The Right To Protect Debate

[Panzer101]

This is a pretty debated subject in the UK and I was wondering on all your opinions.

Its to do with the right to protect youself, and your home.
You see here in the UK, if I broke into your home and started stealing your stuff and you smacked me - I can get you for assault, Kill me, - you get done for murder etc. You may have heard of the case here where a farmer shot to burgerlers - killing one and injuring the other, he was imprisoned for manslaughter and the injured one started suing him in prison for damages becuse he could no longer work (burgling) IMHO the laws are all crapped to hell and there need to be changes.

If a person came into my house i wanna have the right to give him whats comming to him, his rights should be void as soon as he steps onto my property with criminal intent (with execptions such as tourture) if i accidently kill him trying to protect myself - screw him. Some could say it could get too vauge such as if i tied him up and killed him would that be allowed - which of course it wouldnt...

In the states I reckon you got it pretty much sussed except you probably kill more often cus of the gun count .

In a recent BBC radio 4 call in 37% voted in favour for being allowed to kill tresspassers out of a large list of alternatives - which is impressive really.

*steams*

what are your opinions on the matter?

 

[masamax]

We have the same thing here in canada. A guy I know was charged with assualt and brandishing a deadly weapon when he pulled a gun on these guys who broke into his house... it was super gay...

 

[fist_mlrs]

well, its simple imo. if they run they may. if they resist and become a danger my crossbow will do the job.

our law is clear on this. it is self defence as long as the other guy atacked you first (or tried to) and as long as he is a danger. if he is allready on the ground spiting blood there is no reason to kill him with a spoon, so this isn't protected by law anymore.

 

[spm1138]

As much as I might envy your cool avatar you are misrepresenting the current self defence laws.

If I broke into your home and started stealing stuff and you snuck up behind me and clubbed me over the head then I could have you for assault.

If you saw me at it, shouted "Oi!", went to chase me off, I reacted violently and then you smacked me over the head believing yourself to be in danger then that would be self defence.

Under the current laws. Which I don't really agree with. I am not sure I agree with the idea that if someone is on your property you can just kill them out of hand, either.

I think legally you should have the right to confront them (the current law would seem to prefer that I hide or run away) and remove them from your property with as much gusto as is neccesary.

 

[fist_mlrs]

i think you have to give them the chance to run away, if they don't they are automaticaly a danger and you can do whatever needed to change this. if they are obviously armed, be it a gun, knife or my beloved spoon you don't even need the "oi!"

thats where the laws are at in just about any country. if the guy can pull you to jail because he got a cut in the finger while trying to steal your stuff its not the laws that are wrong but the hole juristical system.

 

[Keiichi]

If I broke into your home and started stealing stuff and you snuck up behind me and clubbed me over the head then I could have you for assault.

If you saw me at it, shouted "Oi!", went to chase me off, I reacted violently and then you smacked me over the head believing yourself to be in danger then that would be self defence.

That seems pretty f--ked up to me.

If I, being a small man, were to wake up in the middle of the night and come downstairs to find a big, burly theif attempting to steal my television and I've got two options--either alert him to my presence, potentially giving him the opportunity to harm me or my family, or knock him unconscious from behind and then tie him up to await the police--you can bet your ass that I'll choose the safest option for me.

I'm sorry, but if it's a choice between the welfare of the person trying to steal my property or the welfare of myself and my family, my family and I take precedence.

It's a sad world where criminals have more rights than their victims.

-Keiichi

 

[unixman]

I say shoot the mofos. I have the right to protect my property from bloody thieves. If I ever catch another biatch trying to steal my car, I'll personally cut both of his hands off.

 

[Big_Duke_06]

unixman: Just make sure you shoot to kill. Deadmen don't file lawsuits. Heheheh.

Matthew

 

[Zundfolge]

In Colorado, the law states that I have the right to use deadly force against an intruder in my home ... this does not mean that if you come over to visit and I decide to off you that I'll get away with it

The idea is that if someone has broken into your home, you have the right to assume that they are there to do you grave bodily harm.

Now out on the street, I am not allowed to use deadly force unless I have a "reasonable belief" that the other person will do me great bodily harm or kill me (or someone else).

Frankly I like the law here.

Self defense is a basic human right.

 

[Bushwack]

unixman: Just make sure you shoot to kill. Deadmen don't file lawsuits. Heheheh.



LOL, no, but thier surviving family members do and in all possibility WILL file either a civil lawsuit, or capitol lawsuit.

 

[Nightmare]

Sometimes it looks a bit odd, I know. But it all comes from letting the lawyers run rampant through the judicial system. They want customers who bring them money, and there's no profit to be had if you're automatically allowed to kill trespassers.

