|
On June 30 2011 23:05 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 22:49 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 20:49 mcc wrote:On June 30 2011 19:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 18:32 Bleak wrote:On June 30 2011 18:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 17:48 Bleak wrote:
I think if someone breaks into your home at night and if you have a gun, you should first warn him to leave your house and force him to give your belongings back. If he does not comply, if he attacks you, and if he is unarmed/carries a melee weapon, you may shot him in the leg or so to immobilise him. Then, call the police.
However, if the guy is armed with a firearm, I believe you should shoot him. Doing otherwise would be taking a big risk.
In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful.
Sad to see the Americans caring more about their plasmas than the life of an individual. I have heard that in some places asking people directions in U.S is dangerous as people think you are a trespasser or sth. Americans only care for money and property. Don't be a tool, you just expressed the opinion of most Americans. "In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful." Yep, that's what its all about. Benefit of the doubt should go to the homeowner because no one else was in the situation they were in. Asking directions in the U.S. is fine. Please come here before you spout any more shit about us. Don't get offended, i am aware there are idiots and geniuses in every society, it's just something I've heard that seemed funny to me. What I am trying to say is that (and I have heard it from Americans who live in Turkey) is that they are much more closed in terms of their personal space. My college teacher has talked about this before but it is really off topic. So you wake up, realise that there is a burglar at your home, you grab your gun and move as silently as possible,. You find burglar the sitting room, checking the stuff around. He is not aware of you, his back is turned to you, you don't care he is armed or not and shoot the guy in torso with 4 bullets. Poor bastard dies right there. Do you think this would constitute a proportional and necessary self defence case? I wouldn't do that personally for my own reasons but yes, that should hold up as self defense. It seems the person in that situation cared a great deal about whether or not that person was armed, hence explaining their action. Lets say your mother was in her home alone, and in her frightened state, she did EXACTLY what you described above. Would she deserve to go to prison? Or lets say she pointed the gun at him and yelled a warning, he jumps out of the way, draws his gun and kills her. Would you find solace knowing she did the "morally right" thing? Proportionality has no place in this argument. When someone initiates hostilities against you, you have the right to do whatever is necessary to feel safe. And what if my answer to your hypothetical questions is: In general yes, she would deserve to go to prison (there are a lot of "but"s in that, it depends on more details about the situation). No I would not find any solace, yet I still support the laws to be as they are. And in my book burglar does not initiate hostilities against me by being in my house. You are an evil person. The same I can say about you. Could you provide some more content ? I suppose you see a problem with my first answer ? If the second, then I would point out that laws are mainly not here to provide solace to individuals.
A home invasion is a traumatizing and terrifying experience. I'm just baffled that you would send someone, who is concerned for their safety, and that of their families, to prison. Even if it was your own mother. This sheer inability to place yourself in the shoes of another reflects a heart of stone. I simply cannot see another explanation.
|
Pfff, who needs knifes. A whack with a baseball bat will do just fine:p
|
On June 30 2011 12:07 naggerNZ wrote:
If someone enters your property, uninvited or not, they are your guest and should be treated as such. Stabbing people is not okay.
LOL Ah good morning laugh....I think you missed the point by lightyears on end.
|
I fear for the signal value of this. If find that it encourages vigilantism. It's true that if someone wants to abuse this law to commit a murder, this way of defining the law shouldn't make it different from someone making it look like otherwise killing a burglar in self-defence. It would likely still be investigated; the only technical different would be in you planting a weapon to indicate that you were in danger. However, I'm afraid of the precedent of making the law "it's fine to kill people who break into your house" instead of "don't ever kill anyone, unless you have no other option to defend your own life". This way, it is likely that such events will be thought of a lot less severely, and instead of being horrified that someone has died and stopping to think about it, people will say "oh well, it was a break in". Or that someone who experiences a break-in will say "I have the right to defend my property!" and kill the intruder instead of avoiding conflict or choosing alternate solutions. This would be one step closer to making it more acceptable to kill other people, assuming such power over the existence of someone else, and would do as much damage to the death penalty currently does to the moral fibre of society.
The point of this law is not that it's in any way acceptable to kill anyone because they commit a crime or that it somehow make them less worthy to live, however that just might be the implications.
|
United States43557 Posts
On June 30 2011 12:10 zobz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 12:07 naggerNZ wrote:
If someone enters your property, uninvited or not, they are your guest and should be treated as such. Stabbing people is not okay. Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
|
On June 30 2011 23:55 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 23:05 mcc wrote:On June 30 2011 22:49 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 20:49 mcc wrote:On June 30 2011 19:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 18:32 Bleak wrote:On June 30 2011 18:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 17:48 Bleak wrote:
I think if someone breaks into your home at night and if you have a gun, you should first warn him to leave your house and force him to give your belongings back. If he does not comply, if he attacks you, and if he is unarmed/carries a melee weapon, you may shot him in the leg or so to immobilise him. Then, call the police.
However, if the guy is armed with a firearm, I believe you should shoot him. Doing otherwise would be taking a big risk.
In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful.
Sad to see the Americans caring more about their plasmas than the life of an individual. I have heard that in some places asking people directions in U.S is dangerous as people think you are a trespasser or sth. Americans only care for money and property. Don't be a tool, you just expressed the opinion of most Americans. "In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful." Yep, that's what its all about. Benefit of the doubt should go to the homeowner because no one else was in the situation they were in. Asking directions in the U.S. is fine. Please come here before you spout any more shit about us. Don't get offended, i am aware there are idiots and geniuses in every society, it's just something I've heard that seemed funny to me. What I am trying to say is that (and I have heard it from Americans who live in Turkey) is that they are much more closed in terms of their personal space. My college teacher has talked about this before but it is really off topic. So you wake up, realise that there is a burglar at your home, you grab your gun and move as silently as possible,. You find burglar the sitting room, checking the stuff around. He is not aware of you, his back is turned to you, you don't care he is armed or not and shoot the guy in torso with 4 bullets. Poor bastard dies right there. Do you think this would constitute a proportional and necessary self defence case? I wouldn't do that personally for my own reasons but yes, that should hold up as self defense. It seems the person in that situation cared a great deal about whether or not that person was armed, hence explaining their action. Lets say your mother was in her home alone, and in her frightened state, she did EXACTLY what you described above. Would she deserve to go to prison? Or lets say she pointed the gun at him and yelled a warning, he jumps out of the way, draws his gun and kills her. Would you find solace knowing she did the "morally right" thing? Proportionality has no place in this argument. When someone initiates hostilities against you, you have the right to do whatever is necessary to feel safe. And what if my answer to your hypothetical questions is: In general yes, she would deserve to go to prison (there are a lot of "but"s in that, it depends on more details about the situation). No I would not find any solace, yet I still support the laws to be as they are. And in my book burglar does not initiate hostilities against me by being in my house. You are an evil person. The same I can say about you. Could you provide some more content ? I suppose you see a problem with my first answer ? If the second, then I would point out that laws are mainly not here to provide solace to individuals. A home invasion is a traumatizing and terrifying experience. I'm just baffled that you would send someone, who is concerned for their safety, and that of their families, to prison. Even if it was your own mother. This sheer inability to place yourself in the shoes of another reflects a heart of stone. I simply cannot see another explanation.
How is that inability to place myself in someone's place. I consider people who kill someone else in cold blood bad and I do not make exceptions for a family. And that is the scenario that Bleak described. You changed it quite a bit for your purpose, and that would change my answer somewhat as I noted in my post, that the answer depends on the details. If it was just a panic reaction like in your version I would say that no, she does not DESERVE to go to prison. The person who got shot also did not deserve to die. But I would still say she SHOULD go to prison, similarly as manslaughter caused by emotional distress is still often punished by jail, the emotional state may just lower the sentence. There is a lot of traumatizing and terrifying experiences and we do not allow people killing others because of it. Also your argument is kind of weak, you imply that people concerned for their safety, and that of their families are immune to prosecution and imprisonment ?
