|
On June 30 2011 14:23 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 14:20 The KY wrote:
Getting angry about something inconsequential and repeatedly insulting the person who disagreed with you may also say something about your intelligence. If you went back and read our exchange, you would note I only got angry when he began insulting me.
And yet you continue to berate him long after the, ahem, conversation should have finished. Calling people stupid over and over again, funnily enough, doesn't give the impression of a genius.
Anyway I'm outta here, clearly no discussion on the actual topic is to be had...
|
I'm glad citizens of the U.K. will be able to exercise their universal human right defend themselves and their property from burglars without fear of prosecution.
|
On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do.
|
On June 30 2011 14:25 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I'm glad citizens of the U.K. will be able to exercise their universal human right defend themselves and their property from burglars without fear of prosecution.
Agreed.
Its pathetic that the "human right" of a criminal to be safe while conducting a crime is of higher importance to "human right activists" than the right of a family to be safe within their own homes.
|
On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 14:17 MethodSC wrote:On June 30 2011 14:08 Hekisui wrote:
Yes, the solution to immoral people is to immorally violate their universal human rights and kill them. They might be rapists!
Btw, I am not dead yet. Maybe I would be if I met you. I seem to be a threat to you. There is no way to tell the intentions of a criminal when he is in your house. If someone is in your house uninvited, then their intentions are not good 99.99999999% of the time. This person could be a murderer, burglar, rapist, whatever. It does not matter, because you shouldn't waste your time to find out. Your own life is worth more than a criminals, isn't it? Would you kill someone who is threatening your life? You would take the chance to see what the criminal does? Your logic is not logic at all, it is stupidity. If a criminal is in your house he will either run away, or run at you. It's your decision what you do after that. This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence. Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional? No, the debate is if a criminal gives up their human rights by choosing to be a criminal. Apparently, right wing lunatic Cameron thinks so. Why should other leaders of poorer countries, for example in Northern Africa, respect universal human rights when Cameron can make statements so much in defiance of the concept of universal inseparable human rights?
Most criminals are armed with a weapon, whether it be a knife or a gun. The point is, are you gonna wait for a criminal to be violent before you act? I've been robbed at gunpoint, and have caught a burglar in my house. The burglar ran, luckily for him, and the one with the gun of course got away, but was later caught and is where he belongs. It's very obvious you've never been in that kind of situation. I would've killed both of them at the time, if I had the option, but I didn't. The burglar is still out there, the other is in jail. Criminals don't deserve rights at the time of the crime.
|
Why the hell is it not already legal? If someone is attempting to hurt myself, my loved ones or my property then they can expect a good stabbing.
|
On June 30 2011 14:25 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I'm glad citizens of the U.K. will be able to exercise their universal human right defend themselves and their property from burglars without fear of prosecution.
Funny thing is, everything can be proclaimed a universal human right.
|
On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do.
Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge.
|
On June 30 2011 11:56 TMStarcraft wrote:As I wait for the Hellgate Tokyo website to load I ran across this: Show nested quote +Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has said a householder who knifes a burglar will not have committed a criminal offence under plans to clarify the law on self-defence in England.
He told the BBC people were entitled to use "whatever force necessary" to protect themselves and their homes.
David Cameron recently said the issue should be put "beyond doubt".
Labour said the law was "already clear" and the remarks were a "smokescreen" to hide confusion over sentencing changes. SourceEssentially they plan to clarify 'reasonable force' in regards to home invasions (UK). I think it's a good move; to know exactly what you can and can't do so you don't have to deal with bs later on. Also, in the words of someone or other "fuck the fucking fuckers". Now if only they could prevent burglars from suing you when they hurt themselves breaking into your place.
i am not that great of a law person, but how the heck does something like this get by? (like law it comes under etc.)
|
|
|
On June 30 2011 14:39 Phenny wrote:
Why the hell is it not already legal? If someone is attempting to hurt myself, my loved ones or my property then they can expect a good stabbing.
It is already legal. If somebody pulls a gun on you and you kill them, you're not going to go to jail.
It's just a political move.
|
What a stupid law. Now on what burgulars will do is shoot the woken up victim instead of attempting to run away for self protection. I mean really if someone wants to kill you tjey wont break into your house, or are mmurderers really that stupid in britan? What is wrong with just calling police? Or does someone think that going to go stab the guy is safer?
|
On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge.
What about incapacitating the intruder?
Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between?
Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance.
Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho.
|
Ive thought a bit about house defence. I think knife is a bad option because if you bring it to a chaotic fight in darkness with a stranger it is very possible to have two unfavourable outcomes:
1. He takes the knife and kills you/hurt you bad.
2. You kill him when he stole a bread and go to prison for using excessive force. (A bit dumb example for this thread, but a relevant point in basically every civilized country).
Gun also has many disadvantages, with bullets hurting others through the walls, also see point 2 above. Guns and knives have little "in-between" options, maim or kill is basically random with a stab/shot.
I concluded that some form of metal-club should be the best, where you can maintain distance, but be able to bash him bad without killing him.
|
On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho.
Maybe my buckshot won't kill him. That's as far as I'll go "in between". I know some people put birdshot as the first round in their shotgun but I'm not willing to do that.
|
On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho.
For some reason your country tag makes me giggle about your response.
Seriously though why should the burden fall on the victim to minimize the danger the criminal may be in? Granted crime and violent crime in Germany is most likely less than in the states, but hitting some one with a frying pan that potentially has a gun isn't exactly high on my list, I find that .45 acp injected from my 1911 wisens them up
|
On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho.
Have you ever tried to "incapacitate" someone? It is a hell of a lot less reliable than the movies make it look. A gun, however, requires considerably less finesse/luck to remove a threat from the equation.
|
On June 30 2011 15:05 exog wrote:
Ive thought a bit about house defence. I think knife is a bad option because if you bring it to a chaotic fight in darkness with a stranger it is very possible to have two unfavourable outcomes:
1. He takes the knife and kills you/hurt you bad.
2. You kill him when he stole a bread and go to prison for using excessive force. (A bit dumb example for this thread, but a relevant point in basically every civilized country).
Gun also has many disadvantages, with bullets hurting others through the walls, also see point 2 above. Guns and knives have little "in-between" options, maim or kill is basically random with a stab/shot.
up to me to
I concluded that some form of metal-club should be the best, where you can maintain distance, but be able to bash him bad without killing him.
Buckshot generally, won't penetrate a wall but it depends. I would not use FMJ pistol rounds, rifle rounds or slugs to defend my home. You should also train yourself never to shoot without being completely aware of your target and what's behind it, even in stressful situations. Guns do have an in between, the sound of a round being racked into the chamber and your voice. If they aren't running at that point, it is foolish not to shoot to kill them. To me, not killing the person is hardly a concern when my life may be in imminent danger as he is the one who chose to put himself in a threatening position and it is not up to me to take the risk.
Your scenario with a bat has an unfavorable outcome too.
1. He kills you.
|
On June 30 2011 15:12 nemo14 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho. Have you ever tried to "incapacitate" someone? It is a hell of a lot less reliable than the movies make it look. A gun, however, requires considerably less finesse/luck to remove a threat from the equation.
Yes, but that potential thread has a high chance of being dead after that. Well, maybe it's really the country as the poster before you suggests, but i would never, ever use force that has the potential of being deadly. When in doubt, i'd rather die and let the murderer rot in prison later than risk killing someone who never was a threat in the first place.
|
On June 30 2011 15:20 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 15:12 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho. Have you ever tried to "incapacitate" someone? It is a hell of a lot less reliable than the movies make it look. A gun, however, requires considerably less finesse/luck to remove a threat from the equation. Yes, but that potential thread has a high chance of being dead after that. Well, maybe it's really the country as the poster before you suggests, but i would never, ever use force that has the potential of being deadly. When in doubt, i'd rather die and let the murderer rot in prison later than risk killing someone who never was a threat in the first place.
You'd rather die then kill someone that was trying to kill you? That's some pretty hardcore turning of the other cheek. Do you have kids? Family? People who like you? I'm pretty sure they'd value your life more than that of some asshole burglar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
