Breaking news: gunman opens fire at Northern Illinois university near Chicago!

Yes. Like I said, it's a Legal problem and I think it's as stupid as you do. What i'm saying is if you do find someone taking your stuff, they are not going to ignore you. They will either
a) Leg it
b) Try it with you

Since we are only worried about b), that's when the SD comes into play.

If they choose to leg it, you should still be within your rights to attack them.
You're also ignoring the unique possibility c), which this law specifically allows for. They could just keep taking your stuff, and you can't do a damn thing about it. A smart burglar would be fully aware of this.

Now I don't know about this myself, this bit here is just my questions to the wind - If someone is taking your TV, where do you stand if you try to take the tv off them, they start acting threatening and you whallop them? I would think that would fit under self defence aswell, though that would be very hard to prove or disprove.

It's ridiculous that we should have to even discuss this, though. If someone breaks into your home, you should be able to do whatever the hell you like to them. Getting killed should be an occupational hazard of the career criminal.
That doesn't mean it's right to tie up, torture and execute a burglar - but that judgement shouldn't be the law's to make. You want protection from the law, then you play by the law.

You shouldn't. However, you need to clarify something for me because you seem to have used my stabbing answer (about you been attacked) and tried to use it for robbery.

I don't quite understand what you're asking.
 
If they choose to leg it, you should still be within your rights to attack them.
You're also ignoring the unique possibility c), which this law specifically allows for. They could just keep taking your stuff, and you can't do a damn thing about it. A smart burglar would be fully aware of this.

Smart? Burglar? :p
If someone is taking your stuff, yes you should be able to attack them. I'm not saying otherwise man.
I ignored c) because the chacnes of it happening are pretty slim. If It does happen, how are they going to prove otherwise in court? Just lamp them and claim they threatened to kill you.

...

Profit!


It's ridiculous that we should have to even discuss this, though. If someone breaks into your home, you should be able to do whatever the hell you like to them. Getting killed should be an occupational hazard of the career criminal.
That doesn't mean it's right to tie up, torture and execute a burglar - but that judgement shouldn't be the law's to make. You want protection from the law, then you play by the law.

Yeah I know, i'm not arguing against it. Come to think of it i'm not sure we're even arguing. :x


I don't quite understand what you're asking.

You asked about the stabbing the big guy. I answered, and then when you replied to it you were talking about the burglary again. You just lost me I guess.

I think we agree on this. It's just stupid laws and such.
 
That's not true...the only legal justification for assaulting a burglar is if they pose a direct physical threat to you or your family. The fact that they're stealing your stuff isn't enough.
No, THAT'S not true.

The law on self-defence is something akin to 'A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property.' Self-defence doesn't have to be against the self and it can be against even battery. Indeed, courts can and have stretched "others for whom he is responsible for" to mean random people on the street that you try to save.

I'll tell you why we need to attend do technicalities. There is no such thing as 'technicalities' in the law. What you call 'technicalities' is what everyone else calls the right to self-defence; there's no essential difference between the minutae and the, er, macrotae. The way you seem to constitute self-defence is that not only would a man legally kill an intruder who intended to steal a television, but that he could legally kill a drunken teenager who cut across his garden, or who entered with the intent of retrieving a cricket ball, knowing it was trespass.


repiV said:
Um, that's not what I said. You can go to jail for assaulting a burglar, and the burglar can also sue you if they hurt themselves burgling you.
I concede. However, I disagree that such occurences are common; few people go to to jail for assaulting a burglar unless there's a miscarriage of justice.

The law on self-defence is pretty sound (partly why I find the law on provocation so obnoxious) and although I won't pretend that criminals are never let of lightly or defendants convicted too harshly, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. A burglar who you defend yourself against will get caught, or, if he gets away, will get caught when he tries to press charges/sue you.

You're right about the police and their targets, but it doesn't really affect the law on self-defence, does it?

repiV said:
So what? He had been harassed by these people time and time again. Don't play with fire if you don't want to get burned.
So what? He might have been entitled to shoot if he could see the kid was carrying something away, but the kid wasn't carrying anything. He effectively shot a person who was posing no threat to his self, to his property, or to any other person. That is not self-defence but is an attack.

repiV said:
No. They certainly weren't regarded with vitrolic hate by the vast majority of the law-abiding population, as they are now.
This is two statements and they both need MAJOR qualification.

Yeah, everyone I meet just utterly hates the goddamn po-lice and never thinks of them as normal people doing their jobs. "Vitriolic hate by the vast majority" is an absolutely accurate statement.

By contrast, in the sixties and seventies, where rioters got shot and suspects beaten, the era of punk and popular marxism, everybody just adored the fuzz.
 
Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 (Archbold 19-39): "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."


Bingo
 
If someone is creeping around your house in the dead of night, and you disturb them, why would they not attack you? Let's be honest - This is a legal problem. At the end of the day, it will be your version of events versus someone who has forcefully broken into your home.