An just to note you asked what I would think, not what I would feel or do.
|
I love how people don't realize that violence fosters violence. Guess what doesn't happen in Sweden? People don't get shot and stabbed during burglaries. I understand that you feel a greater need to protect yourself, especially in the US, but that's because most of your robbers are armed and/or know that they will be harmed should they fail and thus will more easily result to using force. It's rather obvious. So keep up "defending yourself" and creating a slightly less pleasant society to live in.
Edit: And for the record, I'd much rather buy a new TV than kill a burglar or risk bodily harm to myself.
|
On July 01 2011 00:50 HellRoxYa wrote:
I love how people don't realize that violence fosters violence. Guess what doesn't happen in Sweden? People don't get shot and stabbed during burglaries. I understand that you feel a greater need to protect yourself, especially in the US, but that's because most of your robbers are armed and/or know that they will be harmed should they fail and thus will more easily result to using force. It's rather obvious. So keep up "defending yourself" and creating a slightly less pleasant society to live in.
Edit: And for the record, I'd much rather buy a new TV than kill a burglar or risk bodily harm to myself.
It's easy to sit on your pedestal when you've got lower crime rates compared to the US, but the danger there is you delude yourself into thinking that there is no crime at all. Everyone who becomes a victim of these incidents instantly changes their opinion on home protection the moment it happens. It continues to baffle me how human beings on different sides of a giant body of water seem to think they're different somehow.
|
This article is misleading (I think). I'm pretty sure you aren't allowed to stab a burglar in the UK in many scenarios, such as if they enter your property through your front door - if you left the door open. I know in Canada there is a difference between a forceful entry and a non-forceful entry. A reasonable person would not use force causing harm for a non-forceful entry. So while you can physically remove the person from your property, you can't hurt him in the process (such as through stabbing them) unless the burglar threatens or escalates things further.
The examples they give could also be misleading. Saying "an old lady can stab a burglar" is different than saying "all people can stab a burglar". There could be a presumption in his statement that the old lady is much weaker than the burglar, so more serious protective measures are warranted since she probably feels more threatened than someone else would.
At any rate... now that this article has been published with quotes from government officials, even if you stab someone in an illegal instance, you could probably argue successfully that you were misled by an official and thus don't meet the mens rea requirements to be found guilty.
|
|
|
Alot of double standards here. It seems some people would love to punish burglar by death, yet people cry about when police used excessive force when dealing with criminal.
|
On July 01 2011 01:06 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 00:50 HellRoxYa wrote:
I love how people don't realize that violence fosters violence. Guess what doesn't happen in Sweden? People don't get shot and stabbed during burglaries. I understand that you feel a greater need to protect yourself, especially in the US, but that's because most of your robbers are armed and/or know that they will be harmed should they fail and thus will more easily result to using force. It's rather obvious. So keep up "defending yourself" and creating a slightly less pleasant society to live in.
Edit: And for the record, I'd much rather buy a new TV than kill a burglar or risk bodily harm to myself. It's easy to sit on your pedestal when you've got lower crime rates compared to the US, but the danger there is you delude yourself into thinking that there is no crime at all. Everyone who becomes a victim of these incidents instantly changes their opinion on home protection the moment it happens. It continues to baffle me how human beings on different sides of a giant body of water seem to think they're different somehow.
While it's true that extreme experiences often change people and dictate their stance towards something, what he's referring to is the culture of violence. In the United States, I often hear a very rough discourse in regards to criminals and, in tune with the individual utopia of "the American dream", a low regard for the "justified" misfortune of others. It's possible that this culture has developed because of the country's history and past hardships. He's saying that in Sweden, there is a different culture. There, it is more likely that the burglar would not consider the home owner an enemy, and might even be apologetic if caught, or that the home owner would try to reason with the burglar or even help him change his mind. This might change is Sweden becomes a violence-ridden wasteland, but that is because we humans are fickle creatures. We should not forget our humanity and what past history has told us, and that's why it's good that we have others to remind us.
While there is no way to generalize Americans, I do much more often see Europeans provide voices of reason whenever anything in regard to crime or war is discussed, while I tend to see more hatred and condemnation from the Americans.
|
On July 01 2011 01:13 furymonkey wrote:
Alot of double standards here. It seems some people would love to punish burglar by death, yet people cry about when police used excessive force when dealing with criminal.
The problem with claiming a double-standard is you tend to assume both outcries are coming from the same people.
There are some people that feel as if 'thieves are people, too!', and others who feel that if someone stoops to the level of thievery, they've lost all faith in their ability to contribute to society. After all, the recidivism rates in almost every western country tend to be quite high and its difficult to narrow down the best way to fix the problem. The US system tends to focus on punishment, deterrence and just keeping them out of society's way, while European systems tend to focus on education and rehabilitation. California itself has adopted a similar system as most European countries in recent years, and yet the recidivism rate is still the highest in the entire country of something like 70% of criminals released get re-arrested within 3 years (saw that on the news a while back).
|
On July 01 2011 01:22 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 01:06 Bibdy wrote:On July 01 2011 00:50 HellRoxYa wrote:
I love how people don't realize that violence fosters violence. Guess what doesn't happen in Sweden? People don't get shot and stabbed during burglaries. I understand that you feel a greater need to protect yourself, especially in the US, but that's because most of your robbers are armed and/or know that they will be harmed should they fail and thus will more easily result to using force. It's rather obvious. So keep up "defending yourself" and creating a slightly less pleasant society to live in.
Edit: And for the record, I'd much rather buy a new TV than kill a burglar or risk bodily harm to myself. It's easy to sit on your pedestal when you've got lower crime rates compared to the US, but the danger there is you delude yourself into thinking that there is no crime at all. Everyone who becomes a victim of these incidents instantly changes their opinion on home protection the moment it happens. It continues to baffle me how human beings on different sides of a giant body of water seem to think they're different somehow. While it's true that extreme experiences often change people and dictate their stance towards something, what he's referring to is the culture of violence. In the United States, I often hear a very rough discourse in regards to criminals and, in tune with the individuals utopia of "the American dream", a low regard for the "justified" misfortune of others. It's possible that this culture has developed because of the county's history and past hardships. He's saying that in Sweden, there is a different culture. There, it is more likely that the burglar would not consider the home owner an enemy, and might even be apologetic if caught, or that the home owner would try to reason with the burglar or even help him change his mind. This might change is Sweden becomes a violence-ridden wasteland, but that is because we humans are fickle creatures. We should not forget our humanity and what past history has told us, and that's why it's good that we have others to remind us. While there is no way to generalize Americans, I do much more often see Europeans provide voices of reason whenever anything in regard to crime or war is discussed, while I tend to see more hatred and condemnation from the Americans.
I grew up in England, so I know what differences in culture you're referring to, but I'd argue that it's a bad stance to adopt on the part of the victim. I've only lived in the States for 6 years, but its obvious that its a culture that highly values competition and striving for excellence, whereas in England, the competition is definitely just as prevalent, but the culture is often to take the stance of sitting back and accepting a loss, rather than knuckling down and fighting it.
|
If someone is breaking into my home, I'm going to shoot to kill. Like there is no debate here.
"I love how people don't realize that violence fosters violence. Guess what doesn't happen in Sweden? People don't get shot and stabbed during burglaries. I understand that you feel a greater need to protect yourself, especially in the US, but that's because most of your robbers are armed and/or know that they will be harmed should they fail and thus will more easily result to using force. It's rather obvious. So keep up "defending yourself" and creating a slightly less pleasant society to live in.
