Self defense of the home(UK)

[David Floyd]

Yes, that's why you don't shoot unless you're physically threatened.

Yes, but someone breaking into your house immediately constitutes a physical threat, just by virtue of them having broken in. That's much of the reasoning behind self defense laws.

[GePap]

Actually, no, only the ****ed up Texas law.

But hey, violent backwards state, violent backward laws.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Oh, and isn't that what the police are ****ING for? You know, stopping criminals from shooting innocent people?

They certainly are. They're also there to stop criminals (like Tony Martin) shooting other criminals.

You see, had Mr Martin left it to the police and his insurance he wouldn't have spent several years in prison and wouldn't be an ongoing burden to taxpayers. Hey, Floydie- who'd pay for his protection in your wacky world of libertarianism? Oh, yes- nobody would because all criminals would already be shot dead.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Yes, but someone breaking into your house immediately constitutes a physical threat, just by virtue of them having broken in. That's much of the reasoning behind self defense laws.

No it doesn't. The police, fire services, ambulance services and gas board engineers can all break into property legally, to name but a few.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


I hope you never get drunk enough that you enter the wrong house at night.

It happened to a former co-worker of mine. She was shot dead before she could say a word.

There but for the grace of God go I. I've been drunk, very drunk before, dropped off or taken a cab home. I could have tried to enter or enter an adjacent apartment, the doors all look the same in an alcoholic stupor.

Such is the result of your notions. Shoot first, ask questions later. 100 guilty persons escaping is a small price to pay for the life of an innocent.

What about the case of the Japanese tourist who mistakenly knocked on the door of a house shouting something in Japanese and bradishing a pistol-grip camera? The owner thought he was an incoherent lunatic trying to break into his house and shot him dead. The guy got off Scot free.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Yeah, "reasonable force" should be better defined. It seems to me that it's only fair that you can use a baseball bat or a golf club if the intruder has a knife.

I don't know about that. I believe that the knife is the superior weapon. Both require using two hands, while the knife-wielder has a hand free to ward off your blow. You may break his arm, but then while you're trying to raise the bat agian he has a clean strike at your chest, abdomen or neck.

[David Floyd]

Gepap,

Actually, no, only the ****ed up Texas law.

But hey, violent backwards state, violent backward laws.

I'm sorry. In my state, laws are not designed to protect criminals. Of course, most Texans don't have a problem with that, either



Laz,

They certainly are. They're also there to stop criminals (like Tony Martin) shooting other criminals.

Describing the Tony Martin case as "criminals shooting other criminals" is misleading, as it implies that Tony Martin was a criminal or doing something wrong prior to being burglarized. AFAIK, he was not. He only became a criminal when he defended himself.

You see, had Mr Martin left it to the police and his insurance he wouldn't have spent several years in prison and wouldn't be an ongoing burden to taxpayers.

Or, he might have been injured or killed by the burglars. That's the whole point of shooting burglars - you never know what they are going to do. The fact that ****ed up UK law sent him to prison doesn't mean he acted wrongly.

No it doesn't. The police, fire services, ambulance services and gas board engineers can all break into property legally, to name but a few.

Maybe. But if a gas board engineers breaks into my house to check my gas, and I shoot him thinking he's a burglar, I won't be prosecuted in Texas. How am I to know who he is? If you are legally entitled to enter my property, it's a good idea to knock loudly and announce yourself. I don't even think I'd be prosecuted if a police officer broke my door down without knocking, announcing himself, or trying to serve me a warrant in certain circumstances.

[David Floyd]

UR,

Yeah, "reasonable force" should be better defined. It seems to me that it's only fair that you can use a baseball bat or a golf club if the intruder has a knife

Why take chances? If the intruder happens to be a skilled knife fighter, he's still gonna win. Just shoot him and be done with it, then his knife fighting skills not only won't be a problem for you, but they won't be a problem for anyone, ever.

[Japher]

DO NOT TRESPASS!!!

Is that so freaking hard!!!

If there's a gate, don't open it
If there's a fence, don't jump it
and if it's a cop, don't run from it!

duh!

[David Floyd]

How not to get your ass beat by the po-lice

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Describing the Tony Martin case as "criminals shooting other criminals" is misleading, as it implies that Tony Martin was a criminal or doing something wrong prior to being burglarized. AFAIK, he was not. He only became a criminal when he defended himself.

So what?

Or, he might have been injured or killed by the burglars. That's the whole point of shooting burglars - you never know what they are going to do. The fact that ****ed up UK law sent him to prison doesn't mean he acted wrongly.

Well boo-hoo. British laws aren't passed taking into consideration your offended sensibilities.

Maybe. But if a gas board engineers breaks into my house to check my gas, and I shoot him thinking he's a burglar, I won't be prosecuted in Texas. How am I to know who he is? If you are legally entitled to enter my property, it's a good idea to knock loudly and announce yourself. I don't even think I'd be prosecuted if a police officer broke my door down without knocking, announcing himself, or trying to serve me a warrant in certain circumstances.

Excellent! So you assess the risk of your situation before becoming executioner. We're making progress here, Davie!

[David Floyd]

So what?

So your characterization is misleading. Tony Martin was a law abiding citizen against whom a violent crime was committed. His only "mistake" or "crime" was defending himself.

Well boo-hoo. British laws aren't passed taking into consideration your offended sensibilities.

Obviously not, yet my point still stands.

Excellent! So you assess the risk of your situation before becoming executioner.

Exactly! If the fire marshal knocks on my door, loudly announces he needs to investigate a fire hazard, I'll open the door and let him in. If he simply knocks my door down and charges in, then I'm justified in shooting him. But there is no need to "assess the risk" if someone - anyone - knocks down your door or breaks in through a window in the middle of the night - simply by virtue of having done so, the intruder is presenting a threat, and giving me all the justification I need to shoot him.

Now, if it's broad daylight and a little kid jumps in an open window, that's where risk assessment comes in. But we're talking about burglars and people who behave as such, which implies the middle of the night, etc.

[Gibsie]

Tony Martin's shotgun was illegally-owned, making him a criminal before he even fired a shot. I'm sure even in Texas there are some people for whom it is illegal to own a gun.

"laws are not designed to protect criminals"

The presumption of innocence applies to all circumstances, no? So you can't just assume someone is a criminal- although obviously if it is clear that a criminal attack is taking place and you can't stop it otherwise, no-one's going to complain if you do something.

[David Floyd]

Tony Martin's shotgun was illegally-owned, making him a criminal before he even fired a shot. I'm sure even in Texas there are some people for whom it is illegal to own a gun.

Excuse me - my cultural bias is such that sometimes I forget that you can't own a shotgun in certain countries.

My overriding point was that Tony Martin was not a violent criminal, nor was he actively breaking any laws OTHER than having a shotgun, which was ultimately only used for self defense.

The presumption of innocence applies to all circumstances, no?

No. Presumption of innocence applies to interactions between the police and suspects, and the courts. I don't have to presume the innocence of someone who breaks into my house. If the person is arrested and tried for breaking and entering, or burglary, or whatever, THEN he is presumed innocent. But if I shoot him while he's in my house, it's lights out, tough **** for the burglar.

[Patroklos]

So lets just say it is a Son of Sam type who breaks into my house in the middle of the night armed to the teeth with the sole intent to kill me, but it is too dark to tell anything about the intruder

Taking your retarded advice into count, instead of shooting him and saving my family, I anounce myself and get automatic weapons fire to the chest. I would rather have mistaken felony committing buglars killed by accident then one completely innocent law abiding citizen killed in their stead.

Why do you hate inoccent people defending their home and their families?