God! And I thought we over here were nuts

[Grendal]

My apologies Melusine I meant no offence by my comment. Here in Canada we also have quite strict gun laws (maybe not as strict as yours) but having a gun in the house out here isnt as common as in other places ***cough U.S.A cough*** All Im saying is that this is not the same world I grew up in in the 80s. Its a violent place out there with alot of sick people who dont care about anything or anyone that stands in the way of getting what they want. Just seems to me that violence is becoming more common and to the younger generations coming up its almost chic. The best we can do is teach our kids right from wrong and try and protect the ones we love! Man are we still on topic here???? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Melusine]

I know what you mean Grendal, and I find it as frightening as you do. I guess we just disagree on how to react to a violent world. I am not against self-defense, I don't think anyone is against that since we all have survival instincts that are hard to ignore. But I do refuse to add to the violence, or to the mindset that violence is normal or necessary.

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Melusine: But like I said, where I live most of them enter your house planning to STEAL, not to MURDER. Most of the time they flee when they fear the inhabitants heard them. So why would you shoot to kill? Why not shoot in both kneecaps if you're "only" defending yourself? I can totally understand that if you have a reasonable fear you or your family is in danger, that you'd want to make sure nothing happens to them. But why always shoot to kill? Why do I never hear someone "I'll shoot him in the legs" or somewhere else that has less chance of being lethal. Murder IS worse than theft! Of course the thief is totally wrong for entering your house, and the consequences are his own fault. But YOU determine what those precise consequences are, and I for one cannot understand the ease with which people condemn themselves to having killed a person.

Because, Mel, although it is true that *most* intruders are there to steal and not murder, when it actually happens to you, are you willing to take the cahnce that the one in your home isn't one of the murdering minority?

And your point about disabling an intruder by breaking his legs is a good one, but breaking his legs or shooting him in the kneecaps does not prevent him from pulling out a gun of his own. A man is still capable of killing you with a gun, even when he is lying on his back. People have walked and run on broken legs before.

Sadly, the only way you can be completely sure that you are safe while you call the local law enforcement agency is to render the intruder unconscious. Since you don't want to hit him *without* knocking him out (only to have him turn around and shoot/stab you), you have to hit him very hard in the head to do it. Maybe with a bat/vase/anything else heavy. *Then* you can be sure you are safe in calling the police.

Naturally, the only problem here is that the intruder may die a slow death on your floor while the cops come. I have to say, I feel no pity whatever for the poor dying criminal. I have lived all of my life in poverty, living in what in the USA would be called 'the projects', surrounded by drug dealers, addicts and thieves. This is no excuse. I don't care if you *need* to sell my video to feed your habit, and were killed by me when you broke into my home to get it. I saw an intruder in my home, assumed the worst, and took action. I have been dirt poor all of my life, and I have never been shot/killed/beaten for breaking into someone's home, simply because i have never broken into someone's home. Don't tell me that people *need* to steal. They don't. I have no sympathy for someone who does. I don't think stealing a video should be a capital crime, but my viewpoint is that if you die as a result of me incapacitating you so I can be sure you will not harm me or my family, then tough luck. I won't cry over it.

If you don't want to be killed for intruding in my home, then don't intrude into my home. You will be perfectly safe from harm if you sinmply do not commit the crime of breaking and entering, and thus putting me in a position to choose between your well being and thwe well-being of my family.

Please note - once again I am dealing with the abstract notion of home defense, *not* the Tony Martin case, though the two go hand in hand in my country.

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Grojlach: And well said, Melusine. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] I've also been wondering why many people seem to think guns and large blunt items are a "proper" way to defend themselves, while the use of, for example, pepperspray, stun guns, special guns loaded with harmless yet effective kinds of anaesthetics (effective in a way that the thief will simply fall asleep for a few hours), or even "special" light and sound effects to startle the thieves is hardly ever even mentioned. I mean, if you're already paranoid about possible intruders, why not think about some proper alternative non-lethal, non-messy kind of preperation instead? Like Melusine said, why the fixation on killing rather than neutralizing or scaring away the intruders? Maybe it's just a mentality thing, but perhaps someone could explain it to me.

Because in my country, only criminals have access to those things. Law abiding citizens are defenseless, prohibited by law from owning any of the defenses you named .

The light and sound is good, and would work for about 2 weeks. The word would get around and thieves would ignore it forevermore. You don't seem to grasp the mentality of the english subclass, Groj. They think that it is their *right* to steal from you, and take any attempt to stop them as a personal affront.

I would never go out to kill an intruder. I would simply take steps to be sure I could render him unconscious, and should he die, that's his own fault, not mine.

[Grendal]

Well put Barden....both posts sum up my feelings exactly

[Mouse]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: I would never go out to kill an intruder. I would simply take steps to be sure I could render him unconscious, and should he die, that's his own fault, not mine.

And if you are taken to court for using excessive force, would you accept the court's judgement?

I don't say that there is an easy solution to striking the balance between an individuals right to take steps to ensure self-protection and the duty not to use unreasonable methods to enforce that right.

I just have a (maybe naive) belief that society sets down rules to which we must adhere to ensure that we don't revert to the law of the jungle. If it means a reduction of the rights of the individual, that's a price we accept.

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Mouse: quote: Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: I would never go out to kill an intruder. I would simply take steps to be sure I could render him unconscious, and should he die, that's his own fault, not mine.

And if you are taken to court for using excessive force, would you accept the court's judgement?

I don't say that there is an easy solution to striking the balance between an individuals right to take steps to ensure self-protection and the duty not to use unreasonable methods to enforce that right.

I just have a (maybe naive) belief that society sets down rules to which we must adhere to ensure that we don't revert to the law of the jungle. If it means a reduction of the rights of the individual, that's a price we accept. [/QUOTE]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.

People who claim an intruder, committing an illegal act, has the protection of the law are responsible for the protection of a minority of criminals, but the pain and suffering of a far greater number of law-abiding citizens.

[ 06-21-2003, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Bardan the Slayer ]

[johnny]

Originally posted by Mouse: Nobody gets put in prison for defending themselves as long as the force and methods of self defence used are reasonable. Here's an example:- Someone comes up to me in the street and punches me. I take a swing back, connect and he falls over. I walk away, he gets charged with assault or some other public order offence. As above but when he falls over, I run up to him and stamp repeatedly on his head. He dies, I get charged with either murder or culpable homicide. The difference is that in the second example, the force I used was far beyond what was reasonable given the circumstances and in a civilised society, I believe it's the judicial system or legislature to decide what constitutes reasonableness in any particular situation, not the individual.

Wise words indeed. So you say taking a swing at someone, after he punched you first is only natural, right ?

But what if that one swing causes the death of that person ? It could happen, i've heard it before. You didn't intend to kill him, but the outcome is the same as when you stamp on his head for a while. The force you used was not beyond reason, since you only reacted to a personal assault. But still....

How to judge a situation like that ?

[Mouse]

Originally posted by johnny: quote: Originally posted by Mouse: Nobody gets put in prison for defending themselves as long as the force and methods of self defence used are reasonable. Here's an example:- Someone comes up to me in the street and punches me. I take a swing back, connect and he falls over. I walk away, he gets charged with assault or some other public order offence. As above but when he falls over, I run up to him and stamp repeatedly on his head. He dies, I get charged with either murder or culpable homicide. The difference is that in the second example, the force I used was far beyond what was reasonable given the circumstances and in a civilised society, I believe it's the judicial system or legislature to decide what constitutes reasonableness in any particular situation, not the individual.

Wise words indeed. So you say taking a swing at someone, after he punched you first is only natural, right ?

But what if that one swing causes the death of that person ? It could happen, i've heard it before. You didn't intend to kill him, but the outcome is the same as when you stamp on his head for a while. The force you used was not beyond reason, since you only reacted to a personal assault. But still....

How to judge a situation like that ? [/QUOTE]There are generally two parts to a crime, especially those that have developed in Common Law systems. there is the actus reus which refers to the actual action and the mens rea which refers to the unlawful intentions of the potential perpetrator. For a crime to be committed, both elements have to be present.

For example, if I walk up to someone in the street and punch them in the ribs, breaking a couple, then I'll most likely be convicted of assault. On the other hand, if that person has collapsed and I try CPR and break a couple of ribs, I won't be charged with assault.

Though in both cases, the third party's ribs are broken (actus reus) only in the first instance was my intent (mens rea) criminal in nature.

It's a bit more complicated than the above black and white example in the real world, where you may have to try to determine the criminal intent from the actions of the perpetrator.

[Grojlach]

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 ]