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 (796 Views)
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
gvok
Dec 7 2004, 10:11 AM
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.

Answer my question and leave the double talk for someone else ... Just what reason is given in the Federalist Papers for the 2nd Amend?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ds9074
Dec 7 2004, 01:00 PM
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.

Jesus ... that's a non sequitur. Taking revenge for fraud is not the same as defending oneself.

ds9074
Dec 7 2004, 01:00 PM
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.

Self defense is a human right.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Dwayne
Dec 7 2004, 10:08 PM
Answer my question and even the double talk for someone else ...

What does that mean? :headscratch:
| Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
gvok
Dec 7 2004, 10:16 PM
Dwayne
Dec 7 2004, 10:08 PM
Answer my question and even the double talk for someone else ...

What does that mean? :headscratch:

Answer my question and leave the double talk for someone else ... Just what reason is given in the Federalist Papers for the 2nd Amend?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Oh, I wasn't sure whether "even the double talk" was some kind of local dialect. Please tell me what you feel I said was double talk and I will then answer your question.
| Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
gvok
Dec 7 2004, 10:25 PM
Oh, I wasn't sure whether "even the double talk" was some kind of local dialect. Please tell me what you feel I said was double talk and I will then answer your question.

Everything you said that didn't answer my question.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Dwayne
Dec 8 2004, 04:09 AM
ds9074
Dec 7 2004, 01:00 PM
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.

Jesus ... that's a non sequitur. Taking revenge for fraud is not the same as defending oneself.

ds9074
Dec 7 2004, 01:00 PM
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.

Self defense is a human right.

It perfectly straightforward. You can defend yourself from an assault in your home but the fact that it happens in your house, and the person is a trespasser, doesnt give you the right to take any extra measures. You can defend against the assault as you could in the street, you cannot take revenge for the burglary/trespass. They are two distinct incidents.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ds9074
Dec 8 2004, 12:21 AM
doesnt give you the right to take any extra measures. You can defend against the assault as you could in the street, you cannot take revenge for the burglary/trespass.

Extra measures???

Define that.

In many communities in the United States law abiding citizens, by law, can commit a citizens arrest if they observe a person committing a crime, therefore if a thief violates the law by breaking and entering, and then the home owner is able to defend himself against the criminal and gain the upper hand, that citizen has every right under citizen arrest laws to detain that criminal until police arrive.

Well, that would certianly be extra measures.

As well, why do you keep harping on acts of revenge and such, the discussion was never, 'do you have the right to defend yourself then take revenge', but simply do you have the right to defend yourself.

I will say this though, ask any American police man, and privately and off the record, many will tell you that if you encounter a criminal in your house who intends you harm, kill that person, because if you simply detain that person, regardless whether you physically harm the person, they will likely sue you in civil courts for pain and suffering.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
By extra measures I mean that you cannot use more force than you would to defend yourself against a similar attack in the street.

What I am trying to say about 'revenge' or taking the law into your hands is this. You can defend yourself against attack in your home or on the street. Thats self defence. If however you shoot a trespasser - not because they are a threat to you but simply because they are on your property - that is not right.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
The way I see things, your right to private property is second only to your right to life and freedom of expression. If you invade and threaten my private property or intend to harm the life of my family, your right to life just dropped down the priority list a couple of notches.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
In my view the right to life superseeds all other rights, including property rights. Therefore the trespassers right to life overrides your property rights. The only justification you have for killing them is if they were going to kill you.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
So, we disagree.

May I suggest that if you find your self in the USA (particularly somewhere in the middle), that you not illegaly enter somebody's house. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Dwayne
Dec 7 2004, 10:40 PM
gvok
Dec 7 2004, 10:25 PM
Oh, I wasn't sure whether "even the double talk" was some kind of local dialect.  Please tell me what you feel I said was double talk and I will then answer your question.

Everything you said that didn't answer my question.

I don't really know what you are talking about and I don't feel the need to cooperate with you if you're going to be pissy with me.
| Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
In my view the right to life superseeds all other rights, including property rights.

DS,

Question: Why do you believe you (we) have the right to life? Whom or what gives you this right?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
The right to life is the most fundemental and basic of human rights, notitionally granted to me by my Government, but above and beyond that it is granted as a fact of my existance. It is a God given right. The Almighty gave me life and no man has the right to take that life away - unless I threaten to do so to them.

Whereas my right to property comes from the fact that I purchased the property and I legally own it. Yet it is not a God given fundemental right for me to own that property. It could be taken away from me legally for a number of justifiable reasons. Property rights are very much secondary to the right to life.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus