Reasonable use of force.

[flanker]

So what do you guys consider to be reasonable use of force to protect your loved ones and/or property?

 

Personally, if somebody steps over my threshold uninvited, they are fair game: I have no idea whether they are armed or not, and so to protect my family I would use all the force available to me and if that means maiming or even death, then so be it.

 

A bit extreme? possibly, but who can honestly say they would not do the same to protect their kids (those that have kids).

[robbieh]

Robbieh, the fact that it would prey on your mind that you killed someone indicates you're a decent human being - many people don't seem to be - some even become burglars/muggers etc.

Can we shoot people that speed in their cars through villages/built up areas as well? They're putting life at risk as much as someone nicking my tv and stereo. Both are breaking the law.

[cruthinboy]

If the driver was speeding towards you or somebody else with the fairly certain result of death or serious injury, and you happened to have the means of stopping them in your hand ...  well, yes. Ooh, controvesial point - is it reasonble? .. yes/no ...? Oops, too late!

[jimmer]

i didn't say you did crutin boy. I illustrated how violence breeds violence, disorder and chaos. I'm sorry if I offended you. What are your views on the Faulkener case today?

 

jim

[cruthinboy]

Sorry, jimmer, it was just the "When people start talking about violence it all gets out of hand Crutin Boy" not "When people start talking about violence it all gets out of hand Bernardo".

[robbieh]

......Who decides which crime is worse? Hopefully the courts, not individuals. It would be on my mind if killed someone, that would never go away, if it doesn't you've got something wrong with you and thats why i would never want to shoot someone. Unless we should just shoot all criminals? Where do you draw the line?

[robbieh]

If the driver was speeding towards you or somebody else with the fairly certain result of death or serious injury, and you happened to have the means of stopping them in your hand ...  well, yes.

But if a thief is in your home, theres no certain result of death or serious injury. They're there for your possessions not to kill you.

[jimmer]

yeah but bernardo's use of colours and meaningless acronyms ticks me off and besides, i prefer discussing it with you coz it challenges my view. It would be pretty pointless everyone typing " yes good point, good point", that would be boring.

 

jim

[Oneeyedvic]

Another little example:

You go downstairs at 2.00am - its very dark, you don't put the light on as you don't want to disturb a member of your family. You don't know why you woke up, but since you are up you decide to go downstairs to the loo. You suddenly see a figure and at the same time notice the back door is open. The figure comes towards you mumbling something. A lot of people will automatically think someone is attacking. Maybe, this person has just been mugged outside, climbed up your door (which you neglected to lock, but you could have sworn later that you did) and has come in to get your help. Suddenly everything changes. It is impossible to legislate for every concievable thing. Most juries will not convict someone who is 'reasonably' defending their property. To change the law where anyone can kill anyone else just for being somewhere else is just plain dangerous.

 

Whilst I agree, that criminals should pretty much forfeit all their rights if they do break in, I refer you to my first example. Cruitinboy invites bernardo round for a drink. Next thing you know, bernado is dead and cruitinin boy is saying bernardo broke in and cruitinboy stabbed him in self defense!

[Donkey]

oneeyedvic, there is more chance it is buglers with a gun or knifes than it is some person that has been mugged has climbed up your door (which you neglected to lock, but you could have sworn later that you did) and has come in to get your help. If you want to take that chance that it might be someone that has been mugged then go ahead turn the light on and make them a cup of tea, I aint taking that chance in this day and age.... where is that baseball bat again !

[bernardo]

cruthinboy: the fact that it was a joke and not a threat was obvious for two reasons:

 

(1) It was clearly labelled as a "joke" for the benefit of those who do not understand the concept of ironic counterpoint

 

(2) There was an obvious irony in the contrast between the two parts of the joke:

(a) "Perhaps we should go round to cruthinboy's house and smash his head in with some baseball bats" and

(b) "Then he might learn to be reasonable and open-minded"

 

I had thought that the irony and ridiculousness which is inherent in the contrast between the two statements was obvious enough to be spotted by anyone a mile off, so if you insist on pretending to imagine a harmless joke as a "threat" then I feel sorry for you having such a poor sense of humour compared with everybody else.

[bernardo]

jim: I do not use "meaningless acronyms".  All of the acronyms which I have used on this site are very meaningful (except for one of them).  PTBALDG

[georgit79]

jimmer- I agree with the use of colours thing. Sorry bernardo, but I do!

And I also apologise, flanker, if you think that I am absurd in suggesting that you are being macho. I don't think I am, I think I'm being perfectly reasonable.

[georgit79]

And bernardo, your 'joke' suggestion that we go round to cruthinboy's with baseball bats really wasn't on- you may have meant it as a joke, but I took offence at it too and it wasn't even aimed at me.

[jimmer]

ok bernardo. but your joke lacked a punchline. This post is about as silly as it gets. Many pro-killem dudes are just making up rules on the fly. The courts deal with these issues. A high profile case is in the news today where the guy (faulkener) shot a burgler and walked free. Tony Martin got 5 years and served three for manslaughter and he lay in wait. In law if there is evidence that you pre-meditated a response or use unnecessary force, the chances are you will be convicted of a crime. Leaving a baseball bat at the ready to knock someones head off could land you in jail. If they are prepared to do the time then there is not much point in arguing.

 

jim

[mike1222]

As a late-comer into this debate/argument, I have to agree with crutinboy - anyone, whether it's a 14 year old druggie who's from a deprived home or a 30 year old professional burglar, who breaks into my house is a dead man walking - at least they would not be doing it again to anyone else.  I would also add that that there is virtually no way that I would be convicted in a court.

I think that Tony Martin, when he was first arrested and interviewed by the Police must have been given bad advice from his legal advisers (if he had any initially!).  If he had said the "right things" he would not have even been charged, never mind convicted.

[el duerino]

a society in fear?

[el duerino]

I think it was the forensics showing that he shot a burglar in the back as he ran away that actually nailed tony martin.

[mike1222]

el duerino, notwithstanding that, if he had said something like, "I panicked and was in fear of my life because the burglar had shouted "shoot him" or "kill him".  I didn't know how many of them there were - it was dark - I was just so terrified. I thought they were going to kill me!"  If he had really laid it on he would not have been charged.

[kaz35]

 As stoo_pid rightly points out,  reasonable amount of force is subjective.  However, 'subjectiveness' is not, i would imagine, the first emotion that springs to mind when, for example, you are a female living alone and you are confronted by an intruder (never mind whether they be a weedy 14 year old, or a six foot fella built like a shed. They are intruders in your home, whatever their reason for being there.  It is a base primative instinct of humans to protect themselves and survive at all costs, and I think subjectivness about the situation would only come later.  These are people that are invading your privacy, who have'nt been invited into your home, and i think we can safely assume that their prescence in your home is going to cause misery  in one way or another.   As such they should lose any right to attempt to claim for monetry compensation for injury that is inflicted on them whist you are defending yourself, your family and your property.

[Hgrove]

I'd like to say that what I remember about the Tony Martin case is that it was shown, or at least it seems that the jury believed that he had lain in wait.  There is a big difference between self defence and lying in wait ready with a gun.  I hope nothing like that happens to you flanker, but if it does, unfortunately you will go to jail for a long time.