Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Is self defense, as is the case in the United States, an unmitigated right?
Yes, it is a right even if it costs the aggressor his or her life. 12 (80%)
No, it is not a right. 3 (20%)
Total Votes: 15
Self Defense
Topic Started: Dec 5 2004, 10:27 PM (795 Views)
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
I came across this article today...
Quote:
 
Remember Robert Symonds? It is the name of the 45-year-old Putney teacher who six weeks ago was stabbed to death in the hall of his home by a burglar. His body was found by his wife while their two children slept upstairs.

It was as a result of that incident that this newspaper launched our "right to fight back" campaign, which calls for the public to be given an unqualified right to self defence against intruders in their own homes. The point that struck me so forcibly at the time was not just the horror of Mr Symonds's death, but the fact that had Mr Symonds picked up a kitchen knife before encountering the burglar, and managed to get blows in first, then he would now, as the law stands, be facing a murder trial.

The defenders of the status quo argue that a jury might acquit, on grounds that such self-defence was "reasonable force". We argue that such cases should never even be considered as crimes in the first place.

Read the whole commentary here.

The article got me to thinking about the profound difference between the United States and other nations when it comes to the act of self-defense.

In America simply entering a person house uninvited is akin to signing your own death warrant, while in Britain taking up arms against an armed intruder often results in the defender being charged with murder.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
If you are talking threatening the use of lethal force to defend your property - then that is going too far, possessions can be replaced and most people take out insurance against this kind of loss.

If you are talking the use of lethal force to defend yourself - then legally you are in very muddy water here in Australia - there have been cases where people have used self defence as a defence for using lethal force against criminals. I've had this discussion with my brother-in-law a while ago - about the time that a man in Melbourne was being tried for the man-slaughter of a burgular- he is a senior sgt in the NSW police force (and so I suspect he has a very good grasp of the law) and it is his view is that if such a situation arose - you had better make sure the bad guy / guys are killed outright. He advised against it.
I believe the man in Melbourne wound up being convicted thought my I admit my memories are vague on the issue as it was not an important issue to me at the time.

Hypothetically - should someone threaten harm or worse to my wife, mother or children then I expect I would take potentially lethal steps to defend them (if that is what it takes to protect them), and worry about the legal consequences later. (See above).

Mind you - the kind of situation that would justify this kind of action is exceedingly rare here in Australia since the vast majority of the population have no private firearms or even want to have them, and most criminals here aren't near as violent in their approach as we are led to believe (by the media and media culture) they are in places like the USA. (Images in the media are probably grossly exaggerated.)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I support the law as it stands now in the UK. You have the right to use resonable force to protect yourself, others and property. What constitutes resonable force would depend on what you are being faced with. If a 16 year old unarmed kid breaks in and then when you disturb him he runs away it is not resonable to shoot him dead. If someone has a knife and might stab you it is resonable to take up a knife in defense. In simple cases the police can decide easily whether resonable force was used, if they are in any doubt they can refer the matter to a judge and jury. The law shouldnt be tilted overtly in favour of a homeowner because justice is about balance. Because someone commits a offense against you (trespass) it doesnt mean you have the right to commit a greater offense against them (murder).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ds9074
Dec 6 2004, 12:58 AM
I support the law as it stands now in the UK. You have the right to use resonable force to protect yourself, others and property. What constitutes resonable force would depend on what you are being faced with. If a 16 year old unarmed kid breaks in and then when you disturb him he runs away it is not resonable to shoot him dead. If someone has a knife and might stab you it is resonable to take up a knife in defense. In simple cases the police can decide easily whether resonable force was used, if they are in any doubt they can refer the matter to a judge and jury. The law shouldnt be tilted overtly in favour of a homeowner because justice is about balance. Because someone commits a offense against you (trespass) it doesnt mean you have the right to commit a greater offense against them (murder).

You'll need to prove this, because everything I've read about British law as it regards self defense is in contradiction to what you've just stated.

As well, neither one of you gets the question ... I'm not asking if you have the right to defend property with deadly force, but if one has the right to self defense.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Yes you do have a right to self defense, but not an unmitigated right. You can use resonable force to defend yourself. Thats my view.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ds9074
Dec 6 2004, 03:49 AM
Yes you do have a right to self defense, but not an unmitigated right. You can use resonable force to defend yourself. Thats my view.

Keeping in mind that killing a person that isn't a clear and present danger isn't self-defense, but murder, what qualification or exception are you placing on self-defense.

You have the right to defend against an attacker without qualification or exception or you don't not.

It's that simple.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I am saying that there is a right of self defence but their is a qualification. I dont think you have the right to use all and any means at your disposal, you do have the right to use proportional and reasonable force.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
If someone breaks into your house in Texas and you kill him(her), the cops probably won't even take you downtown for questioning.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Really offensive B.O is quite an effective form of self defense
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Self Defense is not a right, it is a legal defense.
| Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
I haven’t voted yet. I want to put yes. However, your editorializing keeps me from doing so. Quite frankly, “it is a right even if it costs the aggressor his or her life” is really not something I can agree to on a message board.

I would however agree to self-defense being a top priority if the situation warrants it though.

In addition, as gvok mentions self-defense is not a right (as in a Constitutional right), but we do have a right (legally) in most cases* to defend ourselves. We also have a right (i.e. it is a moral and/or correct thing) to self-defense in my opinion.

*I said most cases not all, because what legally constitutes self-defense is not uniform state to state. However, the concept that we have a right to self-defense is uniform state to state.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

LOL, I clicked on this page, and the google ad was for martialArtsMart.com, a change from the trek DVD ads
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
38957
Dec 6 2004, 07:11 AM
If someone breaks into your house in Texas and you kill him(her), the cops probably won't even take you downtown for questioning.

They would, but they'd ask, "So, what caliber did you have?" and "Where did you get the crosshatching done on your grip?"
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Dec 6 2004, 12:58 AM
If someone has a knife and might stab you it is resonable to take up a knife in defense.

you do have the right to use proportional and reasonable force


Because someone commits a offense against you (trespass) it doesnt mean you have the right to commit a greater offense against them (murder).

While I agree their should be some accountability to avoid the 16 year old who is running away form being shoot in the back because he committed the crime of trespassing and burglary. These lines you posted disturb me. It seems you wish their to be 100% equal footing between the “homeowner” (or what have you) and the criminal. If the criminal has a knife the “homeowner” should only go so far as defending him self with a knife - “proportional force”. If the Criminal is just using his hands the “homeowner” should just use his hands to defend them selves - “proportional force”. But what about the rights given up or omission of equality the criminal “asks for” when they enter the home with out promotion? It’s as if you want to say the two instances are separate and distinct, the trespassing/burglary is one situation to be considered alone, and the self-defense is a separate issue to be considered alone. The criminal will be found guilty of trespassing/burglary while the “homeowner” (if he does not use “proportional force”.) will be found guilty of murder. But where does the criminals responsibility come into play when deciding the fait of the “homeowner”? Surly the criminal would not have been killed had he not entered the home with out permission, so does he not bear some of the responsibility in his own death?

I say that he does, and that responsibility falls in to place with forgoing the idea of “proportional force”. If the “homeowner” has a reasonable reason to believe he must defend himself (ie, the 16 year old running way would not count as a reasonable reason) the homeowner should have every right to use “every means” at his disposal to defend him self. The criminal gives up his right to be looked at equally when he commits his crime (burglary/trespassing) and should find himself below the “homeowner” when determining fault and severity of fault. So in the end if the criminal has a knife and the “homeowner” has accesses to a gun, the homeowner should have every right to us that gun in self defense, the criminal has given up his rights of equality when he committed his crime. If the Criminal is only using his hands, the “homeowner” should still be able to use that gun because again the criminal has give up his rights of equality when he committed his crime.

If I ever find my self in a situation where a trespasser has his hands around my neck strangling me (using his hands as a weapon) you can be sure that I will not settle for just using my hands to get him off of me (proportional force). If I have access to any other weapon, weathered it be a knife or a gun or a pipe, I will use it with out a second thought.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ds9074
Dec 6 2004, 02:49 AM
Yes you do have a right to self defense, but not an unmitigated right. You can use resonable force to defend yourself. Thats my view.

But why can't you have superior force? It sounds like you think a homeowner should be on equal terms with an intruder? That's just suicide.

If JimBob breaks into my house, and he's armed with say, a knife and a crowbar, I'm not going to get a knife from the kitchen drawer and a crowbar from the garage. Nope, JimBob gets a .40 caliber hole in him, somewhere in the largest part of his body mass. It will be a messy hole, seeing as I use SXT ammunition for home defense.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus