• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Maybe it is OK to defend yourself....

Ed

Philosopher
E
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
8,658
in the UK.

Mr Davis's call came in response to the launch of a campaign to allow people to protect their homes and their families from violent intruders without fear of prosecution or claims for compensation from burglars injured while breaking the law.
Click to expand...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/24/navago24.xml


I had no idea that the tables were so tilted against one defending oneself in the UK. Madness. How did this situation come about in the first place?

(I figure it is about time for a gun thread)
 
Ed said:
in the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/24/navago24.xml


I had no idea that the tables were so tilted against one defending oneself in the UK. Madness. How did this situation come about in the first place?

(I figure it is about time for a gun thread)
Click to expand...

A lot of it was to do with Thatch introducing a law placing a duty of care on property owners for the well being of visitors to the premises. Whether or not the visitors were invited, welcome etc. The Civil side is that, the criminal side has been the way it is for many years. I've seen records as far back as the seventeenth century of combatants being punished for "defending themselves" against an assailant.

I saw the tabloid ho-ha about this yesterday, complete with pictures of badly battered homeowners who'd been injured or killed by intruders. Most (almost all) were elderly, disabled, children or female, it did make me wonder what giving them the 'right to defend themselves' would do?

I'd hazard an 80 year old half-blind granny in a wheelchair with a smith & wesson is still not going to stand much of a chance against a young man with a motive for escape and a drug habit.
 
The Fool said:
Do you have a problem with the concept of reasonable force?
Click to expand...
What do you consider to be "reasonable" force when an armed man is kicking your door in?
 
Ed said:
Why? There's always DNA.
Click to expand...

It's important to leave the entire corpse, otherwise people might think you let the intruder get away lightly, leaving only a few limbs behind.
 
BPSCG said:
What do you consider to be "reasonable" force when an armed man is kicking your door in?
Click to expand...
Are you serious? Why would an ARMED man kick the door in the first place? Surely he would just shoot the lock off, or just shoot at you right through the door? Or use the "fast, soft option" and break a window if he's so darned keen to get at you?

And what if it was actually your neighbour trying to warn you your house is on fire? THUMP THUMP THUMP KICK KICK KICK on the door to try and get your attention, you don't identify him properly and you shoot......oh dear. Problems all round, and your house burning down too, hmmm?
 
Zep said:
Are you serious? Why would an ARMED man kick the door in the first place? Surely he would just shoot the lock off, or just shoot at you right through the door? Or use the "fast, soft option" and break a window if he's so darned keen to get at you?

And what if it was actually your neighbour trying to warn you your house is on fire? THUMP THUMP THUMP KICK KICK KICK on the door to try and get your attention, you don't identify him properly and you shoot......oh dear. Problems all round, and your house burning down too, hmmm?
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why you never confront the intruder at the door. You wait to establish his intentions by hiding around a corner, crouching, ready to whip your knife around at waist height if he creeps in wielding a gun. He would have plenty of opportunity to call out "Fire!" or "It's your mother-in-law!" before then. And if he is hostile, he'd expect an immediate response or none at all.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Which is exactly why you never confront the intruder at the door. You wait to establish his intentions by hiding around a corner, crouching, ready to whip your knife around at waist height if he creeps in wielding a gun. He would have plenty of opportunity to call out "Fire!" or "It's your mother-in-law!" before then. And if he is hostile, he'd expect an immediate response or none at all.
Click to expand...

I've have been advised to do the same by the police.
 
Ed said:
I've have been advised to do the same by the police.
Click to expand...

I doubt they add my suggestion "if it turns out he doesn't have a weapon, plant one on him." No reason to pay for an honest mistake, really. If you have any drugs, plant those as well.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I doubt they add my suggestion "if it turns out he doesn't have a weapon, plant one on him." No reason to pay for an honest mistake, really. If you have any drugs, plant those as well.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes.

My feeling is that anyone who would break into my home has made a prima facia case that that individual lives outside of the social contract and that anything I do to thwart him is OK. I do not feel that it is incumbant upon me to second guess his motives, make assumptions about his deadly threat level or anything else. Actually, my assumption about his threat level is that he will commit murder.
 
BPSCG said:
What do you consider to be "reasonable" force when an armed man is kicking your door in?
Click to expand...

If he's kicking the door in, my definition of "reasonable force" doesn't change much if he's armed or not.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I doubt they add my suggestion "if it turns out he doesn't have a weapon, plant one on him." No reason to pay for an honest mistake, really. If you have any drugs, plant those as well.
Click to expand...

If you're going to plant drugs, you have to make sure you use a fresh baggee without any of your own fingerprints on it. :)
 
Zep said:
Are you serious? Why would an ARMED man kick the door in the first place? Surely he would just shoot the lock off, or just shoot at you right through the door? Or use the "fast, soft option" and break a window if he's so darned keen to get at you?

And what if it was actually your neighbour trying to warn you your house is on fire? THUMP THUMP THUMP KICK KICK KICK on the door to try and get your attention, you don't identify him properly and you shoot......oh dear. Problems all round, and your house burning down too, hmmm?
Click to expand...
Okay, Zep, here's how it works in my neighborhood:

I see my neighbor's house on fire at three in the morning. I know my neighbor is a retired Air Force general who has certain firearms in his house. I pound on his door and ring his bell over and over again and yell, "Your house is on fire!!!. I stay the hell out on the porch until he opens the door. He sees me and recognizes me, at which point I yell "Get the #$%^ out man, your house is on fire!" He gets his wife and they both get out of the house.

Now perhaps you live in a neighborhood where people routinely walk in and out of each other's homes in the wee hours of the morning, but most of us have outgrown that '60's

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

commie nonsense, and assume that if someone has noisily broken into our homes at three in the goddam #$%^ing morning, it's probably not Santa Claus making a delivery.
 
Mycroft said:
If you're going to plant drugs, you have to make sure you use a fresh baggee without any of your own fingerprints on it. :)
Click to expand...
Read something once where a homeowner called the cops, said he'd shot an intruder. Conversation went something like this:

Dispatcher: "Was he armed?"
Citizen: "I don't think so."
Dispatcher: "Well, check the body carefully; they're usually armed."
Citizen: "I don't think he was armed."
Dispatcher: "Are you sure? Maybe he got a knife out of the kitchen."
Citizen: "I don't know."
Dispatcher: "Listen to me carefully . He probably got a knife from your kitchen, and if you look hard enough, I'm sure you'll find it on him before we get there..."
 
BPSCG said:
Read something once where a homeowner called the cops, said he'd shot an intruder. Conversation went something like this:

Dispatcher: "Was he armed?"
Citizen: "I don't think so."
Dispatcher: "Well, check the body carefully; they're usually armed."
Citizen: "I don't think he was armed."
Dispatcher: "Are you sure? Maybe he got a knife out of the kitchen."
Citizen: "I don't know."
Dispatcher: "Listen to me carefully . He probably got a knife from your kitchen, and if you look hard enough, I'm sure you'll find it on him before we get there..."
Click to expand...

Bravo.
 
Well, Fool, it seems that the consensus answer to your question ("Do you have a problem with the concept of reasonable force?") is, "No."

I believe the consensus here would be that reasonable force should be defined as "No more force than is absolutely necessary to make sure the body stops twitching."

You're welcome, I'm sure.
 
Kerberos said:
So I guess I'm the only one who think that the police should execute the law, rather than help people break it?
Click to expand...

I don't think the police need to be making suggestions. Any sensible citizen should be able to figure out things by themselves. Otherwise, they'd be trusting the cops not to be fixing them up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom