 |
|
child of Thor
|
|
Its about time a senior figure spoke about this, and i'm in complete agreement - i think no burgler should go into another person's house and not expect to risk death for their actions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4067681.stm
We are way to forgiving on criminals in this country. America's attitude on this makes much more sense to me, ok i dont want guns legalised here - but if i batter a thief to death in my home protecting my family, i want to be within my rights to do so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:17
|
|
Weak systems usually.. they rely on criminals right too much. Of course criminals have rights, they have basic human rights and they can't just give them up, it's the job of our democratic freedom machine system to make sure they can't do that even if they wish so or act against us. BUT it allows us to isolate them and jail them.
ALSO major point in the weakness of few systems (justice) is that we think the criminal somehow can have the rights to be untouched when he acts. Self defense is like an entity no one really knows the boundaries of, including the justice system. Some shift the balance to the protector of his own family/property. I'm agree with this one. What I don't agree with is our style, where self defense is later on determined, if it was TOO MUCH. How can you self defense too much? Court decides after the matter, when the situation was not dangerous anymore and any action by the defendor turns into attacking by default. Court decides if your measures were too much in the beginning without clear set of rules. I like the rules to be clear, so I can defend myself, my family and my property accordingly without thinking 'oops this might send my ass to jail'.
Of course it is clear that I can not snap the neck of the attacker, if he comes and punches me in the nose in the street. But I should not be expected to take control of my attacker by few slick judo moves and hold him until the cops arrive. That's just a utopia. If the attacker keeps on coming, I should be able to trash his ass any way I see fit, until the danger is not present anymore. That includes all non-lethal methods, and if I'm bare handed, it includes all kinds of strikes or moves. The attacker gives up his right to be untouched when he lays his dirty stinking claws on me, and I have the right to protect myself. Why should I get my ass kicked because some socialist hippie judge thinks I was being too rough? I didn't attack anyone, the punk hit me.
Now, that's clear to me. Any way you can, non-lethal and possibly trying not to seriously injure the attacker, unless the situation is life and death matter, well then you can also kill. But this is always very difficult matter.
What is simple boundary though, is your own home. NO ONE has the right to come there and think they won't be shot in the back, if they're on the crime spree. It's a plus if someone warns them first. I say open fire if you want to. Hopefully you have to time and nerves to call it out, but if you don't, you don't need to be risking your life because some drug addict punk is there to steal your **** and possibly stab or shot you if you happen to get in the way. What, are you supposed to call the cops and wait them if there's 3 guys in your living room? Right, you start talking in the phone and stay put, hope they don't come next to you and smash you. What a bunch of utopias. It is consistent, that the people who demand these kind of weird rules by the defendor are people who never have been attacked, and live in places where such attacks to themselves are very unlikely. So they don't have the reality of the situation in their mind. It's scary as hell and potentially life threatning if someone comes to your house with bad intentions.
A criminal who comes into your house accepts willingly or unwillingly the possibility of getting snuffed. And they still choose to come. That tells you something about their mindset, they're locos. So you have the right to defend your own house and family by EVERY MEAN NECESSARY. What ever you think is the best way. If you want to talk them out of it, fine. If you want to run out of the backdoor and call the cops, even better. If you want to take out the big boys and blast them to the wall, OK.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:17
|
|
But in here, same rules of self defense apply in your own home. It's like there's no difference if you're in the street and some random drunk comes to grab you, or if you're in your home and at night some men in black come with guns.
I have told about the case where the gas station owner got jail sentence for shooting a burglar.. the punk came there, armed (no firearms though), smashed the window and started stealing. Well the owner happened to be inside and he had a gun and he ordered them to get the hell out. Now even the attackers had the same story, he did warn them and order them out so this is not the question. The attacker started coming towards the owner, and the owner shouted 'stop or I'll shoot'. Attacker didn't stop. And when he was close to the owner, the owner shot him in the leg. IN THE LEG! The burglar got sentenced for robbing the place out, and the owner got sentenced to a longer and bigger sentence because he shot the guy and his leg was now just a little shorter and caused the guy backpains as a result. WTF?!?!?!?
