tv // lbd // shoulder touch

Doh.

More European asshattery.
Burglars as well as their victims must have the right to protection from violence, the Government's top lawyer said today.

Existing legislation is adequate to give home owners the right to repulse intruders using "reasonable force", Attorney General Lord Goldsmith told The Observer.

"We must protect victims and law-abiding citizens," he said.

"But we have to recognise that others have some rights as well. They don't lose all rights because they're engaged in criminal conduct."

Sorry. If you violate the law you've broken the social contract. Break into a house and the owner has the right to break your ass. Except if you're in the UK, apparently.
  • Current Mood: annoyed annoyed
nah ,not just the UK there are more counties in the world that dont believe you get to shoot and kill a burgular just coz he enters your property ..........something to do with playing your own judge and all ;)
Oh, I know it's not just the UK, but that's who the story was about.

My philosophy is that when someone breaks into your home, he could be coming in to steal for TV, or he could be coming in to rape and kill and mutilate your family. Better safe than sorry.
ok hypothetical here :

i caught some one shoplifting ,he gets violent and makes death threats ,do i get to kill him coz he is in my shop stealing my product for what i work very hard for ,how will i know that he does or doesnt mean his threats? should i be better safe then sorry ?

sorry judge i really thoguht he meant that he was gonna kill me so i beat him to it ?

some lines should not be crossed unless its really self defence

if you make the lines very thin they are way too easy to cross and then whats a life worth?

but thats just me
i caught some one shoplifting ,he gets violent and makes death threats ,do i get to kill him coz he is in my shop stealing my product for what i work very hard for ,how will i know that he does or doesnt mean his threats? should i be better safe then sorry ?

I don't know that I would put the emphasis on the stealing as much as on the fact that he's threatening to kill you, especially if he's armed. I would say you should be better safe than sorry, yes.

some lines should not be crossed unless its really self defence
But how do you know when it's "really self-defense"?

if you make the lines very thin they are way too easy to cross and then whats a life worth?

Apparently not too much in a country where killing someone only gets you 6 years in jail.
But how do you know when it's "really self-defense"?

you dont, but wanitng to be wrong and killing someone just coz they have a big mouth or stealing my tv doesnt feel right


Apparently not too much in a country where killing someone only gets you 6 years in jail.

but if i have to use logic on killing someone just coz my goverment only will give me 6 years when i do it then there is something mentaly wrong with me

i like to think i have higher standards on life i am not a judge ,i am not the law ,i am just someone that respects life as its whole and i dont ever think once that life is worth less just because the sentences for murder are low
you dont, but wanitng to be wrong and killing someone just coz they have a big mouth or stealing my tv doesnt feel right

Obviously there has to be a good reason for using lethal force on somebody. What I don't understand about the European system is the idea that self-defense is somehow bad. That's what this article from the UK says... that if you even just injure a guy as he's trying to climb out the window with your valuables, injure him trying to stop him and recover your property, you could be held criminally liable for those injuries. That's insane.

It goes beyond insane when you're talking about a violent criminal. If I had someone holding a gun on me, saying he was going to shoot me, and I had the opportunity to use force, perhaps lethal force, on him... I'm not going to stand around to see if he's just bluffing. Because if he's not, by the time I decide to take action it's going to be too late for me.

but if i have to use logic on killing someone just coz my goverment only will give me 6 years when i do it then there is something mentaly wrong with me

And that's so not the point. Anyone who figures they'll kill someone because they'll only get 6 years is already screwed up in the head and should be put down anyway. But the government, by saying murder is only punishable by a couple of years in jail, is itself devaluing life.
self defense isnt bad ,its when you go beyond it ,when some one steals your tv killing him , might get you your tv back but was it the apropriate force ,if you hit him in the head it should be enough

with a gun or other lethal weapon you are allowed to defend yourself even with a weapon yourself ,the way you defend yourself has to be in the way you are threathend (so a gun to the head gives you the right to hit him in a way that the threat is gone .........everything that is used as violence after that is unnessesairy coz the danger is gone and there for illegal


the 6 years is usualy a bit higher ,but still maybe it is low comparing to the crime but i doubt it will make people kill more just because of the number of years you will get for it

you really think people will think twice if the years are more of less ,even in the states where the punishment is so much higher people are still violent and still end up for long periods of time in jail

i dont think the number of years you can get for it is devaluing life , since its illegal to kill period, both goverments say that the number of years dont make the crime less or worse

that would be the same as saying the death penalty is devaluing life ,coz you can screw up so bad that you should die ,and i dont see it like that
self defense isnt bad ,its when you go beyond it ,when some one steals your tv killing him , might get you your tv back but was it the apropriate force ,if you hit him in the head it should be enough

And if it isn't enough? Or what if you hit him on the head and he dies from the brain injury? What I'm understanding here is that you're not permitted to use overwhelming force, and that strikes me as silly.

the way you defend yourself has to be in the way you are threathend

So if the guy in your house has a knife, can you shoot him? Or just stab him? What if a guy drags you into an alley to strangle you? Are you allowed to defend yourself with a pocket knife? After all, he's unarmed.

i dont think the number of years you can get for it is devaluing life , since its illegal to kill period,

To my way of thinking, the government is still saying that a human life is only worth 6 (or 10, or 12) years of incarceration. That is a lack of value, and it typifies one of the problems in Europe -- you can say that something is illegal, but if there's no teeth behind it, it's not a credible threat.

both goverments say that the number of years dont make the crime less or worse

I disagree. The worse the crime is, the worse the punishment should be. For example, manslaughter (causing the death of someone in a way that wasn't thought out beforehand, like running over someone while driving recklessly) has a less severe punishment in the US than first-degree murder (a murder that was planned out ahead of time and done with full knowledge of the consequences). We even have laws that add time to your sentence if the crime was racially motivated (which I don't particularly agree with, but whatever ;)).

that would be the same as saying the death penalty is devaluing life ,coz you can screw up so bad that you should die ,and i dont see it like that

The death penalty is reserved for mass-murderers and psychopaths that commit particularly heinous crimes. I wouldn't exactly call that "screwing up".
And if it isn't enough? Or what if you hit him on the head and he dies from the brain injury? What I'm understanding here is that you're not permitted to use overwhelming force, and that strikes me as silly.

why would you need overwelming force ,you just need the force that will make sure you elliminate the danger ,whats the point in keep hitting till he dies when the dangewr is gone ,at that point its not self defence anymore but it turns into getting even

if you are threathend with a gun and you hit him in the brain it is self defence ,if you hit him in the brain and he is unconcious and *then* hit him so he dies its murder

So if the guy in your house has a knife, can you shoot him? Or just stab him? What if a guy drags you into an alley to strangle you? Are you allowed to defend yourself with a pocket knife? After all, he's unarmed.

um no coz you cant own a gun;)

there isnt a manual on what you can use ,you can basically use whatever you can find to defend yourself ,but i dont see how an unarmed burgular should be shot dead *just* for stealing your tv

being unarmed and threating you (as in trying to rape you) is the same thing ,you can fight him off with wahtever untill you are safe from danger ,but if you stab him after you are safe its uneless violence coz the threat is gone


To my way of thinking, the government is still saying that a human life is only worth 6 (or 10, or 12) years of incarceration. That is a lack of value, and it typifies one of the problems in Europe -- you can say that something is illegal, but if there's no teeth behind it, it's not a credible threat.

its not just saying its illegal ,its getting convicted for it too ,just less year then in the States, its not like " o you murdered someone ,and thats illegal ,but we let you walk anyway" no its you murdered someone thats illegal ,now you go to jail for 6,10 12 years

The death penalty is reserved for mass-murderers and psychopaths that commit particularly heinous crimes. I wouldn't exactly call that "screwing up".

i didnt define screw up but that wasnt my point ,the point was that you can look at it from 2 sides as to devaluing life
the death penalty or "only 6 years" in prison (and in both cases i dont see it that way)

and trust me your psycho will not be off in 6 years here ,there is a system that has to clear you "no danger to yourself and others" before you get out ,if they dont think you are fit you will not be set free



I actually think it's just the US where you're allowed to do anything to a person that breaks into your property. In most other countries you can defend yourself and your property, but within limits.
Not to get all lawyery on you guys here - but we have limits on the use of force (even in your own home - Castle doctrine) as well. There are *especially* limits on the use of deadly force.

You mean you can't shoot a criminal, hack up the body, burn it and bury the ashes? Well, damn ;)
Told you once the election was over I'd be agreeing with you a lot more.
As for a shoplifter threatening you, well, I believe everyone when they say things like that. Everyone. There is no reason to assume they are lying - they have demonstrated clear disregard for the law. Most criminals (or at least most who wind up in prison) have below-average IQ's and actually are stupid enough to say what they intend to do. Furthermore, it's rare for someone to engage in violent behavior without winding themselves up, usually including verbally.

If they threaten you, and you are not in a safe situation, it's self-defense, assuming they are making some sort of threatening movements and not just sitting in a chair sulking. If the shoplifter has no means to carry out the threats at the present time, then you press charges for "terroristic threatening" (in Arkansas - called other things other places). If the guy looks like he really is going to beat you to a pulp, you need to be ready to shoot him if he makes a wrong move. If you can, shoot him in the leg, but only if you have the opportunity.

No, I don't think all shoplifters or burglars are worthless scumbags, and I do think their lives have value, but we live in a dangerous world and you should not sit by and let these people kill you. A lot of the big anti-self-defense people on my flist live in countries where the violent crime rate is far lower than the US. A burglar in these countries is far less likely to decide the best way to not get caught is to kill all the witnesses.

But really - why would you assume someone who is happy to break one law would lie about wanting to break others? Especially in the case of a home intrusion - which is far more dangerous than a shoplifting case. JMHO.
Re: Told you once the election was over I'd be agreeing with you a lot more.
I just don't understand the European mindset -- something I thank God for every day of my life ;)