geni said:
There are plenty of cases of people killing in self defense, and the judgement agreeing the 'reasonable force' argument. Exacting your own punishment is what will get you in trouble.
The martyrs we see paraded about being punished for shooting intruders often turn out to be not part of the clear cut scenarios we are talking about.
My perception is that the low-rent media need to turn every one of these sad events into a shock and horror campaign for some change in the law or other rather clouds rational debate.
Now that the link in the OP is working again, we find that the issue in the story is that there's no legal definition of "reasonable force" in the UK.
In the absence of such a definition, would it not be reasonable to make a rebuttable presumption of reasonable force in the case of a break-in? In other words, if it can be shown that the deceased had broken into the house, the presumption would be that the homeowner had used reasonable force to protect his life and his property, in the absence of evidence to the contrary?
Evidence to the contrary could consist of things like the following:
1) The deceased is found bound and gagged;
2) The deceased is a toddler;
3) The deceased is an invalid;
4) The deceased actually lived in the dwelling;
5) etc.
And if the person breaking into the house is injured in the process, either by accident or by design, why should he not be barred from recovering for any damages he might incur while engaged in his crime? In the U.S., there's the "Son of Sam" law, that prohibits criminals from profiting from their misdeeds (named after a serial killer who sold his memoirs after getting caught). Of course, there's a distinction between profiting from a crime and simply recovering for damages, but the general principle is the same; committing a crime should not enrich a person.
BTW, incisive post, Tony.
In the absence of such a definition, would it not be reasonable to make a rebuttable presumption of reasonable force in the case of a break-in? In other words, if it can be shown that the deceased had broken into the house, the presumption would be that the homeowner had used reasonable force to protect his life and his property, in the absence of evidence to the contrary?
Evidence to the contrary could consist of things like the following:
1) The deceased is found bound and gagged;
2) The deceased is a toddler;
3) The deceased is an invalid;
4) The deceased actually lived in the dwelling;
5) etc.
And if the person breaking into the house is injured in the process, either by accident or by design, why should he not be barred from recovering for any damages he might incur while engaged in his crime? In the U.S., there's the "Son of Sam" law, that prohibits criminals from profiting from their misdeeds (named after a serial killer who sold his memoirs after getting caught). Of course, there's a distinction between profiting from a crime and simply recovering for damages, but the general principle is the same; committing a crime should not enrich a person.
BTW, incisive post, Tony.
Your wrong.
Two 80-year-old women defend themselves with guns in separate home invasions (GA)
http://www.wneg32.com/servlet/Satel...icArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031778537908&path=
Richard G said:
I'm actually quite encouraged to be proved wrong on that one! Although having said that, I don't think finding a case where it has happened really proves that arming elderly and frail people will help reduce burglaries.
Some decent stats would be helpful, trouble is excluding all the other possibly influential factors (displacement, culture, etc).
Mr Manifesto
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 4,815
BPSCG said:
No, you're right. I was in a pub hotel once, and someone kicked my door in, and it wasn't Santa Claus making a delivery.
Mind you, it wasn't a burglar out to kill/rape (or, for that matter, burgle) me, either. It was a drunk dude who couldn't figure out why the key didn't fit to his room. The reason it didn't fit, of course, was because he had the wrong room.
I didn't hear him trying to put his key in the lock. If I'd been an armed idiot, the guy would have been dead. Does he deserve to die for being a moron? The way I see it, a life has been saved for having stricter gun laws.
Now might be a good time to compare US homicide rates with the UK or Australia.
The Fool
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2002
- Messages
- 16,534
As I suspected, Mycroft and BPSCG don't have much Idea of the concept of reasonable force in the british legal system or its application in many other legal systems that use it as a foundation (American and Australia etc).Mycroft said:
My definition of reasonable force or your definition of reasonable force are not relevant. Unless you would prefer to fill a huge library with a pre determined answer to every possible situation? Only to find that there is ALWAYS something unusual in each case that requires a judicial ruling.....Thats why we have Judges.
I suggest we let them do thier jobs or replace them if we are not happy How about we give up on this tedious endless second guessing....
Unless you are dicky G who wants the right to machinegun anyone he finds on his property then ask why they are there....
Well, Fool, I have to admit you're right. As an American citizen, living in the United States of America, I haven't a clue what the British concept of "reasonable force" might be.The Fool said:
Unfortunately, if you have a quick look at the link in the OP, you'll find that nobody in the U.K. does, either :
In other words, in the British system, the citizen acts, and then the courts later inform him (or his survivors) whether what he did (or could have done) was "reasonable." (BTW, what's the "Home Office"?)
Fine. You are free to apply your concept of "reasonable force", and I will apply mine. If I err, as you say, that's what judges are for. It seems, however, that a judge in my country will look more kindly upon me after I have dispatched my intruder to his Maker than one in your country would look on you. I prefer it that way. You don't. That's part of the reason I live here, and you live there.
