Quote:
Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer:
I just have a (maybe naive) belief that the laws set down by our government may not actually fit the society in which we exist, and the sensible course is for people to attempt to change the laws to fit the circumstances.
The Government's word is not infallible - laws set down in the books can be just as wrong as they can be right.
I believe that the law is wrong, and so do a great, great many people living in this country today. Sadly, the "I won't campaign to have the law changed until something happens to me personally" attitude is rampant. Only when the legal system is groaning under the weight of innocent people on trial merely for taking approproate action to defend themselves, will anything be done.
I also believe in personal responsibility. I believe that should a man injure an intruder, then there is only one person who should shoulder the responsibility for that act - the intruder himself. Nobody needs to break into my house. Nobody must break into my house. Anyone who breaks into my house is doing so because that is what they want - they made a free choice to commit an illegal act, and to place me in a position where I had to choose to defend myself against any possible attack.
This is not the law of the jungle. Just the opposite. The law of the jungle is what you get when you protect those who are willing to intrude, steal and kill, and victimise those who attempt to defend themselves with force. My side of the argument is the more civilised, because if intruders knew there was a substantial fear of recrimination when they entered a house, then it would be a deterrent. As long as they know that they are protected by law, they will do as they please.
|
Interesting sophism. You're taking this one clear example of using excessive force when dealing with criminals, and blow it up to unrealistic proportions and pretend as if
any intruder in your house is protected by law and can't be stopped by the owner of the house in whatever way possible; while the actual problem concerns the use of
excessive measures to stop an intruder. I also fullheartedly disagree with the remark that "your side of the matter" is the more civilized; don't even know why you'd mention it, as it basically tolerates excessively violent responses to intruders - not sure what's so civilized about that.
If you use a blunt object to knock a thief unconscious, no problems there yet. If you accidently wound the thief badly or even kill him with that blunt object, while you only hit him once with the intention of knocking him unconscious, I still agree with you that you're still in the right (though I may disagree with your choice of weapon). But if you, for example, use the very same blunt object to keep hitting the thief several times while only once should have sufficed (you lose your temper or end up in a frenzy), and the thief
then ends up badly wounded or dead,
then you're in the wrong and then you've overstepped the boundaries of the law which protected you up to that point; at that point it becomes
your responsibility.
Same with Tony Martin's case; just the mere appearance of him with a shotgun probably would have done the trick, perhaps even a warning shot or the intimidating appearance of him and/or his rottweilers. And, heck, if the thieves had really struggled back, then there's always the option of aiming for the kneecaps; and if they attacked him directly,
then I can understand the use of a shotgun in self-defense a bit better (even though I still think he shouldn't have had a shotgun in the first place). But what he did was more or less assassinate the intruders, shoot to hit directly; turning his fears and paranoia in a triggerhappiness that's easily described as "excessive".
Sure, you can't always anticipate how you'll react when you're faced with intruders yourself, but Martin claimed to have been robbed many times and was literally
prepared to deal with intruders the hard way; the boobytraps, rottweilers and illegal-shotgun-next-to-his-bed come to mind. I doubt he really intended to merely stop intruders or chase them away, but most likely had worked himself up in a combination of anger, fear, frustration and paranoia to just shoot the very next occasion someone dared to enter his premises and think about the consequences later.
If I've understood you correctly, you're basically saying that any intruder in your house loses *all* of his/her rights, including the one to live; turning you into a judge who decides whether the thief will see another day or not (and yes, there's a sophism, an unfair exaggeration hidden in there somewhere as well, I'm aware of that
).
An extreme example: if you notice there are a few kids stealing apples from your orchard, does that automatically mean you've got the right to shoot to kill or wound, just because they've intruded on your land and are stealing what is rightfully yours?
No, of course not. The law doesn't give you a license to kill - imagine the implications a law would have if it actually allows you to kill people whom you don't want on your property! Simply lure the person to your premises, kill him/her and then claim it was an intruder; the perfect murder
- , but it does protect you legally from intruders as long as the means of defense are reasonable and not excessive.
That matter aside, I'm not sure if the British law fails somewhere along the line (considering the from my perspective rather far-fetched claims as "The verdict gives criminals the licence to rape, murder and mug householders in their own homes", like chocolate tycoon Peter Cadbury said
), but I doubt there are many (civilized) courts in the world who actually *would* have considered Tony Martin completely innocent and without responsibility in this matter, especially considering the fact that the guy used a means during the killing that he wasn't even supposed to have.
[ 06-22-2003, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]