Edit: And for the record, I'd much rather buy a new TV than kill a burglar or risk bodily harm to myself."
you are seriously one of the worst kind of people, it's pathetic.
|
On July 01 2011 01:22 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 01:06 Bibdy wrote:On July 01 2011 00:50 HellRoxYa wrote:
I love how people don't realize that violence fosters violence. Guess what doesn't happen in Sweden? People don't get shot and stabbed during burglaries. I understand that you feel a greater need to protect yourself, especially in the US, but that's because most of your robbers are armed and/or know that they will be harmed should they fail and thus will more easily result to using force. It's rather obvious. So keep up "defending yourself" and creating a slightly less pleasant society to live in.
Edit: And for the record, I'd much rather buy a new TV than kill a burglar or risk bodily harm to myself. It's easy to sit on your pedestal when you've got lower crime rates compared to the US, but the danger there is you delude yourself into thinking that there is no crime at all. Everyone who becomes a victim of these incidents instantly changes their opinion on home protection the moment it happens. It continues to baffle me how human beings on different sides of a giant body of water seem to think they're different somehow. While it's true that extreme experiences often change people and dictate their stance towards something, what he's referring to is the culture of violence. In the United States, I often hear a very rough discourse in regards to criminals and, in tune with the individuals utopia of "the American dream", a low regard for the "justified" misfortune of others. It's possible that this culture has developed because of the county's history and past hardships. He's saying that in Sweden, there is a different culture. There, it is more likely that the burglar would not consider the home owner an enemy, and might even be apologetic if caught, or that the home owner would try to reason with the burglar or even help him change his mind. This might change is Sweden becomes a violence-ridden wasteland, but that is because we humans are fickle creatures. We should not forget our humanity and what past history has told us, and that's why it's good that we have others to remind us. While there is no way to generalize Americans, I do much more often see Europeans provide voices of reason whenever anything in regard to crime or war is discussed, while I tend to see more hatred and condemnation from the Americans.
Pretty much this. Thank you for a very good post.
On July 01 2011 01:36 howerpower wrote:
If someone is breaking into my home, I'm going to shoot to kill. Like there is no debate here.
"I love how people don't realize that violence fosters violence. Guess what doesn't happen in Sweden? People don't get shot and stabbed during burglaries. I understand that you feel a greater need to protect yourself, especially in the US, but that's because most of your robbers are armed and/or know that they will be harmed should they fail and thus will more easily result to using force. It's rather obvious. So keep up "defending yourself" and creating a slightly less pleasant society to live in.
Edit: And for the record, I'd much rather buy a new TV than kill a burglar or risk bodily harm to myself."
you are seriously one of the worst kind of people, it's pathetic.
And how is that? If anything I'd say I'm a lot better than you because I value human life, both my own and others. If you really want to take it to that level...
|
On July 01 2011 00:37 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 23:55 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 23:05 mcc wrote:On June 30 2011 22:49 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 20:49 mcc wrote:On June 30 2011 19:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 18:32 Bleak wrote:On June 30 2011 18:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 17:48 Bleak wrote:
I think if someone breaks into your home at night and if you have a gun, you should first warn him to leave your house and force him to give your belongings back. If he does not comply, if he attacks you, and if he is unarmed/carries a melee weapon, you may shot him in the leg or so to immobilise him. Then, call the police.
However, if the guy is armed with a firearm, I believe you should shoot him. Doing otherwise would be taking a big risk.
In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful.