So this is how it is. If the attacker has a knife, according to our logic you can have a knife too, but oyu have to let the other guy slice you first, because no one can know if they would have sliced you. The attacker can say afterwards 'I wouldn't have sliced him, I was only threatning!'. That's just WEAK! We need to kill these people if we see that fit. Then we can determine if the threat was justified enough for the slaughter or not. If that person had a weapon, it was justified. If you gave a warning shot and ordered them to leave and they came on to you bare handed, you're justified to shoot. The criminal just can't expect to have all the rights of a decent citizen if he is on the rampage. Why should hte one who is in danger be thinking about the attacker AND the judge, and who is more dangerous to them? He should be thinking how to get out of the situation, and that possibly means physical enforcing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:17
|
|
We have imminent danger too but it allows you absolutely nothing extra. If someone is coming to stab you, you are allowed to take the knife away. Shoot and go to jail. Take th knife and stab him, you go to jail. The irony of the situation is, the defendors always get longer sentences than in case where no one defended anyone and attacker just beat someone silly. He gets less, but if he gave the same perfgormance while defending, he gets longer sentences  .
Just from today's paper (there's these things every day), where justice was TOUGH and very fair.
A guy comes home from party, and attacks anothjer person in their way home. Punches the 17 year old kid and jumps on him. Then he drags him to teh woods next and tortures him for 5 consecutive hours. Yes, 5 hours. He ties him to a tree, kicks and punches him, smashes a beer bottle into his head, burns him with cigarettes, pokes him with a knife many time and just stabs him, for 5 hours, and then he gets tired and leaves his victim there. Attack was unprovoked. And he also chokes him unconscious few times, just for the kicks. So, the guy is able to get out from the ties and gets to the hospital. The torturer says 'I had nothing else to do'. Apparently he was bored. The victim had to quit school and all, because the guy who was year older was in the same school. He was mentally in scrambles, no wonder! And HE had to quit school, not the torturer.
So the court punished him sentencing to jail for... 2 and a half years. Now that's a tough punishment. Not to forget he gets out in a year.
That's the price you pay if you torture someone for 5 hours for no reason at all. ****ing brilliant!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
Yeah, UK and European self defense laws are absolutely retarded. Here in Texas, if someone's in your house, you ****ing shoot him. If someone advances on you with a deadly weapon, you ****ing shoot him. If multiple people jump you and try to beat the **** out of you, you ****ing shoot all of them. If someone stabs you, you ****ing shoot him.
Moral of the story? If you go to Texas, don't commit crimes against people and property, because you'll get ****ing shot. Some people say that isn't a deterrant to crime. I say, so what? Either Texas self defense laws result in less violent crimes, or they allow us to kill more violent criminals. That sounds like a win-win situation to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:17
|
|
Patrokolos is right. Just because the soon to be a victim turned out to be someone who is able to turn the situation arond does not change the fact that he was been a victim. A man's house is the ultimate boundaries what should not be crossed. ****, many times even criminals respect that when fighting each other. Well not always, but sometimes. There's jusit something magical to it.
a house is a sanctuary for many. The only place they can rest. Entertain themselves, watch some TV, sleep and eat. Have their family raised in there and make love to their wives and husbands. That's just a sacred place, everyone knows it. You don't go to someone's house and start being an *******. Especially if it's your first time there, no you are humble and see how they do things so you can do the same, if they take their shoes off then you take them off etc.
So for someone to think, that it's just ordinary crime to come in and steal something from there is not the thing. The major crime that happens is the crossing of the line, that is home. Then the criminal violates that sacred code and rule. It's not that he might steal some worthless crap, it's the physical and mental violation.
I don't see any reason why a man should be afraid in his own house. Why he should be gambling with his life if some who knows how violent criminal is in his house. He might be armed, and willing to kill you. Who knows, he might kill your family. It happens. You have a gun. What do you do? call 911? Nah.... you sneak in and make sure he's the only one inside, and either shoot him point blank or order him to freeze or alternatively to get out. And then you call 911. That's it. A man should have the right to take the lowest risk he feels, if he is in his own house. No reason to gamble. The criminal is the one who took the gamble.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
You can always shoot the warning shot afterwards, just make surte you can prove it. Just shoot to your own floor. Then say you gave warning shot first but the bugger didn't believe you. It's word against word. And he's the one with the bullet in his leg plus the one who broke into your house, you win by default. |
The burglar would have a decent shot at winning in civil court with that.
All he would have to do is say that he was unarmed and trying to leave or surrender when he was shot, and you might have to sell your house.
In most states, the statutory language reads something like...You are allowed reasonable means to defend property, with deadly force never being reasonable. Any gunplay would be considered deadly force.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-12-2004 21:40
Attachment: 
Smiley 
|