I agree. As I said earlier, why should we not have a rebuttable presumption that any force a homeowner uses against an armed intruder is reasonable?
Don't go twisting the argument by imputing actions and motives to people who never claimed them. Nobody here has indicated he wants to "machinegun" anyone, and nobody here has recommended killing anyone without first determining if he's "friend or foe."
Jon_in_london
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2002
- Messages
- 4,989
The intruder is being protected.
what the "sensationalist tabloid campaign" is all about is getting a clear message across to all that any bugger who comes into my house can expect no protection from the law if he/she is beaten/stabbed/shot.
THAT is what we need. Not a bunch of inconsistent old toffs in wigs telling us what is reasonable when they werent there.
If someone breaks into my house I will do everything I can- including lethal force- to stop them. Even if I have to go to jail (which I shouldnt), I would rather a year in the clink than have me/my wife/my children etc.... murdered and/or raped.
what the "sensationalist tabloid campaign" is all about is getting a clear message across to all that any bugger who comes into my house can expect no protection from the law if he/she is beaten/stabbed/shot.
THAT is what we need. Not a bunch of inconsistent old toffs in wigs telling us what is reasonable when they werent there.
If someone breaks into my house I will do everything I can- including lethal force- to stop them. Even if I have to go to jail (which I shouldnt), I would rather a year in the clink than have me/my wife/my children etc.... murdered and/or raped.
Mr Manifesto said:
One of the first lessons in guns is to know what you are shooting at. That's why they sell lights that fit on the gun. So you can shine a bright light on something to see who it is. Stricter guns laws can not prevent stupidity of people. A person who would just open fire on an unknown target should not have a gun. If you are one of those people then I am glad you do not have a gun available to you.
In the US a gun is used defensively 2.4 million times. That's 2.4 million new victims if gun laws were strict. You can not reasonable compare crime rates between two countries without accounting for culture and law differences. I can tell you the FBI has posted figures stating crime is still dropping in this country and has dropped 25% overall since 1994.
Jon_in_london
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2002
- Messages
- 4,989
Richard G said:
Yes, but they are compelled to uphold existing laws.
Kerberos said:
Previous Thread
Well, if the gun was used defensively it would follow without that weapon they would have been the victim of a crime. Who knows what could have happened.
At least we could assume the probability of those people being a victim would increase without a weapon.
I already addressed this in a previous thread, but...repetition works. Repetition works.
From Lott's own data:
The 2.3 million figure was derived from 1,015 respondents. Gotcha.
Less than one in a thousand were killed? That means that not more than one of the 1.015 answered "yes", right? Otherwise, it would be two in a thousand. One must have answered "yes".
Does the "less than 1 in 1000" strike you as a particularly strong piece of information, considering that only 1,015 people answered?
The number of killed from defensive gun use could have been either zero, if 1 person less had answered "yes".
Or twice as high, if just 1 more person had answered "yes".
Right?
So, if one in 1,000 answered "yes", that should result in about 2,000 gun deaths from defensive gun uses only.
But since there was about 6,500 people shot in 1999 (close enough) (Source: US Census), that means that almost a third of all gun deaths come from defensive use? Even if it was 1 in 500, that would still mean that 1 in 6 gun deaths came from defensive use.
I also have a few other problems with Lott's argumentation, e.g.:
BEEP! In that case, Alien Abductions occur. People fly to Venus. Crop circles are made by UFOs. Psychics find missing children and dead bodies. Elvis lives.
Not so.
BEEP! Lott can see into the future: He knows that a crime would have happened.
Big problems here.
From Lott's own data:
The 2.3 million figure was derived from 1,015 respondents. Gotcha.
Less than one in a thousand were killed? That means that not more than one of the 1.015 answered "yes", right? Otherwise, it would be two in a thousand. One must have answered "yes".
Does the "less than 1 in 1000" strike you as a particularly strong piece of information, considering that only 1,015 people answered?
The number of killed from defensive gun use could have been either zero, if 1 person less had answered "yes".
Or twice as high, if just 1 more person had answered "yes".
Right?
So, if one in 1,000 answered "yes", that should result in about 2,000 gun deaths from defensive gun uses only.
But since there was about 6,500 people shot in 1999 (close enough) (Source: US Census), that means that almost a third of all gun deaths come from defensive use? Even if it was 1 in 500, that would still mean that 1 in 6 gun deaths came from defensive use.
I also have a few other problems with Lott's argumentation, e.g.:
BEEP! In that case, Alien Abductions occur. People fly to Venus. Crop circles are made by UFOs. Psychics find missing children and dead bodies. Elvis lives.
Not so.
BEEP! Lott can see into the future: He knows that a crime would have happened.
Big problems here.