Sad to see the Americans caring more about their plasmas than the life of an individual. I have heard that in some places asking people directions in U.S is dangerous as people think you are a trespasser or sth. Americans only care for money and property. Don't be a tool, you just expressed the opinion of most Americans. "In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful." Yep, that's what its all about. Benefit of the doubt should go to the homeowner because no one else was in the situation they were in. Asking directions in the U.S. is fine. Please come here before you spout any more shit about us. Don't get offended, i am aware there are idiots and geniuses in every society, it's just something I've heard that seemed funny to me. What I am trying to say is that (and I have heard it from Americans who live in Turkey) is that they are much more closed in terms of their personal space. My college teacher has talked about this before but it is really off topic. So you wake up, realise that there is a burglar at your home, you grab your gun and move as silently as possible,. You find burglar the sitting room, checking the stuff around. He is not aware of you, his back is turned to you, you don't care he is armed or not and shoot the guy in torso with 4 bullets. Poor bastard dies right there. Do you think this would constitute a proportional and necessary self defence case? I wouldn't do that personally for my own reasons but yes, that should hold up as self defense. It seems the person in that situation cared a great deal about whether or not that person was armed, hence explaining their action. Lets say your mother was in her home alone, and in her frightened state, she did EXACTLY what you described above. Would she deserve to go to prison? Or lets say she pointed the gun at him and yelled a warning, he jumps out of the way, draws his gun and kills her. Would you find solace knowing she did the "morally right" thing? Proportionality has no place in this argument. When someone initiates hostilities against you, you have the right to do whatever is necessary to feel safe. And what if my answer to your hypothetical questions is: In general yes, she would deserve to go to prison (there are a lot of "but"s in that, it depends on more details about the situation). No I would not find any solace, yet I still support the laws to be as they are. And in my book burglar does not initiate hostilities against me by being in my house. You are an evil person. The same I can say about you. Could you provide some more content ? I suppose you see a problem with my first answer ? If the second, then I would point out that laws are mainly not here to provide solace to individuals. A home invasion is a traumatizing and terrifying experience. I'm just baffled that you would send someone, who is concerned for their safety, and that of their families, to prison. Even if it was your own mother. This sheer inability to place yourself in the shoes of another reflects a heart of stone. I simply cannot see another explanation. How is that inability to place myself in someone's place. I consider people who kill someone else in cold blood bad and I do not make exceptions for a family. And that is the scenario that Bleak described. You changed it quite a bit for your purpose, and that would change my answer somewhat as I noted in my post, that the answer depends on the details. If it was just a panic reaction like in your version I would say that no, she does not DESERVE to go to prison. The person who got shot also did not deserve to die. But I would still say she SHOULD go to prison, similarly as manslaughter caused by emotional distress is still often punished by jail, the emotional state may just lower the sentence. There is a lot of traumatizing and terrifying experiences and we do not allow people killing others because of it. Also your argument is kind of weak, you imply that people concerned for their safety, and that of their families are immune to prosecution and imprisonment ? An just to note you asked what I would think, not what I would feel or do.
Yes, people defending themselves are immune from prosecution and imprisonment. Christ. You may actually be a sociopath, in which case you don't actually care for the burglars life, you just wan't to see innocent people go to prison.
|
On July 01 2011 01:28 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 01:13 furymonkey wrote:
Alot of double standards here. It seems some people would love to punish burglar by death, yet people cry about when police used excessive force when dealing with criminal. The problem with claiming a double-standard is you tend to assume both outcries are coming from the same people.
I assume so based on the number of people taking side in these kind of threads. It's easy to spot people with double standard by looking at the majority supports.
|
Imo, good idea. Makes people think twice before burgling.
|
On July 01 2011 01:43 57 Corvette wrote:
Imo, good idea. Makes people think twice before burgling.
More like: Makes burglars more likely to be violent while burglaring if caught.
On July 01 2011 01:28 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 01:13 furymonkey wrote:
Alot of double standards here. It seems some people would love to punish burglar by death, yet people cry about when police used excessive force when dealing with criminal. The problem with claiming a double-standard is you tend to assume both outcries are coming from the same people. There are some people that feel as if 'thieves are people, too!', and others who feel that if someone stoops to the level of thievery, they've lost all faith in their ability to contribute to society. After all, the recidivism rates in almost every western country tend to be quite high and its difficult to narrow down the best way to fix the problem. The US system tends to focus on punishment, deterrence and just keeping them out of society's way, while European systems tend to focus on education and rehabilitation. California itself has adopted a similar system as most European countries in recent years, and yet the recidivism rate is still the highest in the entire country of something like 70% of criminals released get re-arrested within 3 years (saw that on the news a while back).
You should argue for the death penalty and not vigilanteism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