Example of lawyer-talk, from my home town: A few years back a drugged-out man started shooting with a handgun in the middle of a residential area early in the evening. The local police came under fire when they arrived to investigate, and didn't dare shoot back in the dark. (Fear of hitting bystanders) The shooter fled, running past a shop and the police station. The senior constable on dispatch duty went out and ran the crazy down, even taking a bullet at close range. Luckily it just put a hole through the cloth under his arm! Then the dispatcher clubbed the shooter on the head with his service pistol, ending the rampage. Now get this: the shooter's defense lawyer accused the police constable of using "excessive force" in taking down the shooter! Excessive force! What's so excessive about stopping an armed man without shooting him dead?

That British example was something else, though. IIRC the thieves had burgled the same place several times, and the owner decided to kill them. Which was murder in cold blood, not self-defence.

 

[Big_Duke_06]

Bushwack: I was joking.

The laws about using deadly force as a civilian are pretty lax here in Arizona. If you're armed, and you witness a crime on a list being committed, you can open fire. As I recall, those crimes include such Wild West favorites as bank robberies and horse-theivin'. I think arson and kidnapping are also on the list. Maybe tomorrow I'll find a link and post it - I do remember laughing pretty good at the list.

Matthew

 

[Bushwack]

Big _duke_06

your sense of humor wasnt lost on me, thusly the LOL at the beginning of my post

 

[Freon]

It's a sad world where criminals have more rights than their victims.

If you shoot them, they are the victims. You are the criminal. Period.

 

[Hadmar]

^^^Depends on the situation.

 

[BobTheFearlessFish]

the stroy of the farmer has been horrible distorted by the description above. the farmer had a long hostory of crime. he had shot at a man and a child and his gun license was taken away. he then shot the burglars in the back as they were running away. that is not self defence. that is murder.

in my opinion the law as it is in this country is pretty good. the idea that you could not sneak up behind an intruder and try to stop them, although technically true. would be easily ovveruled in a court of law. of course. if you sneak up behind a guy and shoot him in the back of the head with a shotgun you have certainly ovverreacted. even if he is stealing your television.

i find more and more that human life is underrated. certainly in a 'him or me' situation you should be allowed to defend yourself by whatever means possible. and if you feel threatened you should do what is neccasary for your own protection. but killing somebody who runs. or blatantly overreacting to a situation. is, in my opinion, wrong.

 

[Panzer101]

Keiichi had the right idea where you want to be sure that you are gonna knock him out - regardless of wether he is aware of youer presence. You dont want it to back fire and him to serious injure you. I agree you should sneak up behind them also and blow their brains out - becuase that is unnecicary force. Its a fine line.

The trespassor shouldnt have the right to prosecut because i knocked him out cold and tied him up and got him arrested.

I dont know about that farmers past history of crime, if its true it does affect that example...

 

[BobTheFearlessFish]

actually. i would think the past history was nothing to the circumstancesthat he shot them. ie: in the back as they ran away. as far as not doing too much damage is concerned. shooting someone in the back of the head with a shotgun is too much force. im not saying peopel should compromise on their own safety in any way. equally. if they are in such a position to shoot somebody in teh back. they most likely have an alternative. though i believe each case should be treated individually when it gets to court.

 

[spm1138]

If you shoot them, they are the victims. You are the criminal. Period.

I dunno Freon... if they've broken into my house while I am also there how much benefit of the doubt should I give them?

If they weren't prepared to cause me or my family harm surely they'd have timed it so I was out of the house?

If someone breaks into a house they know to be occupied they must know they run the risk of running into the owner. They must have given some thought as to what they're going to do in that eventuality.

Should you trust in their good nature, bearing in mind they have already demonstrated their criminal tendancies by breaking in?

 

[Zundfolge]

If you shoot them, they are the victims. You are the criminal. Period.

No, they are not victims. Period.

They made the choice to violate you and if they die as a result of their own choices then they are not a victim, YOU are (I've talked to several people who have had to kill in self defense, and they have to live with it ... and its not always easy ... although its easier then not going home to their families).

Another interesting law in many parts of the US regarding criminals who die in the commission of their crimes is the laws that charge the accomplice(s) of the dead criminal with 1st degree murder.

In other words, you and a friend decide to kick in my front door and rob me and I kill your friend, YOU go to jail for 1st degree murder (in addition to the robbery charges).

Interesting law, eh?


There was a sticker on the cash register of a little liquor store I used to frequent that said "Being shot to death in the commission of an armed robbery is an occupational hazard!"



But then again, we need to throw women like this into prison, don't we
http://www.plusp.com/classroom/lesson30.php