminal is the one who took the gamble.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by 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.

O'course, but that falls under option 2) of David's appraisal. .

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Patroklos
If you violate my house, you have no rights. Does that mean we should have left Germany alone when they were retreating back to the fatherland?

Macro example but the same thing. Just because the guy found out he bit off more than he can chew doesn't mean he is magically untouchable.

There are no time outs or forfiets in life.

Besides, I use hollow points so neighbors are safe, it is just me and the criminal

I dislike your analogy for a number of reasons, but ignoring those I would say that even the macro example falls under the 'proportional response' edict.

[Patroklos]

It is proportional, you come to my house to rape, kill and pillage, I **** you up.

How does this violate proportions?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It is proportional, you come to my house to rape, kill and pillage, I **** you up.

How does this violate proportions?

If they come to nab a TV, get rumbled and surrender. You still going to blow their brains out? You reckon its right?

[Pekka]

Right, and how do you know they don't have guns? When you order them to put down the TV, how do you know they won't open fire at you? If you do, great, keep cool etc. If you don't, I don't see why YOU need to take the risk of second guessing.

[Patroklos]

If they come to nab a TV, get rumbled and surrender. You still going to blow their brains out? You reckon its right?

The part "my house" entitles me to do whatever I want. If I decide to not be proprotional and ask them to surrentder, that is my perrogative.

Break into my house and find out

[asleepathewheel]

I have no problems defending your family to the death. I have a problem with defending a television to the death.

If you do shoot, go for the kill, not a disabling leg shot, that way he won't be able to lie about how he was "surrendering"

[Pekka]

You can always shoot the warning shot afterwards, just make surte you can prove it. Just shoot to your own floor. Then say you gave warning shot first but the bugger didn't believe you. It's word against word. And he's the one with the bullet in his leg plus the one who broke into your house, you win by default.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Pekka
You can always shoot the warning shot afterwards, just make surte you can prove it. Just shoot to your own floor. Then say you gave warning shot first but the bugger didn't believe you. It's word against word. And he's the one with the bullet in his leg plus the one who broke into your house, you win by default.

The burglar would have a decent shot at winning in civil court with that.

All he would have to do is say that he was unarmed and trying to leave or surrender when he was shot, and you might have to sell your house.

In most states, the statutory language reads something like...You are allowed reasonable means to defend property, with deadly force never being reasonable. Any gunplay would be considered deadly force.

[Pekka]

yeah but he couldn't prove you didn't give a warning shot first, which makes him the prime suspects of making trouble after you tried to restrain the person.

[Whoha]

Re: Self defense of the home(UK)

Originally posted by 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.

Battering a thief to death is illegal in the US. Once he is clearly subdued killing him is commiting an act of murder. You can only kill in self defense if you feel your life is threatened, IE you see the shadow of the thief in the dark and you fire immediately. If you feel safe enough to fire a warning shot its murder to kill the thief after that.

[DinoDoc]

Re: Re: Self defense of the home(UK)

Originally posted by Whoha
If you feel safe enough to fire a warning shot its murder to kill the thief after that.

You fire warning shots?