Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Self defense of the home(UK)

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 16
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 16 template Next
  • #106
    The way I see it, intruders or attackers negate their right not to have you violate their rights as soon as they attack you, which is why I think killing intruders, or killing ones attackers if assaulted, is acceptable in the context of a legal system and society.

    This only works in the situation itself, hot blood as it were. I am completely against vigilantism and revenge.
    "I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
    "You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:

    Comment

    • #107
      Originally posted by David Floyd

      3)Shooting a burglar is by definition self defense.
      Not in most of the civlized world- the person must pose a danger- tresspassing on your property with the aim of robbing you by itself is NOT a threat to your person. If you come down and the person sees you and advances on your, or takes out a possible weapon, perhaps. If they turn and run, then obviously they were not a threat and killing them is not self-defense. Self defense applies to the defense of your self (body, being), NOT to the defense of your property alone.

      If someone knocks down my door or window, and I have reasonable reason to think they are a burglar (it's the middle of the night, for example), then there is no need to consider the circumstances - that is ALWAYS valid self defense.
      Anyone so brazen as to do this is not likely to come just to rob, that is true- but if they break in, that is a difference.
      If you don't like reality, change it! me
      "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
      "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
      "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

      Comment

      • #108
        Originally posted by David Floyd

        3)Shooting a burglar is by definition self defense.
        Only in "David Floyd's Big Book of Really Weird Definitions That Have Only The Vaguest Resemblance To Definitions Used By The Sane".

        I could start posting examples of situations in which that "definition" would be a load of old cobblers- but if I started, I'm not sure I'd be able to stop.
        The genesis of the "evil Finn" concept- Evil, evil Finland

        Comment

        • #109
          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.
          Excuse me, but if I recall correctly the rest of the story was that the burglar had already exited the house and was running away when Mr. Martin shot him.
          "I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!

          Comment

          • #110
            Gepap,

            Not in most of the civlized world- the person must pose a danger- tresspassing on your property with the aim of robbing you by itself is NOT a threat to your person. If you come down and the person sees you and advances on your, or takes out a possible weapon, perhaps. If they turn and run, then obviously they were not a threat and killing them is not self-defense. Self defense applies to the defense of your self (body, being), NOT to the defense of your property alone.
            And I disagree. If someone is in your house, because they broke in, that by itself constitutes a serious danger to your person, which justifies lethal force.

            Laz,

            I could start posting examples of situations in which that "definition" would be a load of old cobblers- but if I started, I'm not sure I'd be able to stop.
            OK, fine. Why don't you post an example where a burglar doesn't constitute a lethal threat to me.

            Now, remember, I don't have complete information if I'm being burglarized, and it's only reasonable for me to assume that someone who breaks into my house is going to kill or assault me.

            DS,

            Excuse me, but if I recall correctly the rest of the story was that the burglar had already exited the house and was running away when Mr. Martin shot him.
            Maybe, but that should be legal, too.

            Seriously, I don't see why everyone has so much sympathy for these criminals. People who commit burglary and other violent or potentially violent crimes are pieces of ****, no questions asked. Why do you care if someone they are in the process of victimizing kills them in self defense? Why is that such a problem for you people? Really, explain it to me, because I don't get it.
            Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
            Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

            Comment

            • #111
              The way I see it, intruders or attackers negate their right not to have you violate their rights as soon as they attack you, which is why I think killing intruders, or killing ones attackers if assaulted, is acceptable in the context of a legal system and society.
              Damn right. Nice to see that some people outside of the US (well, Texas) are sane
              Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
              Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

              Comment

              • #112
                OK, fine. Why don't you post an example where a burglar doesn't constitute a lethal threat to me.

                Now, remember, I don't have complete information if I'm being burglarized, and it's only reasonable for me to assume that someone who breaks into my house is going to kill or assault me.


                It's only reasonable to assume that the guy that gave me a funny look is going to kill or assault me. Surely I ought to shoot his ass down pre-emptively. Self-defense.
                "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                -Bokonon

                Comment

                • #113
                  Seriously, I don't see why everyone has so much sympathy for these criminals. People who commit burglary and other violent or potentially violent crimes


                  "Potentially violent?" What the hell does that mean? What makes an action "potentially violent?"

                  Why do you care if someone they are in the process of victimizing kills them in self defense? Why is that such a problem for you people? Really, explain it to me, because I don't get it.


                  Because killing people is wrong.
                  "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                  -Bokonon

                  Comment

                  • #114
                    Ramo, you're more intelligent than that. You're intentionally missing the point and making an irrelevant example, and I know you know it.

                    Just in case, there is an obvious difference between a "funny look" and someone violently breaking into your residence with the intent to rob you.
                    Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
                    Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

                    Comment

                    • #115
                      "Potentially violent?" What the hell does that mean? What makes an action "potentially violent?"
                      It means that just because 100% of burglars will not necessarily also assault or kill you, there is a reasonable assumption that can be made that someone who breaks into your house will indeed violently assault you.

                      Because killing people is wrong.
                      Not in self defense.
                      Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
                      Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

                      Comment

                      • #116
                        It's not an irrelevent example. You're assuming that anyone who breaks into your house is violent, just like my hypothetical is assuming that anyone who looks at me funny is violent. I'm calling bull**** on your assumption.
                        "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                        -Bokonon

                        Comment

                        • #117
                          It means that just because 100% of burglars will not necessarily also assault or kill you, there is a reasonable assumption that can be made that someone who breaks into your house will indeed violently assault you.


                          No, it's not reasonable. It's a paranoid assumption.
                          "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                          -Bokonon

                          Comment

                          • #118
                            It's not an irrelevent example. You're assuming that anyone who breaks into your house is violent, just like my hypothetical is assuming that anyone who looks at me funny is violent. I'm calling bull**** on your assumption.
                            Call all the bull**** you want, but breaking into a house is an inherently violent act.

                            No, it's not reasonable. It's a paranoid assumption.
                            It's paranoid to assume that one who will engage in certain violent activities won't engage in others?
                            Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
                            Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

                            Comment

                            • #119
                              There's a huge difference between stealing and hurting someone. Far more people would do the former than the latter. Yes, it is paranoid to assume that someone who breaks into your home will assault, rape, kill, etc. the people in your home
                              "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                              -Bokonon

                              Comment

                              • #120
                                Originally posted by David Floyd
                                Or, just shoot him, and then he can't bother you or anyone else again, ever.
                                It appears that your intention is not defense but murder.
                                (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                                (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                                (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 16 template Next
                                Working...
                                X