Travel3 mins ago
Reasonable use of force.
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).
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flanker. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
el duerino , in answer to your question "When do we decide that they can not be rehabilitated , may I draw your attention to the notorious sex offender John Cronin. Please take a look at the following web sites as the answer lies there : www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=864%26id=581412003
thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=579202003
Cronin was deemed "Incurable" by psychiatrists. It also states in one of the articles about him that he is free to walk the streets without supervision because his sex convictions happened before the introduction of the sex offenders' register. Despite him asking to enrol in the Peterhead prison's 'stop Programme' which is designed to modify the behaviour of sex offenders , many remain unconvinced. One police officer described Cronin as "A timebomb waiting to explode". Rehabilitation only works if the offender WANTS to be helped and the point which I was making is that some do not wish to be helped and show no interest in rehabilitation. Until the day they do , you could try until you were blue in the face to help them and it wouldn't make a bling bit of difference. May I draw your attention to the end statement in the 2nd link which states that psychiatrists deem him "Incurable" but leading psychologists say that they believe that ground work can be covered to help him but that he needs to WANT to be helped. That's the most important point to remember. I'm not suggesting that rehabilitation never works , merely that in certain cases , it is impossible if the offender will not co-operate with the programme.
I meant of course to say blind - not bling bit of difference ! Apologies to you Flanker for getting away from the basis of your question about protecting yourself from unwelcome visitors but lest we not forget that these people DO exist in our communities and I believe that if they cross the line by entering your property unlawfully , then you should be perfectly within your rights to defend yourself by whatever means possible and I reiterate the point which I made about them forfeiting their rights to protection from the police. What possible explanation could they have for entering your property without your consent , apart from to rob you or cause you or your family harm ? I would never consider keeping a gun in my house but I certainly would use the nearest available object to defend myself and my family if I had to.
I seem to be unable to post two links in the one answer. The first one should take you to a heading about John Cronin entitled "Pervert Cronin back in jail after cheque offence" and the second link is : http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=579202003 and should take you to a heading entitled "Out of control and a danger to women" I hope that this works this time.
ok - so when a team of psychiatrists deem someone to be uncooperative they are not rehabitable whilst in that condition and should not be released?
Understand I do not totally disagree with what you are saying, just that it is a very dangerous and subjective line to take. As a famous russian once said (yes I cant be bothered to write his name) a society can be judged by the state of its prisons. One of the problems I see at the moment is that our penitencial system cannot decide whether it is punitive or corrective.
el duerino : ok - so when a team of psychiatrists deem someone to be uncooperative they are not rehabitable whilst in that condition and should not be released ?
Yes. That's it in a nutshell as far as I am concerned. If the said individual is still deemed to be a risk to society , shows no positive interest in rehabilitation and displays all the traits which led to their incarceration in the first place , then the most obvious answer to me , is to keep them there until they are willing to make amends , no matter how long it takes. That's not to suggest that attempts at rehabilitation halt , merely that the individual is simply not ready to reintegrate into society. I fail to see how that is a very dangerous and subjective line to take. Perhaps I am missing the main thrust of your argument or have misinterpreted your meaning , are you suggesting that we release such offenders back into the community when it is believed that they run a high risk of reoffending , giving them a free reign to behave as they please and leaving victims caught up in their trail of destruction ?
Strange how people know Fred Barras was running away from Tony Martin just because he was shot in the back. Suppose he was moving out of line of sight whilst contemplating finding a weapon, knife, chair or anything else with which to go back and attack Tony Martin?
If he turned around Philtaz Tony Martin still had the gun. Do you really think Barras had the bottle to attack him after he saw the gun? You give him courage I don't think he had
Some people just don't understand a simple concept:
A complicated issue doesn't become simple just because someone says it is. If it were that simple it wouldn't get debated that much
Drewhound, i would rather spend a few years in prison than, take a chance and get stabbed and die
I understand why you think like that Donkey and my gut response is to agree. What you would do in the situation is an unknown till it happens (I hope you never have to find out), I have been in that situation.
I had a go at two intruders and as a result they were caught. It was some minutes later I realised I'd been stabbed in the chest (I didn't feel a thing). It wasn't serious but with a knife it could have killed me, it was pure chance it didn't. If it happened agian I'd defend my self and my family but I'd leave them an out so they could run if they wanted.
I didn't leave them that escape route and could have payed dearly for it. I can only hope all you armchair heroes do make the right move if it happens because it isn't like the films
Well I wouldn't deem myself an armchair hero(my previous career instilled in me the ethos of 'have a go' though), just someone who would kick back against the rising tide of crime and political correctness in this country that sees burglars and thieves sent to Barbados in order to produce a 'downturn' in their criminal behaviour whilst ordinary law abiding citizens suffer the heartache and trauma of burglary with nothing more than an increased insurance premium and a cup of tea from a Victim Support group.
