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
Self Defense
Topic Started: Dec 5 2004, 10:27 PM (797 Views)
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
gvok
Dec 6 2004, 07:03 PM
Right.  I think most juries would not convict a person protecting his family.  Nor do I think most DAs would prosecute someone under similar circumstances.

I believe that is also the case here in the UK, provided the force used was not unresonable. I personally think its unlikely that in the case given in the article the guy would have been prosecuted and even less likely he would have been found guilty.

Everyone gets very hyped up about the case of British farmer Tony Martin and thinks that means we cant defend ourselves. That is plainly wrong. Mr Martin did shoot dead a 16 (or 17) year old burglar as he feld from his house. True he had had repeated burglaries but that doesnt excuse his actions. He was eventually found guilty of manslaughter and given about 5 years in prison. I find that to be a just situation not one that needs a new law to remedy.

In the case of the 80 year old woman she would be justified in my view to use a knife say, because clearly hand to hand she is going to be overpowered. That would be resonable and I doubt it would land her in jail.

I would say, and this is what I am sure many wont agree with, is that a burglar doesnt give up all their rights when they enter your house. Them being in your house doesnt mean you can do what you like to them. I do indeed say that the burglary/trespass is one offense that can be delt with appropriatley by police, courts etc. and the assault by the burglar (and self defense that follows) is another incident.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
I just can't see an 80 year old woman defending herself with a knife.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
doctortobe
Dec 7 2004, 02:20 AM
I just can't see an 80 year old woman defending herself with a knife.

To be honest an 80 year old woman is probably going to be at a disadvantage whatever she tries. I would suggest she lay still in her bed and wait for the burglar to go, the phone for the police.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ds9074
Dec 6 2004, 07:33 PM
doctortobe
Dec 7 2004, 02:20 AM
I just can't see an 80 year old woman defending herself with a knife.

To be honest an 80 year old woman is probably going to be at a disadvantage whatever she tries. I would suggest she lay still in her bed and wait for the burglar to go, the phone for the police.

Suppose it is a rapist? Is she supposed to just lay there, too?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Granny would not be at a disadvantage with a 12 gauge by her bed.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
doctortobe
Dec 7 2004, 03:10 AM
Granny would not be at a disadvantage with a 12 gauge by her bed.

Actually she probably would be if the burglar had a similar weapon. Anyway as you know the distribution of firearms is tightly controlled in the United Kingdom to everyones mutal benefit ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Except for granny.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
DEFIANT
Commodore
I put Yes. As long as self remains in self defense.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
gvok
Dec 6 2004, 12:58 PM
The classic law school case on this subject is the spring gun case.  (This is from memory so don't fight me on the details).  Essentially, a couple owned a house that they did not live in.  The house kept getting broken into so the guy set up a shot gun that would fire at chest level when the door was opened.  Someone tried to break in and was shot in the chest.  This was found to be unreasonable by the jury and the result was affirmed on appeal.

I think setting up booby traps is something you will wind up being tossed into goal for in Australia irrespective of the circumstances - our cops and legal system take a very dim view of that kind of behaviour.

In your neighbourhood what is the chance of your finding yourself the victim of a home invasion or in a confrontation with an armed criminal or gang intent on doing you or your's physical harm or worse ?
(Could be a bunch of people armed with clubs , cricket or baseball bats or even acting in very intimidating manner towards you or your loved ones .)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
If the intruder had a deadly weapon (i.e., gun) and could still be partially effective while injured, I would shoot to kill (chest shot).

38957,

Unless it were me. :)

Quote:
 
Granny would not be at a disadvantage with a 12 gauge by her bed.

Doctortobe,

Please do not assume that she is a grandmother. This muddles the data, and has no place in here. Thank you. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
ds9074
Dec 6 2004, 09:16 PM
doctortobe
Dec 7 2004, 03:10 AM
Granny would not be at a disadvantage with a 12 gauge by her bed.

Actually she probably would be if the burglar had a similar weapon. Anyway as you know the distribution of firearms is tightly controlled in the United Kingdom to everyones mutal benefit ;)

Especially the criminals. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Dwayne
Dec 6 2004, 07:17 PM
gvok
Dec 6 2004, 09:45 AM
Self Defense is not a right, it is a legal defense.

Oh really, then just what is this...
Quote:
 
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Just what reason is given in the Federalist Papers for the 2nd Amend?

We're talking about two seperate issues. The Second Amendment was not originally designed to prevent burglary or assault on an individual basis. American jurisprudence (and Anglo Common Law) has always looked at "self defense" as a legal defense to a criminal charge and not as a "right". These are legal terms of art and carry very specific legal meanings.

If we are to speak in common parlance then I suppose there is some truth to your assertion but only in a very general sense.
| Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
doctortobe
Dec 7 2004, 03:24 AM
Except for granny.

No, actually including granny because she is much less likely to be faced with a criminal carrying a gun.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Dec 6 2004, 08:14 PM
I would say, and this is what I am sure many wont agree with, is that a burglar doesnt give up all their rights when they enter your house. Them being in your house doesnt mean you can do what you like to them. I do indeed say that the burglary/trespass is one offense that can be delt with appropriatley by police, courts etc. and the assault by the burglar (and self defense that follows) is another incident.

I would agree they do not give up "all" their rights. But they do give up some, and they are playing hard and fast with others. I just cant see how you can judge them to be two different incidence, one precipitates the other, one can not happen with out the other. The person who starts the first is in some way responsible for the second, because if he didnt start it, the second one wouldn't have happend. If the burglar did not enter a house he should not be in, he would not be died, so the responsibly is partly on him. If a burglar entrees my house I should not have to think twice about his rights, because he has already infringed upon mine, I should be able to use every means at my dispose to expel him, I should not have to waist time over assessing the situation to determent what amount of force would be equal to his and then hope he doesn’t get the upper hand when we are struggling equally.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
They are two seperate incidents and this is the same in other situations. Say someone committed a massive fraud against you and stole thousands of dollars, then you went and killed them. If they hadnt committed the fraud they wouldnt have been killed, but that doesnt mean they gave up their rights. Their crime against you was serious and should have been delt with by the courts. Your crime though would be even more grave - murder. If you start to say that one crime can cancel out or mitigate against another I find that dodgy. Also if you allow people to take the law into their own hands and carry out their own 'justice' then I think thats dangerous.

When you are talking about the right to self defence and whether resonable force was used I think this should be the same whether the assault (that precipitated the defence) was in your home or on the street.

You do make a good point about the nature of the situation. This is one area where I think chances are due in the UK and would simply require new guidelines from Ministers on the interpretation of the law. You must take into account that the person hasnt been able to sit down and work out exactly what constitutes resonable force to the nth degree. They have probably had to take action quickly and under pressure. This should be taken into account more strongly than it is at present when deciding what constitutes resonable force.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus