 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
What happened to the killer? |
nothing. and the facts are far worse for the killer than what I've said.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lazarus and the Gimp
|
 |
Whale-raping abomination
Aug 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
That isn't a case of breaking and entering, nor is it a case of a burglar entering your house. It's a different scenario.
|
Actually it is burglary, and it is a case of a burglar entering your house. In "The Law According To David Floyd" what proportion of the burglar has to be inside your property before it starts to be burglary. I'm curious. And amused.
I can come up with a lot more if you're interested.
quote:
And my only point is that I have good reason to feel threatened AUTOMATICALLY when someone is in my house.
|
Feeling threatened does not, in isolation, justify self defence. If you wake up and only see their rapidly disappearing backside as they sprint away out of your property, the law would not count shooting them as seld-defence. It would count it as retribution.
quote:
If they have your stuff and won't give it back, I really don't see a problem with shooting to be quite honest with you. Again, don't rob people and you won't have to worry about it.
|
That's Taliban Davie. An eye for a penny. A tooth for a tin of peas. The law, however, is based around what a reasonable man would do, and that ain't you.
quote:
And unfortunately, that example doesn't work either, because it is a case of someone acting like a burglar. If you act like a burglar, you get treated as such.
|
She considered it a good reason. It's a damned good job her father didn't own a gun- and he agrees on that point.
quote:
Fair enough. It's just hard for me to fathom people being that out of control, no matter how much they've had to drink, and I speak from experience.
|
You've got a marked weakness when attempting to consider viewpoints, experiences and cultures other than your own, haven't you? We've known that for a long time.
Remember when you posted that story about spiking a girl's drinks? Bet you weren't expecting every father of a daughter to get pissed of, were you?
quote:
As long as you don't use a gun or a collapsable baton, of course 
|
Using a gun is fine. Just don't shoot them in the back as they're running away.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
Laz,
quote:
Actually it is burglary, and it is a case of a burglar entering your house. In "The Law According To David Floyd" what proportion of the burglar has to be inside your property before it starts to be burglary. |
Laz, I've said from the beginning that the initial violence of the burglar, and uncertainty of future violence against you, is what justifies shooting. In that way, there is a difference between reaching through an open window and grabbing your wallet, and kicking in your door. If a burglar reaches through my window and runs off, then there is OBVIOUSLY no danger to me. If a burglar breaks in, and is going through my house trying to find stuff to take, then that is a much different scenario.
quote:
Feeling threatened does not, in isolation, justify self defence. If you wake up and only see their rapidly disappearing backside as they sprint away out of your property, the law would not count shooting them as seld-defence. It would count it as retribution. |
But that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about a situation in which you wake up, find a burglar in your house actively robbing you.
Now, from talking with you, it seems that you do not take the extreme view that I can NEVER shoot someone inside my house, I just can't shoot someone running away. While I can see both sides of that argument, it is at least a reasonable position, and not really incompatible with the main crux of my argument.
quote:
That's Taliban Davie. An eye for a penny. A tooth for a tin of peas. The law, however, is based around what a reasonable man would do, and that ain't you. |
And if a burglar is in a "reasonable person's" house, then that person will most likely feel threatened.
quote:
She considered it a good reason. It's a damned good job her father didn't own a gun- and he agrees on that point. |
Yes, and burglars considering robbing me to be a good reason, too, but it doesn't change the fact that if you act like a burglar, it's your fault if you are treated like one.
quote:
Remember when you posted that story about spiking a girl's drinks? Bet you weren't expecting every father of a daughter to get pissed of, were you? |
That was a long time ago, and frankly I'm surprised you remember that, given that I had forgotten about it until you brought it up. As I recall, though, I wasn't the one doing it, people I was with were. That's neither here nor there, though.
On the other hand, to turn it around, I'm surprised that you, as a father, are arguing that it is not necessarily reasonable to feel threatened when a burglar is in your house, with your child.
quote:
Using a gun is fine. Just don't shoot them in the back as they're running away. |
As I said, if that's your argument, it's perfectly reasonable, unlike the position that I should not be allowed to shoot someone who breaks into my house and is actually IN my house.