Stabbing someone and causing death is far more serious than necessary force. Don't expect me to think of every conceivable issue ;). If someone twice your size tries to punch you - First of all, stop them form punching you. Second - Either leg it, or deal with this person. A knife to the chest, however, is (literally) overkill.
What about old people? They don't have the physical capabilities to use, "necessary force" against a younger thug like your talking about. :p What the F**ing hell? Shouldn't older and possibly decrepit people be allowed to defend themselves in anyway possible including killing the goddamn little prick? I'll be honest, most older people (especially in the U.S.) won't care about political correctness, they'll do just that. ;)
 
No. You shouldn't. Reasonable force is the basis for justifiable self-defence.

If the use of a gun or a weapon is judged Reasonable in that matter, then it is. But you can't just wantonly allow the use of guns or other, deadlier weaponry for whatever fucing reason. REASONABLE FORCE.

If they actively do try and kill you though, that's probably justified. Still dependant. It has to be worked on a case-by-case basis.
 
No. You shouldn't. Reasonable force is the basis for justifiable self-defence.

If the use of a gun or a weapon is judged Reasonable in that matter, then it is. But you can't just wantonly allow the use of guns or other, deadlier weaponry for whatever fucing reason. REASONABLE FORCE.

If they actively do try and kill you though, that's probably justified. Still dependant. It has to be worked on a case-by-case basis.
Being old and decrepit + A vicious attack by some mugger = Guns as a reasonable force for the old and decrepit. There's nothing to debate about here in the case for old people Jintor. They're not capable of hand-to-hand self defense. If that's what you truly believe, then that would really say alot about your weak-minded character IMHO. :hmph:

You know how many muggers kill old people everyday because they thought they could take advantage of them just because they are old? An 80 year old man is not going to power bomb a mugger into next week because it's the "politically correct" non-lethal thing to do. They simply can't stand up to the physical capabilities of a much younger street thug. FYI, not even most younger people know any kind of non-lethal self-defense kung-fu for that matter. :p

I guess it does depend on the case somewhat. It would be ridiculous to kill someone becuase they stole your lunch. Imagine however your grandparents getting mugged in their own homes. Makes me furious just thinking about it.

People that depend on the justice system for everything will be like lambs to a slaughter if by chance some cataclysmic event wiped law and order from the world simply because they won't know how to fight for themselves. :p A healthy society is one where individuals can do things for themselves without big brother's help all the damn time. Should the need ever arise of course.
 
Being old and decrepit + A vicious attack by some mugger = Guns as a reasonable force for the old and decrepit. There's nothing to debate about here in the case for old people Jintor. They're not capable of hand-to-hand self defense. If that's what you truly believe, then that would really say alot about your weak-minded character IMHO. :hmph:

You know how many muggers kill old people everyday because they thought they could take advantage of them just because they are old? An 80 year old man is not going to power bomb a mugger into next week because it's the "politically correct" non-lethal thing to do. They simply can't stand up to the physical capabilities of a much younger street thug. FYI, not even most younger people know any kind of non-lethal self-defense kung-fu for that matter. :p

I guess it does depend on the case somewhat. It would be ridiculous to kill someone becuase they stole your lunch. Imagine however your grandparents getting mugged in their own homes. Makes me furious just thinking about it.

People that depend on the justice system for everything will be like lambs to a slaughter if by chance some cataclysmic event wiped law and order from the world simply because they won't know how to fight for themselves. :p A healthy society is one where individuals can do things for themselves without big brother's help all the damn time. Should the need ever arise of course.

So let's arm all elderly people with guns! Let's give them the freedom to blow any trespasser's head off, whether it be some kids out to get their ball back or someone accidentally walking across their property!

I said you judge it by a case-by-case basis. Reasonable force is reasonable force. I didn't say "Old people shouldn't have guns". I said "Old people shouldn't be able to just shoot whoever the **** they want if they're on their property".

And are you seriously saying that the reason everybody should have guns is so that we can play Fallout 2 when the apocolypse comes? D:
 
So let's arm all elderly people with guns! Let's give them the freedom to blow any trespasser's head off, whether it be some kids out to get their ball back or someone accidentally walking across their property!
You have a way with making me look bad don't you? :dozey: Of course, if you mean those elderly who are senile well, they should be in a home or cared for by family in the first place. Shame on anyone who leaves their grandfolk out in the wild world to fend for themselves.:p

I said you judge it by a case-by-case basis. Reasonable force is reasonable force. I didn't say "Old people shouldn't have guns". I said "Old people shouldn't be able to just shoot whoever the **** they want if they're on their property".
I didn't mean to argue your statement. That was a whole new line of questioning and debate. In which case older, non-senile people should be allowed to have a gun of some sort imo and also assuming that they know without a shadow of a doubt the people on their property (or in their house even) mean to do harm.

And are you seriously saying that the reason everybody should have guns is so that we can play Fallout 2 when the apocolypse comes? D:
Sounds like a good way to spend the post-apocolypse era if you ask me. steam and solar-powered generators ftw. :thumbs: I'm not much of a fighter either tbh, I'd be a lamb to the slaughter just like the rest of you, so don't feel out of place. I'd do what I would have to do regardless though. Sometimes we have to do things we don't want to do and even though I probably wouldn't make it, I'd sure as hell would go down fighting.
 
Back
Top