Poll: Poll: Shall we allow deadly force on a burgular?
- Thread starter Sulu
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Maiming is acceptable. Outright killing is excessive. If someone broke into my house, sure I'd try to subdue them, however the most I'd do is break each of their extremities one by one (and I'm a nice person).
Fire... reassess. Subject no longer presents a threat. Cease fire.rokkolpo said:
or
Fire... reassess. Subject presents a threat. Fire.
It's not difficult. It's the way I'm trained as a police officer and the way I would respond to a burglary of my residence as a citizen.
And in states with the castle doctrine, it's a hundred percent legal.
The man did nothing wrong as was only defending his *rights* as a human being. It may be illegal to defend yourself in the UK in a ridiculous number of circumstances but that's just because the UK is becoming itself more ridiculous with every passing year.
As to "reasonable force" he was a single man presented with *two* intruders, in any civilized country being outnumbered is considered to be presented with the threat of deadly force and it it considered reasonable to respond accordingly. To respond with less than deadly force is an irresponsible risk to yourself and your family.
As to "reasonable force" he was a single man presented with *two* intruders, in any civilized country being outnumbered is considered to be presented with the threat of deadly force and it it considered reasonable to respond accordingly. To respond with less than deadly force is an irresponsible risk to yourself and your family.
Hmm. If this was America, he would have been protected from prosecution by Castle Doctrine:
"...that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack."
But if it was me personally, I would definetley use whatever means necessary to protect my life and belongings. I think I heard a similar case before, of a man who was robbing a shop sued them after an employee stopped him by knocking him out with a bat. Utter nonsense.
I think that *if possible* you should try to incapacitate, but when push comes to shove it's you or them.
"...that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack."
But if it was me personally, I would definetley use whatever means necessary to protect my life and belongings. I think I heard a similar case before, of a man who was robbing a shop sued them after an employee stopped him by knocking him out with a bat. Utter nonsense.
I think that *if possible* you should try to incapacitate, but when push comes to shove it's you or them.
And this is why I will never, ever live in England.
Burglars have to know that whenever they enter someone's property with ill intent, there is a chance they will be killed.
Personally, I think it's unfortunate that the criminal died, (I don't think he "deserved it", exactly) but the thought of pressing charges against the victim for acting in self-defense is pure insanity.
Burglars have to know that whenever they enter someone's property with ill intent, there is a chance they will be killed.
Personally, I think it's unfortunate that the criminal died, (I don't think he "deserved it", exactly) but the thought of pressing charges against the victim for acting in self-defense is pure insanity.
This. THIS. A thousand times this.alfrodul said:
Agreed. I, personally, wouldn't aim to kill unless someone's life was directly threatened, but I would certainly aim to incapacitate. And if the scumbag ends up dead, who is at fault? He is.Geamo said:
*sigh*
I wonder how many of the people who are sitting here going "Yeah, if he were unarmed, just do some kung-fu special move on him, and be all cool and shit!" really have ANY idea what it is like to be the victim of a burglary.
You are in your house, it is dark, you just woke up, you don't know if you actually heard something, or if it was your imagination. Then you hear it again, a chill runs up your spine. Your HOME, your private sanctuary, has been broken into. You get up, and don't have any idea what is down there, if it is just ONE person, or several, if they are honorable people that got pushed aside by society and is forced to steal to be able to pay for their ailing grandmother's medicine, or if they are drugged up, hardened, psycho repeat offenders here to take whatever they can get in order to get their next fix. PROBABLY the latter. Also, imagine that you are married and have kid(s) sleeping in the next room.
Now, you are saying that in the dark of night, where you are alone versus gods know who and how many, you are perfectly composed, and able to discern not only if the intruder is a threat, but also take said person(s) down with minimal required amount of subdual force, knowing full well that you are the only line of defense your family sleeping in the next room?
No. You would be scared out of your mind and fighting for your life if the burglar didn't split the second he heard something.
This is not a debate over whether or not it is right to kill. This is a question of saving ones own skin in a severely compromised situation. Of course, if you win the scuffle, and the burglar is knocked out, outright killing him is wrong, but I don't think that is what this is all about.
I wonder how many of the people who are sitting here going "Yeah, if he were unarmed, just do some kung-fu special move on him, and be all cool and shit!" really have ANY idea what it is like to be the victim of a burglary.
You are in your house, it is dark, you just woke up, you don't know if you actually heard something, or if it was your imagination. Then you hear it again, a chill runs up your spine. Your HOME, your private sanctuary, has been broken into. You get up, and don't have any idea what is down there, if it is just ONE person, or several, if they are honorable people that got pushed aside by society and is forced to steal to be able to pay for their ailing grandmother's medicine, or if they are drugged up, hardened, psycho repeat offenders here to take whatever they can get in order to get their next fix. PROBABLY the latter. Also, imagine that you are married and have kid(s) sleeping in the next room.
Now, you are saying that in the dark of night, where you are alone versus gods know who and how many, you are perfectly composed, and able to discern not only if the intruder is a threat, but also take said person(s) down with minimal required amount of subdual force, knowing full well that you are the only line of defense your family sleeping in the next room?
No. You would be scared out of your mind and fighting for your life if the burglar didn't split the second he heard something.
This is not a debate over whether or not it is right to kill. This is a question of saving ones own skin in a severely compromised situation. Of course, if you win the scuffle, and the burglar is knocked out, outright killing him is wrong, but I don't think that is what this is all about.
This murder charge is bullshit, plain and simple.
The Crown is prosecuting a man for defending his home, and possibly himself & his family from harm and criminal intent. So now self-defence is a crime, too?
Dear Lord.
The Crown is prosecuting a man for defending his home, and possibly himself & his family from harm and criminal intent. So now self-defence is a crime, too?
Dear Lord.
This, a million times this.Crimson Cade said:
To the people that say "subdue him" if you don't have any training (military/police/security) do you actually have any idea how to subdue someone ? this isn't a game or a movie.If you miss your "cool" subdue move, you might very well end up with a knife in the gut, of if you're really lucky just some broken ribs...
Worth it ? i think not.
They should allow you to subdue/incapacitate the burglar, but whether or not he dies is up to the jury...
If someone enters your house and is posing an immediate threat to you, your family, or your possessions, you have two options in my eyes: pull a weapon on them with full intent to use it if they attempt to attack you, or alert them of your presence to try to scare them off and take the chance that they are armed and willing to kill. If attacked or threatened, I believe a homeowner has every right to defend him/herself and his/her family or possessions. I think it's ridiculous that those who are breaking the law can be given such a large helping hand by the law itself. If they were attacked with know aggravation, as in they weren't armed and weren't threatening the man, then it was not right for him to kill them. If they were, I believe that he had every right to do so. More details are obviously needed.
if you've got a gun and that bastard wants to harm the well being of yourself and ESPECIALLY the life's of your family than i say go for it.