UR,
quote:
So you shoot at each and every "bad person", regardless of the crime? |
No, I think it's reasonable to shoot people in self defense, to avoid death or significant bodily harm. If a guy who is 6'4", 280 pounds is assaulting me, or if someone is using a weapon, then death and/or significant bodily harm could easily happen, and I feel that it is justified to use deadly force to prevent it.
quote:
How does the mere presence of a burglar in somebody's house automatically constitute a clear danger to people inside that house? |
It's an expectation of danger that most "reasonable people", as Laz puts it, will have.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Oh, and what happens if you're totally out of your mind on drugs and you mistake an obviously harmless caller for an intruder? |
Well, if you shoot someone who rings your doorbell, that's murder. If you shoot someone who breaks into your house, that isn't murder. I'm not sure that whether or not you are on drugs is relevant to the actual facts of the situation, except to say that you are responsible for your actions whether or not you are drunk/stoned or sober.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
Sandman,
quote:
It's quite relevant, since you think that a householder should be free to open fire on anyone they think is an intruder. The 'actual facts' (wrong house, family member) don't come into it. According to you, the perception of the situation by the householder is what matters. And if those perceptions are warped by drug use (or other things), well, I guess it's too bad for the window cleaner. |
Yet, if the person were sober, he wouldn't shoot his mother, who has a spare key. A person who is stoned out of his mind on drugs can't be considered a "reasonable person", and just like I pointed out earlier that when a drunk person gets shot for accidentally acting like a burgler, it's his responsibility, I'd say that the consequences of drug use are also the responsibility of the user.
If the drug user shoots someone who actually WAS a burgler, then the drugs don't really change anything, his action was valid. If the drug user shoots someone he thinks is a burgler because of his own voluntary use of mind altering drugs, and the person is actually someone knocking on the door, then the drug user is at fault, not the person who was simply knocking on the door, doing nothing to present himself as a burgler.
Gibsie,
quote:
David Floyd, what if a chancer gains entry into your house without breaking in, and is surprises to find you in your bedroom? He's used no violence, but you wouldn't know that. when you're pulling out your gun. Does that mean that instead of specifically needing to be violent to justify shooting them, they only need to be potentially dangerous in the mind of the proprety owner? |
Well, first of all, the defense of "the door was unlocked" is not a legally valid defense.
Secondly, yes, he broke into your house and surprises you in your bedroom. When you wake up, pull your gun out, and shoot him, you acted reasonably and justifiably.
As for the "big African American fellow", there is a difference between the home and the land of a person. While both are undeniably property, and you can't trespass on either, the difference relevant here is that someone who wanders across your field presents much less of a danger than someone who breaks into your home. If you wake up in the middle of the night and see someone in your cornfield, then you don't have to immediately shoot him, because there is no immediate danger to you, either real of perceived. There is a potential danger, and if the guy in the field acts in such a way as to present an immediate danger - such as breaking into your house - then you can absolutely shoot him.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gibsie
|
 |
all over the proverbial shop
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
What if it's a gang of really BIG, really SCARY, and worst of all, REALLY black men wandering through your fields? What if your wife, sister and two little girls are having a picnic in the next field, and if the men walk past the next hedgerow they'll see your family and turn into lust-crazed monsters* and rape them all? You don't have time to warn your family, and if you wait they could run over to them and use your family as human shields, so blast away?
*I actually heard some old people on TV once saying how Muslim immigrants might not be able to control themselves if they go down the beach and see scantily-clad girls- I'm assuming the home defender shares this kind of mindset, as the honourable Tony Martin seems to, incidentally
Another situation, a few years after Lord Floyd has passed judgement, a respectable young man's car breaks down right by the farm, and wanders off to look for help from the farmer. The man forgets to knock on the door first- the instant he turns the handle of the door to the kitchen (i.e. breaks in), he's fair game?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
What if it's a gang of really BIG, really SCARY, and worst of all, REALLY black men wandering through your fields? What if your wife, sister and two little girls are having a picnic in the next field, and if the men walk past the next hedgerow they'll see your family and turn into lust-crazed monsters* and rape them all? You don't have time to warn your family, and if you wait they could run over to them and use your family as human shields, so blast away? |
quote:
Another situation, a few years after Lord Floyd has passed judgement, a respectable young man's car breaks down right by the farm, and wanders off to look for help from the farmer. The man forgets to knock on the door first- the instant he turns the handle of the door to the kitchen (i.e. breaks in), he's fair game? |
How many times, when asking for help from a farmer in the middle of nowhere, did you forget to knock and just walk right in?
Wait, strike that - how many times have you asked for help from a farmer in the middle of nowhere?
Your examples are both pretty ludicrous, and you know it. Neither has any basis in reality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lazarus and the Gimp
|
|
Whale-raping abomination
Aug 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Laz, I've said from the beginning that the initial violence of the burglar, and uncertainty of future violence against you, is what justifies shooting. In that way, there is a difference between reaching through an open window and grabbing your wallet, and kicking in your door. If a burglar reaches through my window and runs off, then there is OBVIOUSLY no danger to me. If a burglar breaks in, and is going through my house trying to find stuff to take, then that is a much different scenario.
But that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about a situation in which you wake up, find a burglar in your house actively robbing you.
Now, from talking with you, it seems that you do not take the extreme view that I can NEVER shoot someone inside my house, I just can't shoot someone running away. While I can see both sides of that argument, it is at least a reasonable position, and not really incompatible with the main crux of my argument.
|
And there you have it, Mr Floyd. It's taken 7 pages of posts, but you're finally approaching the conclusion that there is actually little wrong with Britain's law of self-defence as it stands.
From a starting point of saying they were "****ing retarded" I think that progress has been made.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
And there you have it, Mr Floyd. It's taken 7 pages of posts, but you're finally approaching the conclusion that there is actually little wrong with Britain's law of self-defence as it stands. |
Actually, this thread turned more into self-defense in general, rather than just in the UK. And there are plenty of people who were arguing with me who live nowhere near the UK.
quote:
From a starting point of saying they were "****ing retarded" I think that progress has been made. |
So, UK law says that I can shoot someone who breaks into my home? If so, well and good - my general impression was that that was not the case.
Gibsie,
Yes, they are hypotheticals. The first hypothetical is so ludicrous that I won't even address it. People who are racist enough to think that black people will automatically rape their wife are probably racist enough to shoot black people on the basis of their being black, anyway.
As for your second example, and the Japanese tourist example, yelling outside of my house does not constitute an immediate and reasonable threat in the way that breaking in does. Hence, shooting someone for shouting at you is not justified.
By the way, asking if someone "deserves to die" is sort of a loaded question. A better question is, "was it reasonable for the homeowner to shoot".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
Laz,
quote:
Yes. You can use force as long as it is not grossly disproportionate. If you had reasonable belief that you or anyone was in danger of death or serious injury, lethal force is perfectly acceptable. |
That's fair, and precisely my belief. The only way we will likely different is where we draw the line - I automatically believe that it is reasonable to assume that a burglar poses a lethal threat.
Gibsie,
quote:
Okay then, you've clarified things quite well for me. Shooting someone acting whack inside your house = okay, shooting someone acting whack outside = bad. If the Japanese tourist was a bit confused and opened the homeowner's door to approach him and ask for directions, he'd have been justified to shoot the guy, yes? |
If the tourist was in the homeowner's home, acting like a burglar, then yes, the homeowner would be justified in shooting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's not funny, it acutally happened. |
which makes the pendulum swing back to funny
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
I wonder who came up with that immense estimate-Oh, I know, the NRA
The funny bit is that crime in those gun wielding areas continues to be much higher than in gun free parts like the Northeast. Heck, NYC with its draconian gun laws has seen a huge crime decline while gunhappy southern states see smaller declines, or slight increases in violent crime. |
Actually the NRA didn't do that study, but they sure have used it to make their point. How does NYC compare to other places in the U.S.? I'd be willing to bet that Alaska has a lower violent crime rate than NYC despite the fact that its citizens are armed to the teeth in comparison. Culture, population density, and demographic factors are all more important to the violent crime and / or homocide rates than the gun ownership rate is.
A maniac can build a bomb out of readily available materials even easier than he can make a gun, and will be able to kill more people on average if he decides to. In the end trying to focus on means rather than on the desire to kill is a losing game, just as focusing on drugs rather than the desire to abuse them has proven to be a bottomless pit for government energies with no apparant effect on the basic problem.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
My biggest problem with all this is the 'arms race' scenario, between the householder 'victim' and the burgler 'bad guy'.
Listening to the american guys here talking fairly casualy about shooting people(or not) in these cases, i find it uncomfortable. But maybe that is just because i dont really want Britain to become as gun owning as in the USA.
Still when many criminals in britian do apparantly have access to guns - it does make you wonder what to do?
I think all i'm looking for in the Law in the UK is that if i badly injure or even kill a burglar in my home - i would like some kind of guarantee i wont get prosecuted.
Interestingly the cheif of Police has been asking for just that, he is saying that many police would welcome such a change in the law as they believe that it would have a direct result in lowering rates of burglery.
I dont think having such a law would suddenly turn most of the british public into burgler killing psycho's, but it might actually mean we will have less of the tragic deaths of burglery victims we see in the uk.
It appears to be on the political agenda at the momment, so whatever happens from this atleast it will have given people a chance to decide what the best course of action is.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-12-2004 03:16
|